Press Release

For Immediate Release: November 3, 2008 Contact: Margaret Dooley-Sammuli at (213) 291-4190 or Tommy McDonald at (510) 229-5215 Bay Area Legislators Call Prop. 5 Much-Needed, Just-in-Time Reform Echo State Democratic Party Endorsement SAN JOSE – Bay Area legislators today announced support for Proposition 5, echoing the endorsement of the State Democratic Party. Highlighting the cost savings of treatment not incarceration programs, Assemblymembers Beall, Lieber and Leno called on voters to approve the much-needed treatment expansion and prison reform. Assemblyman Jim Beall, of San Jose, said, “By failing to directly address the problem of addiction, California has taken a one-sided, punitive and costly approach – incarceration. Little funding goes to the most cost-effective approach that stops the cycle of addiction: prevention and early intervention for our youth. In this time of economic crisis, we need an effective approach to combat the disease of addiction rather than continuing to fund an ineffective incarceration-first policy.” Assembly Member Sally Lieber, of Silicon Valley, said, “The state’s worsening prison overcrowding and ballooning budget deficits are not separate crises. They are intimately related. Until we address our failed prison policies, we will only see our budget problems increase. That’s why Prop. 5 is the right thing for California. It will usher in more effective and affordable responses to nonviolent drug offenses – and stop pouring taxpayer money down the drain of the bloated prison system.” Assembly Member Mark Leno, of San Francisco, said, “California can’t afford to kick the can down the road any longer. If we don’t address our broken prison system, it will drain our state coffers at a time when we most need to spend cautiously. For better public safety and better use of taxpayer dollars, we need real prison and sentencing reform. Prop. 5 brings that reform to California just in time – when we really can’t wait any longer.” The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office found that Prop. 5 will lower incarceration costs by $1 billion each year and save taxpayers $2.5 billion in reduced prison-construction costs. This doesn’t include savings related to reduced crime, fewer social services costs (e.g. emergency room visits, child protective services, welfare), and increased individual productivity. For more information, visit www.Prop5Yes.org. ###

For Immediate Release: November 3, 2008 Contact: Margaret Dooley-Sammuli at (213) 291-4190, Tommy McDonald at (510) 229-5215, or Ed Shelleby at (202) 662-3602 Children's Defense Fund-California Endorses Proposition 5 Prop. 5 Would Provide Children with Treatment Instead of Jail Sentences LOS ANGELES - Today, the Children's Defense Fund - California (CDF-CA) endorsed Proposition 5, a ballot initiative that Californians will vote on next Tuesday. If passed, Prop 5 would provide $65 million per year to counties to make drug treatment available to at-risk youths under the age of 18. Virtually no publicly-funded treatment is available now for young people. "The Children's Defense Fund supports Prop 5 because it would implement strong policies that would provide treatment and services to youths instead of arresting and incarcerating youth for minor drug offenses," said Deena Lahn, Policy Director of CDF-CA. "Putting more and more of California's children behind bars costs taxpayers too much and isn't an effective crime prevention tool. If we stop arresting children for problems that are more effectively addressed through early intervention and treatment, it will benefit every community across the state. Prop 5 is the right policy for California youths." Currently, only 10 percent of California youth who need treatment actually receive it. In 2006, there were more than 15,000 juvenile arrests for misdemeanor drug offenses. Low-income youths-frequently the group most at risk-are often first arrested and processed into the juvenile justice system before receiving any form of treatment; even then, youth programs are often inadequate. Under Prop 5, parents, teachers and doctors could all refer young people directly to these health services without the need for a criminal justice intervention. Research shows that adolescent treatment is effective in reducing arrests, improving academic performance and keeping youth in school. Prop 5 ensures that the new system of care meets the full spectrum of youths needs, including family therapy, educational and employment stipends and more. The Children's Defense Fund-California joins the League of Women Voters of California, California Nurses Association, California Federation of Teachers, Consumer Federation of California, California State Conference of the NAACP and National Council of La Raza, among others, in endorsing Prop. 5. For more information about Proposition 5, visit http://www.prop5yes.com/ ###

