'War on Drugs 2.0': Gavin Newsom's Move Against a Crimefighting Measure
The California campaign aimed at opposing Proposition 36 is working to convince voters that the ballot initiative represents a revival of stringent drug enforcement policies.
TroibNews 
Gov. Gavin Newsom is actively opposing a ballot initiative known as Proposition 36, which he argues would resurrect policies reminiscent of the historic war on drugs initiated by President Richard Nixon. Newsom, a key Democratic figure opposing the measure, has described it as a step backwards in drug policy reform.
Proposition 36, presented by a coalition of district attorneys and financially supported by major retailers like Home Depot, Walmart, and Target, aims to categorize certain theft and drug misdemeanors as felonies. The backers of the initiative argue that it addresses rampant shoplifting issues which, they claim, have escalated due to the more lenient penalties established under Proposition 47.
In response to concerns from businesses about shoplifting, Newsom and Democratic legislative leaders have passed new laws providing additional tools to prosecute organized theft rings. These laws are seen as more comprehensive than the changes proposed under Proposition 36.
Newsom recently signed legislation that enhances penalties for theft, an effort seen by Anthony York, spokesperson for the No on Prop 36 campaign, as rendering certain aspects of Proposition 36 redundant, particularly those pertaining to theft. Rather, the campaign has shifted focus to the drug policy aspects of the proposition.
“They're lying to you,” Newsom asserted last month, referring to the proponents of Prop 36. He argues that the initiative is not about retail theft but about regressing to outdated drug policies.
Historically, the Nixon-era war on drugs led to a significant law enforcement focus on drug crimes, a trend that was strongly supported by policies like California’s three-strikes law but was eventually countered by a series of reforms, including Proposition 47, which dialed back the severity of penalties for minor drug and theft offenses.
Pollster Dave Metz suggests that public sentiment is largely against reverting to such stringent drug policies, indicating potential widespread disapproval of Proposition 36.
Proposition 36 proponents, however, have been adapting their messaging to emphasize the drug treatment aspects of the initiative, claiming it will enhance the ability to start new lives through mandatory completion of drug treatment programs.
Jeff Reisig, a Yolo County District Attorney involved in drafting Prop 36, criticized the opposition's characterization of the initiative, stating, "It’s fair to say that we got more aggressive about messaging on the drug piece to make sure the truth about Prop 36 is being heard."
As the debate continues, the No on 36 campaign acknowledges its financial limitations in disseminating its message compared to previous efforts, with York noting, “If we’re not going to outspend them, we’re going to have to outwork them.”
The urgency in the No on 36 campaign is palpable as they prepare for the imminent mail-in voting, with less than a month remaining for voters to decide on the initiative. Campaign officials are focused on clarifying the perceived link between the proposition and the broader implications for drug policies. They aim to highlight how Prop 36 would revert to felony charges for certain drug possession cases, fundamentally shifting the landscape of drug enforcement in California.
As the campaign progresses, the conversation is increasingly shaped by public sentiment around crime and safety. Some voters express concerns about rising crime rates, particularly shoplifting, influencing their views on new measures. The juxtaposition of criminal justice reform and public safety remains a delicate balancing act for both sides.
Proponents of Prop 36 maintain that it will implement necessary changes to ensure accountability for offenders, asserting that a robust approach to drug-related crimes can coexist with treatment options. They argue that enhanced penalties would serve as a deterrent and improve the efficacy of California's existing drug treatment programs.
In contrast, opponents argue that returning to punitive measures could exacerbate issues related to mass incarceration without effectively addressing the underlying problems of addiction and mental health. Many contend that the state should focus on harm reduction and rehabilitation rather than punitive approaches that have historically failed.
As conversations unfold in public forums and neighborhoods, the framing of Proposition 36 as a dichotomy between tough-on-crime rhetoric and progressive reform seems to resonate with undecided voters. The potential for bipartisan appeal is noted, especially considering the mixed perspectives on past drug policies and their effectiveness.
Professional analysts and voters alike are keenly observing the developments. Bay Area pollster Metz points out that as public awareness grows, the discourse surrounding Proposition 36 will likely shift, influenced by ongoing media coverage and community engagement efforts. The campaign's ability to effectively convey their message amidst the complexities of the crime debate will be critical in the weeks leading up to the election.
Ultimately, the outcome of Proposition 36 may hinge on the ability of both sides to connect their messages with the current concerns surrounding public safety and drug policy in California. The stakes are high, especially for Democrats like Newsom, who are grappling with maintaining party unity while addressing constituents' fears about crime and security.
