Proposition 5 on the November ballot asks Kings County voters to consider setting aside $460 million for drug treatment of nonviolent offenders. Its supporters call it a "cleanup bill" that addresses addiction, one of the main reasons why so many people are behind bars, while opponents call it "Prop 36 on steroids" that could exacerbate the failing program that exists today.

On Tuesday, the Kings County Board of Supervisors consciously decided to take no public position on the controversial measure. But the message was clear, as most supervisors called it a "dangerous" referendum.

Proposition 5, known as the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act of 2008 (NORA), proposes to expand the diversion of nonviolent criminals to drug treatment and reduce incarceration for certain offenses.

District Attorney's Office opposes the measure, saying it takes a failed model of dealing with drug offenders and expands it at the cost of half a billion dollars. Some of the concerns raised: NORA reduces marijuana penalties from misdemeanor to infraction; NORA creates a new bureaucracy within the prison system, additional costs to the county won't be fully reimbursed.

"This argument is not about whether treatment is good or bad. The issue here is this is not the way to do it," said Chief Deputy District Attorney Michael Reinhart.

The county's behavioral health officials say there are benefits, such as the establishment of youth drug programs and resources for the county to expand its drug court program for minors. Behavioral health officials took no stance on the measure, but spoke of some benefits of the measure to the supervisors on Tuesday.

Brenda Randles, Kings County's alcohol and other drugs administrator, said NORA would give $460 million annually to expand treatment programs and proposes to reduce prison spending by $1.6 billion over the next five years.

County decision-makers acknowledged the intent and some possibly benefits of Prop 5. But they were wary of the complexity and uncertainty of the measure.

"(I) want to support it so badly, because this money is so needed, but (I) couldn't quite support the whole package," said Supervisor Alene Taylor. "Yet that's exactly what you're voting on."

If it passes, it takes four-fifth vote to repeal the measure.

Supervisor Jon Rachford said the measure is too complicated for anybody to understand and that when it's incomprehensible, it's "dangerous."

"Anytime you can't understand a proposition and what its effects are going to be, I think it's dangerous," Rachford said.

Randles stressed that NORA helps the county's goal of expanding Drug Court to juveniles.

But Supervisor Barba pointed out that the measure only provides 15 percent of its funding to youth treatment and said that's not good enough.

Supervisor Tony Oliveira echoed his colleagues' concerns.

"I believe in the philosophical approach to this ... But the way this thing is written is so complicated local government organizations can't support this," Oliveira said.

"If it passes, it would be a political and economic nightmare," Oliveira said.

In the end, the supervisors determined not to take a position saying it's not their job to tell voters how to vote.

Prop 5 has been stirring controversy across the state.

Los Angeles and Santa Clara counties have taken a proactive took a step to oppose the ballot measure, while U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein also publicly opposes Prop 5. A group representing county governments is opposing the measure.

The official proponent of the ballot measure is Daniel Abrahamson, director of Legal Affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance Network.

The reporter can be reached at 583-2429.

(OCt. 11, 2008)