State Drug Policy Reform Movement: The Use of Ballot Initiatives and Legislation to Promote Diversion to Drug Treatment

Abstract

For most of the past 25 years, the federal government and many states have adopted a tough, punitive approach to drug offenses. In recent years, changes in public perception and state budget shortfalls have spurred a policy reform movement across the political spectrum that advocates diverting low-level, nonviolent drug offenders into treatment rather than incarcerating them. In nine of the 24 states where ballot initiatives are permitted, citizens have attempted or have successfully placed initiatives on the ballot since 1996. In an additional 12 states, drug policy reformers have successfully passed legislation that allows for diversion. In this paper we briefly trace the history of the diversion-to-treatment policy reform movement, identify the successful diversion-related ballot initiatives and enacted laws from each state, and, using a qualitative content analysis approach, describe the nature and extent of those laws. Finally, we discuss the implications of these differences for state criminal justice policies.

Addiction Frameworks and Support for Expanding Treatment for Drug Offenders

“…Nevertheless, public opinion has shifted in recent years concerning drug policy, suggesting that opinion can be fluid. In addition, voters within the United States can directly impact policy through ballot initiatives and support for candidates who promise criminal justice reform; in the past 20 years, many states have enacted legislation or ballot initiatives to make drug offenses less punitive and/or to divert drug offenders into treatment (VanderWaal et al, 2006). This study will focus on one state, California, which enacted such a ballot proposition in 2000.…”

“…At the federal level, former President Obama pardoned more nonviolent drug offenders serving prison sentences than all his predecessors combined (Eggleston, 2016). At the state level, many states have enacted policies to divert nonviolent drug offenders into treatment rather than process them through the criminal court (VanderWaal, Chiriqui, Bishop, McBride, & Longshore, 2006).…”

Evidence for Connections Between Prosecutor-Reported Marijuana Case Dispositions and Community Youth Marijuana-Related Attitudes and Behaviors

“…In addition, prosecutors work within state-specific law and related policy environments. State policy related to marijuana currently exhibits significant variation across states, including decriminalization of low-level marijuana possession offenses (Pacula et al, 2005), diversion programming availability (VanderWaal et al, 2006), scheduling and statutory penalties (ImpacTeen Illicit Drug Team, 2002), and medical marijuana legislation (Pacula et al, 2002). …”

“…Research has documented not only significant between-state variance in substance policy (e.g., Alcohol Epidemiology Program, 2000; ImpacTeen Illicit Drug Team, 2002) but also the ability of states to react relatively quickly to new trends and issues in substance use. Most recently, relative to illicit drug use, new state policy initiatives have focused on medical marijuana (Pacula, Chriqui, Reichmann, & Terry-McElrath, 2002), diversion programming (Colker, 2004; VanderWaal, Chriqui, Bishop, McBride, & Longshore, 2006), and methamphetamine (Boulard, 2005; O’Connor, Chriqui, & McBride, 2006). Little is known about the possible relationships between state or community drug policy variance and substance use at the community level.…”

Band-Aids and Bullhorns

“…This California law is one of many diversion-to-treatment laws recently passed in the United States (Rinaldo & Kelly-Thomas, 2005; VanderWaal, Chriqui, Bishop, McBride, & Longshore, 2006). From 1996 to 2004, 14 states passed diversion-to-treatment laws, including the following states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Texas, and Washington State (VanderWaal et al, 2006). Although the provisions of each law vary, what makes some of these laws unique from earlier diversion laws is their broad scope and near-universal applicability.…”