Fifty-one Clergy From A Dozen Denominations in 46 Towns Throughout Massachusetts Urge Voters to Pass Question 2 Contact: Charles Thomas, IDPI Executive Director, at 301-938-1577 November 3, 2008 — Religious leaders throughout Massachusetts are urging voters to pass Question 2, replacing incarceration and a criminal record with a civil fine for possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use. Fifty-one clergy in 46 towns and cities signed a statement proclaiming, “We support changing Massachusetts law so that people who possess under an ounce of marijuana will no longer face arrest or prison.” The clergypersons calling for more just and compassionate policies are from a dozen different denominations, including Catholic, Congregationalist, and American Baptist. Several denominations and other major religious groups also have adopted official positions opposing criminal penalties for marijuana users, including the National Council of Churches, United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church USA, Central Conference of American Rabbis, and the Unitarian Universalist Association. In Massachusetts, more than 7,500 people a year are arrested for the personal possession of an ounce or less of marijuana and face up to six months in jail and a fine. In addition, a Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) report is generated upon arrest, which frequently bans individuals from obtaining school loans and professional licensure, as well as substantially limiting opportunities for employment and housing, thereby impeding their ability to lead productive lives. “Those we incarcerate are not faceless strangers but our children,” said Pastor Jeffrey Long-Middleton from the West Acton Baptist Church. “It is unjust to lock them up for behaviors that don’t directly harm others. In fact, the current laws only increase the likelihood that they will become trapped in a cycle of offenses and self-harm.” A small group of only six clergypersons recently spoke out against Question 2, having been misled into believing that replacing criminal penalties with a civil fine would lead to an increase in marijuana usage by young people. In fact, eleven other states enacted similar laws in the past 35 years, and there was no resulting increase in marijuana use in any age group in those states. “We’re not urging anyone to use marijuana,” said the Rev. Marc Fredette from the First Unitarian Universalist Parish in Waltham. “But it is worse to have a marijuana policy that doesn’t accomplish any of its goals, disproportionately punishes the most vulnerable members of our community, and continues to punish them even after they’ve served their sentence.” Marijuana use rates are the same across race and class lines; however, arrest and conviction rates rise dramatically for offenders of color, youth, and the economically disadvantaged. Efforts to educate the public about the need to pass Question 2 include a full-page ad in today’s Berkshire Eagle, quoting the religious leaders’ entire statement of support. “It’s time to set the record straight,” said Charles Thomas, executive director of the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative in Washington, D.C. “Criminal penalties for marijuana possession violates the core religious principles of justice and compassion. Religious leaders everywhere are seeing the light, and it’s very encouraging that clergy in Massachusetts taking a position on Question 2 are overwhelmingly supportive.”

PRESS RELEASE: October 30, 2008 CONTACT: Adam Eidinger at 202-744-2671 or [email protected] U.S. Farmers Suing DEA to Grow Hemp in Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on November 12 Oral Arguments Open to Public; Media Availability after Proceedings ST. PAUL, MN – Two North Dakota farmers, who filed a lawsuit in June of 2007 to end the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) ban on commercial hemp farming in the U.S., will be back in court on Wednesday, November 12, 2008 in St. Paul, Minnesota. Oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit begin at 9:00 am CST in the Warren E. Burger Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse at 316 North Robert Street in St. Paul and will immediately be followed by a press conference on the courthouse steps. The farmers, North