As the deadline approaches, both campaigns will ramp up efforts to mobilize support and articulate their respective visions for California's future. The outcome could set a precedent for how the state approaches crime and drug policy reform moving forward, making this ballot initiative one of the key political conversations of the year.
Alejandro Jose Martinez for TROIB News
Proposition 36, presented by a coalition of district attorneys and financially supported by major retailers like Home Depot, Walmart, and Target, aims to categorize certain theft and drug misdemeanors as felonies. The backers of the initiative argue that it addresses rampant shoplifting issues which, they claim, have escalated due to the more lenient penalties established under Proposition 47.
In response to concerns from businesses about shoplifting, Newsom and Democratic legislative leaders have passed new laws providing additional tools to prosecute organized theft rings. These laws are seen as more comprehensive than the changes proposed under Proposition 36.
Newsom recently signed legislation that enhances penalties for theft, an effort seen by Anthony York, spokesperson for the No on Prop 36 campaign, as rendering certain aspects of Proposition 36 redundant, particularly those pertaining to theft. Rather, the campaign has shifted focus to the drug policy aspects of the proposition.
“They're lying to you,” Newsom asserted last month, referring to the proponents of Prop 36. He argues that the initiative is not about retail theft but about regressing to outdated drug policies.
Historically, the Nixon-era war on drugs led to a significant law enforcement focus on drug crimes, a trend that was strongly supported by policies like California’s three-strikes law but was eventually countered by a series of reforms, including Proposition 47, which dialed back the severity of penalties for minor drug and theft offenses.
Pollster Dave Metz suggests that public sentiment is largely against reverting to such stringent drug policies, indicating potential widespread disapproval of Proposition 36.
Proposition 36 proponents, however, have been adapting their messaging to emphasize the drug treatment aspects of the initiative, claiming it will enhance the ability to start new lives through mandatory completion of drug treatment programs.
Jeff Reisig, a Yolo County District Attorney involved in drafting Prop 36, criticized the opposition's characterization of the initiative, stating, "It’s fair to say that we got more aggressive about messaging on the drug piece to make sure the truth about Prop 36 is being heard."
As the debate continues, the No on 36 campaign acknowledges its financial limitations in disseminating its message compared to previous efforts, with York noting, “If we’re not going to outspend them, we’re going to have to outwork them.”
The urgency in the No on 36 campaign is palpable as they prepare for the imminent mail-in voting, with less than a month remaining for voters to decide on the initiative. Campaign officials are focused on clarifying the perceived link between the proposition and the broader implications for drug policies. They aim to highlight how Prop 36 would revert to felony charges for certain drug possession cases, fundamentally shifting the landscape of drug enforcement in California.
As the campaign progresses, the conversation is increasingly shaped by public sentiment around crime and safety. Some voters express concerns about rising crime rates, particularly shoplifting, influencing their views on new measures. The juxtaposition of criminal justice reform and public safety remains a delicate balancing act for both sides.
Proponents of Prop 36 maintain that it will implement necessary changes to ensure accountability for offenders, asserting that a robust approach to drug-related crimes can coexist with treatment options. They argue that enhanced penalties would serve as a deterrent and improve the efficacy of California's existing drug treatment programs.
In contrast, opponents argue that returning to punitive measures could exacerbate issues related to mass incarceration without effectively addressing the underlying problems of addiction and mental health. Many contend that the state should focus on harm reduction and rehabilitation rather than punitive approaches that have historically failed.
As conversations unfold in public forums and neighborhoods, the framing of Proposition 36 as a dichotomy between tough-on-crime rhetoric and progressive reform seems to resonate with undecided voters. The potential for bipartisan appeal is noted, especially considering the mixed perspectives on past drug policies and their effectiveness.
Professional analysts and voters alike are keenly observing the developments. Bay Area pollster Metz points out that as public awareness grows, the discourse surrounding Proposition 36 will likely shift, influenced by ongoing media coverage and community engagement efforts. The campaign's ability to effectively convey their message amidst the complexities of the crime debate will be critical in the weeks leading up to the election.
Ultimately, the outcome of Proposition 36 may hinge on the ability of both sides to connect their messages with the current concerns surrounding public safety and drug policy in California. The stakes are high, especially for Democrats like Newsom, who are grappling with maintaining party unity while addressing constituents' fears about crime and security.
As the deadline approaches, both campaigns will ramp up efforts to mobilize support and articulate their respective visions for California's future. The outcome could set a precedent for how the state approaches crime and drug policy reform moving forward, making this ballot initiative one of the key political conversations of the year.
Alejandro Jose Martinez for TROIB News
