By diverting lowlevel nonviolent drug offenders from jail to drug treatment, Prop. 36 has become the largest, most effective program addressing methamphetamine abuse in the country—although you wouldn’t know it from your recent article (“Is Prop. 36 hindering...”, Dec 8, 2006).

Under Prop. 36, over 30,000 methamphetamine users have completed treatment in just five years.

Your article criticizes Prop. 36 for keeping nonviolent people who are addicted to meth out of jail.

Yet this is what 61 percent of California voters, 60 percent in Ventura County, intended when they passed Prop. 36 in 2000, because our jails and prisons were filled to bursting with people who were as addicted when they came out as when they went in.

Prop. 36 broke this costly cycle of incarceration by allowing lowlevel nonviolent offenders to get the help they need to become productive members of society again.

You also ignore evidence which shows that methamphetamine addiction is as treatable as other addictions and that people do recover from addiction to this particular stimulant.

According to state figures, methamphetamine users have a Prop. 36 treatment completion rate of 35 percent, higher than users of cocaine/crack (32 percent) or heroin (29 percent). In fact, at least 20 recent studies show the efficacy of meth treatment.

Lastly, you ignore the program’s cost savings.

Under Prop. 36, we save taxpayer money both in the short term—because treatment is cheaper than jail—and in the long term—because people who overcome their addictions are more likely to be employed and pay taxes.

UCLA’s 2006 cost-savings analysis shows that for every $1 spent on Prop. 36, taxpayers save between $2.50 and $4.

Prop. 36 has already saved the state over $1 billion. Margaret Dooley Prop. 36 statewide coordinator Southern California office Drug Policy Alliance Los Angeles