Dakota State Rep. David Monson and Wayne Hauge, are appealing a decision by the U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota on a number of grounds; in particular, the District Court ruled that hemp and marijuana are the same, as the DEA has wrongly contended. In fact, scientific evidence clearly shows that not only is industrial hemp genetically distinct from drug varieties of Cannabis, but there are also absolutely no psychoactive effects gained from ingesting it. All court documents related to the case can be found online (http://www.VoteHemp.com/legal_cases_ND.html). Representative Monson will appear in court to observe oral arguments made on his behalf by attorneys Joe Sandler and Tim Purdon. If successful, the landmark lawsuit will lead to the first state–regulated commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in over fifty years. WHO: Rep. David Monson, North Dakota House Assistant Majority Leader, licensed hemp farmer Tim Purdon, attorney with Vogel Law Firm of Bismarck, ND and co-counsel for the plaintiffs Joe Sandler, co-counsel for the plaintiffs and legal counsel for Vote Hemp, Inc. Eric Steenstra, President, Vote Hemp, Inc. Lynn Gordon, Owner, French Meadow Café of Minneapolis, MN WHAT: Oral arguments and media availability WHERE: Warren E. Burger Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, 316 N. Robert St., St. Paul, MN WHEN: Wednesday, November 12, 9:00 am CST for oral arguments (media availability afterwards) Background In 2007 the North Dakota Legislature removed the requirement that state-licensed industrial hemp farmers first obtain DEA permits before growing hemp. The question before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will be whether or not federal authorities can prosecute state-licensed farmers who grow non-drug oilseed and fiber hemp pursuant to North Dakota state law. Vote Hemp, the nation's leading industrial hemp advocacy group, and its supporters are providing financial support for the lawsuit. If it is successful, states across the nation will be free to implement their own hemp farming laws without fear of federal interference. Learn more about hemp farming and the wide variety of non-drug industrial hemp products manufactured in the U.S. at www.VoteHemp.com and www.TheHIA.org. # # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 29, 2008 CONTACT: Margaret Dooley-Sammuli at (213) 291-4190, Tommy McDonald at (510) 229-5215 Prison Guards Blasted in New 'Yes on 5' TV Spot CCPOA Has Spent Almost $2 million to Fight Prop. 5 Why? Overcrowded Prisons = Overtime Pay LOS ANGELES - California's prison guards union has provided most of the money lined up against Proposition 5, a drug treatment measure that would reduce prison overcrowding and forestall $2.5 billion worth of new prison construction. Today the Yes on 5 campaign struck back with a new TV spot that highlights the prison guards' contributions and their financial interest in defeating Prop. 5. Titled "Party's Over," the new Yes on 5 spot begins, "Our prisons are overcrowded. And prison guards are overjoyed!" The ad then explains that, for prison guards, overcrowding means more overtime pay. "That's why the prison guards want to stop Proposition 5, and are spending millions against it," says the ad. "Tell the prison guards the party's over. Vote Yes on 5." Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, deputy campaign manager for Yes on 5, said, "We know that California voters will be outraged to learn that the people paying for those No on 5 ads are the people who benefit the most from overcrowded prisons. Let's not forget, it is California taxpayers who shell out $10 billion a year for a broken prison system and enormous overtime pay for guards." The prison guards union, formally the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA), contributed $1 million to the official No on 5 campaign on Oct. 14, then last Friday made another $825,000 "independent expenditure" contribution of TV airtime to oppose Prop. 5. This means the prison guards have provided 75% of the money behind the $2.4 million in airtime purchased so far to oppose Prop. 5 Dooley-Sammuli added, "If you want to know why our prison system is dysfunctional, look no further than the checkbook of the CCPOA. The prison guards will fight any reform that might threaten their bottom line. It's time for the voters to stand up to the 800-pound gorilla of state politics. We can do that by voting Yes on Prop. 5." ### To view the ad: http://www.prop5yes.com/partys-over Broadcast-quality copies of the new Yes on 5 ad are available on request.

