One year after Prop. 36 passed, promised mass treatment hasn't materialized | Opinion
Last November, California voters approved Proposition 36, a ballot initiative that backers promised would usher in “a new era of mass treatment” for people struggling with addiction by creating a new treatment-mandated felony. The idea was that people who were charged with certain drug-related offenses could opt for treatment instead of serving time in county jail or state prison.
One year later, the promise of “mass treatment” has predictably failed to materialize.
A majority of voters clearly agreed that the prospect of treatment for a drug offender was an important option instead of incarceration. But Prop. 36 was never written to deliver on that promise.
The rhetoric of “mass treatment” was used to sell the initiative to voters. But the true goal was to enact harsher penalties. Specifically, the law boosted certain low-level theft-related offenses from misdemeanors to felonies, which now means possible prison time for people who steal basic necessities like toothpaste and soap.
From the onset, addiction treatment experts, justice advocates and Gov. Gavin Newsom sounded the alarm: The ballot measure provided no meaningful funding to expand treatment, no plan to build capacity and no mechanism to make “mass treatment” real. This treatment was to be offered in lieu of “enhanced sentencing” in select drug offenses, such as possession of fentanyl.
Yet, when faced with questions about how, exactly, California counties were expected to provide drug treatment without specific funding for this purpose, Prop. 36 proponents largely downplayed the issue. Proponents called for additional funding, but did not say precisely where it would come from. Some misleadingly claimed that counties could use dollars from Proposition 1, a recently approved bond measure meant to fund construction of new treatment facilities — not addiction treatment services. Others claimed that counties could use dollars from opioid lawsuits and revenue from Medicaid and Medi-Cal.
Unsurprisingly, none of those proved to be reliable funding sources for Prop. 36. As a result, the law has deepened local incarceration costs while failing to deliver “mass treatment” anywhere in California.
In the first six months of Prop. 36’s implementation, the Judicial Council of California found that prosecutors filed 8,895 drug cases in California courts. Of these, 1,290 defendants have had court proceedings where they have elected to participate in treatment. Of the defendants who elected treatment, 771 (60%) were then ordered into treatment by the time the survey was due. And, of those ordered into treatment, 25 completed treatment and had their cases dismissed.
While the Judicial Council data is limited and does not indicate the outcome in every case or how many are still awaiting resolution, it does not signal the massive wave of new treatment that backers sold to voters.
In Yolo County, District Attorney Jeff Reisig — a Prop. 36 proponent — is responding to a shortage of addiction treatment by ending referrals to the county’s successful mental health court in order to implement the proposition.
No matter which way you cut it, people are not seeing an increase in treatment. Instead, countless Californians living with addiction are being saddled with felonies and ending up in state prison — the costliest and least effective place to address addiction. California taxpayers spend nearly $133,000 a year to incarcerate a single person — money that could have gone to real solutions.
This is a problem of Prop. 36 proponents’ own making. Yet, instead of holding themselves accountable for this mistake, they are seeking to revise history.
Proponents like San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan now blame Newsom for not funding Prop. 36, even though proponents like he and Reisig were the ones who irresponsibly championed a ballot measure with no funding mechanism. If they truly wanted “mass treatment,” they would have ensured Prop. 36 had a revenue source to draw from, as ballot initiative proponents routinely do. Instead, they sold voters on promises of compassion while knowing that, as written, Prop. 36 could only deliver harsher punishments.
Californians deserve policies that match politicians’ promises, including effective substance use treatment that actually prevents tragic overdoses and keeps communities safe. Prop. 36 did the opposite. The backers of this initiative should be honest about their true intent and take responsibility for the consequences.
Anne Irwin is the founder and director of Smart Justice California, where she works to elect and educate state and local policymakers who support proven solutions to public safety.
This story was originally published October 28, 2025 at 6:00 AM with the headline "One year after Prop. 36 passed, promised mass treatment hasn't materialized | Opinion."