Californians want a new approach to addiction, homelessness

California’s drug crisis only escalatedwith the so -called “compassionate solutions” as reduction And past policies that decriminalized hard drugs, worsening things.

Many drug addicts are essentially facing two serious choices: homelessness or imprisonment. This false dichotomy normalizes the abuse of substances, threatened public safety and failed to cope with the main causes of both homelessness and addiction.

In response, California voters last fall accepted a prevailing proposal 36A third option, which gives priority priority to deprivation of liberty and offers a clear path to recovery, helping to break the cycle of addiction and homelessness.

Programs such as replacementFor example, they were unable to cope with the addiction itself. Although well -intentioned, these programs led to unforeseen consequences, including public spaces, overwhelmed with used needles, increased health risks and normalizing drug use. Although the exchange of syringes helps reduce the transmission of the disease, it does not always guarantee that people enroll in treatment programs and Research shows that they can even increase mortalityS

The scale of this problem is huge. In 2021 alone. Nearly 11,000 Californians died of drug overdoseMore than two -thirds include opioids such as fentanyl. Each of these lost lives is a missed opportunity for intervention and recovery. Proposal 36 gave the state a framework to deal with this crisis requiring treatment and rehabilitation For people fighting addiction. This approach has the potential to reduce recidivism, to save lives and to help people regain their future.

The negative effects of damage reduction policies are obvious in communities such as El Dorado County. Although there are relatively low levels of addiction, the county faces growing concerns about safety and public discontent due to the lack of meaningful decisions. When government officials including governor Gavin Newsom and Prosecutor General Rob Bont, judge the countyHe emphasized the limitations of universal approaches. Local communities deserve the flexibility of implementing policies that reflect their unique challenges, while giving priority to treatment and accountability.

California must now use the tools provided by Prop. 36 to go beyond the disadvantages of reducing damage. DrugsFor example, they offer a proven model for dealing with addiction by combining judicial supervision with compulsory treatment and rehabilitation services. Studies have shown that these programs reduce both the use of substances and the criminal behavior, which makes them an effective strategy to promote long -term recovery.

Public educational campaigns also play a vital role and can change cultural attitudes towards addiction and promote healthier choices – as they did for smoking and drunk driving. School educational programs, community scope and interventions for young people at risk can help us create a prevention culture.

The need for action is urgent. As Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a former drug addict and current nominee to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services, “addiction requires long -term treatment, not short -term mitigating damage.” His guidance may inspire California to expand his commitment to treatment -based decisions and rethink his approach to the opioid epidemic.

Normalizing addiction is neither compassionate nor effective – it is destructive. California must ensure the success of a proposal 36. Along with the drugs for drugs and public education aimed at prevention, this new law can deal with the root causes of addiction and homelessness by offering people a chance of recovery and stability.