For Immediate Release: October 28, 2008 Contact: Margaret Dooley-Sammuli at (213) 291-4190 or Tommy McDonald at (510) 229-5215 Yes on 5 TV Spot Focuses on Treatment Success, Fiscal Savings Supporters Say Prop. 5 Means More of Both SACRAMENTO – With the budget deficit worsening and prison overcrowding reaching crisis levels, voters are looking for an affordable and effective alternative. Proposition 5 builds on California’s proven treatment-instead-of-incarceration programs for nonviolent drug offenders. According to the nonpartisan legislative analyst, Prop. 5 will expand access to proven treatment programs and cut state costs. The savings – in lives and taxpayer dollars – of California’s existing treatment programs is the theme of “Success Story”, a new TV spot released today by the Yes on 5 campaign and now airing statewide. The ad focuses on Proposition 36, the treatment-instead-of-incarceration program approved by voters in 2000, which has graduated 84,000 nonviolent drug offenders and cut state spending on incarceration by $2 billion. The ad comes just days after the release of a new study on Proposition 36. Al Senella, president of the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, said “The proof is in the research: treatment works and it cuts costs. But Prop. 36 hasn’t been adequately funded. That means some people aren’t getting all the help they need and taxpayers aren’t seeing all the savings they should. Inadequate investment in treatment means higher costs later.” Conducted by independent researchers at UCLA, the October 14 report found that Prop. 36 consistently serves 35,000 nonviolent drug offenders each year, saves $2 for every $1 spent, and that program completers have lower recidivism rates. Tom Renfree, executive director of the County Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators Association of California, said “UCLA showed that the program needs individualized treatment, increased supervision and improved accountability. Prop. 5 delivers on all these recommendations. For those not satisfied with Prop. 36, Prop. 5 is the answer. It will improve outcomes and further cut costs.” Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, deputy campaign manager of Yes on 5, said, “Prop. 36 has been a huge success. What all the research tells us is that treatment can be even more successful at cutting recidivism and prison spending. That’s why Prop. 5 is on the ballot.” The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office found that Prop. 5 will lower incarceration costs by $1 billion each year and reduce prison-construction costs by $2.5 billion. This doesn’t include savings related to reduced crime, fewer social services costs (e.g. emergency room visits, welfare), and increased individual productivity. For the ad: http://www.prop5yes.com/campaign-ads-videos For the report:http://www.uclaisap.org/prop36/documents/2008%20Final%20Report.pdf

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 27, 2008 CONTACT: Margaret Dooley-Sammuli at (213) 291-4190 or Tommy McDonald at (510) 229-5215 Prop 5 TV Ad Focuses on $2.5 Billion "Bottom Line" Only Measure to Cut State Costs, says LAO LOS ANGELES - Amid the state budget crisis and financial market meltdown, voters are anxious about ballot measures that will cost the state money. There's only one measure on the November ballot that will actually cut state costs, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO). That's Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act (NORA), which would increase treatment access for youth and nonviolent offenders, and reduce prison overcrowding. Cost-cutting is the theme of "Bottom Line", a new TV spot released today and airing statewide. The ad highlights the ballot language prepared by the LAO: that Prop. 5 will result in "capital outlay savings potentially exceeding $2.5 billion." The LAO's analysis has impressed other groups concerned with the state's fiscal health: Adrian Moore, of the Reason Foundation, said "Proposition 5 is taxpayers' only hope of getting prison spending under control, and the only choice on the ballot for voters concerned with our state's fiscal solvency." Richard Holober, of the Consumer Federation of California, said, "Prop. 5 is a good deal for California taxpayers. It's the only measure on the ballot that will reduce state spending. In these economic times, California can't afford not to pass Prop. 5." According to the LAO, Prop. 5 will reduce the state prison population by at least 18,000 and the number of people on parole by 22,000. Overall, the LAO calculates that Prop. 5 will generate "savings potentially exceeding $1 billion annually on corrections operations." Annual costs for Prop. 5 rehabilitation programs could eventually grow to $1 billion, says the LAO - making Prop. 5 cost-neutral on an annual basis. By reducing the number of nonviolent offenders behind bars and on parole, Prop. 5 will slow California's skyrocketing prison growth - which is currently increasing at three times the rate of the general adult population. According to the LAO, this would reduce future spending on prison construction by at least $2.5 billion. Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, deputy campaign manager with Yes on 5, said "Prop. 5 is a smarter way to spend existing resources so that we put the brakes on out-of-control prison growth while investing in proven, effective recidivism-reduction programs." UCLA researchers have found that treatment diversion saves $2.50 for every $1 invested, and yields $4 for every $1 among those who complete treatment. So, advocates believe, long-term savings from Prop. 5 could well exceed the $2.5 billion projected by the LAO, as more individuals achieve long-term abstinence from drugs and alcohol and become productive members of the community. The TV spot is online here: http://www.prop5yes.com/campaign-ads-videos The New York Times Editorial is online here: http://www.prop5yes.com/the-california-prison-disaster DPA Fact Sheet: CALIFORNIA'S BLOATED PRISON GROWTH * Since 2000, prison costs have grown 50% to over $10 billion - about 10% of the state budget. It now costs $46,000 to incarcerate one person for one year in CA. * Since the late 1980s, the prison population increased by 75% to over 170,000 - nearly three times faster than the general adult population. Meanwhile, the number of incarcerated nonviolent offenders skyrocketed from 20,000 to 70,000. * In the 1990s, California built 21 new prisons and just one university. The state now spends about the same amount annually on prisons and higher education. * From 1980 to 2000, the number of drug offenders behind bars jumped from 1,778 to 45,455. Since 2000, the number of people incarcerated for drug possession has fallen by over 6,000 - thanks to Proposition 36 treatment-not-incarceration. * About 20% of prisoners are incarcerated for a drug offense, but over 80% of inmates have a substance abuse problem. The prison system has capacity to provide treatment to only about 5%. * Every month 10,000 inmates are released; most have not received treatment or rehabilitation behind bars. California's recidivism rate is twice the national average at 70%. Each month 7,000 parolees are returned to prison. * Since 1980, membership in the prison guard union increased 500% from 5,000 to 31,000 - and average annual earnings grew from $14,400 in 1980 to nearly $90,000 in 2008 ($73,720 in base pay plus $16,000 in overtime). IF PROP. 5 DOESN'T PASS. * The response to California's prison crisis will be determined by a federal court. On November 17, 2008, a three-judge panel will consider putting the entire prison system under federal receivership. (The Legislative Analyst's Office calculates that Prop. 5 would reduce the prison population and parole populations by at least 40,000 in just a few years.) * California prison spending is projected to reach $15 billion by 2011. (The legislative analyst calculates that Prop. 5 would reduce prison spending by $1 billion per year and cut prison construction costs by at least $2.5 billion.) * Spending on drug and alcohol treatment in the community will continue to shrink; spending was cut by 10% in the 2009-10 state budget. (Prop. 5 would allocate increased and reliable spending on community-based alcohol and drug treatment programs proven to cut incarceration costs.)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 27, 2008 CONTACT: Jennifer Kern, Drug Policy Alliance, (415) 373-7694 White House Pushes Controversial Student Drug Testing Agenda at Summit in Albany on October 29 Largest Study, Leading Health Groups Call Random, Suspicionless Drug Testing Harmful and Ineffective ALBANY - The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is conducting a series of regional summits designed to convince local educators to begin drug testing students - randomly and without cause. This policy is unsupported by the available science and opposed by leading experts in adolescent health. The latest summit will be held in Albany on Wednesday, October 29 at the Crown Plaza Albany, State & Lodge Streets from 8:30 am -1:00pm. Studies have found that suspicionless drug testing is ineffective in deterring student drug use. The first large-scale national study on student drug testing, which was published by researchers at the University of Michigan in 2003, found no difference in rates of student drug use between schools that have drug testing programs and those that do not. A two-year randomized experimental trial published last November in the Journal of Adolescent Health concluded random drug testing targeting student athletes did not reliably reduce past month drug use and, in fact, produced attitudinal changes among students that indicate new risk factors for future substance use. "Drug testing breaks down relationships of trust," said Jennifer Kern, Youth Policy Manager for the Drug Policy Alliance. "All credible research on substance abuse prevention points to eliminating, rather than creating, sources of alienation and conflict between young people, their parents and schools." Random student drug testing is opposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, National Education Association, the Association of Addiction Professionals, and the National Association of Social Workers, among others. These organizations believe random testing programs erect counter-productive obstacles to student participation in extracurricular activities, marginalize at-risk students and make open communication more difficult. "Our schools should stay focused on education, prevention and health, not invasive drug testing programs that have never been proven safe or effective," said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "New York students deserve comprehensive, interactive and honest drug education with assistance and support for students whose lives have been disrupted by substance use." A December 2007 policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Substance Abuse and Council of School Health reaffirmed their opposition to student drug testing, holding: "Physicians should not support drug testing in schools ... [because] it has not yet been established that drug testing does not cause harm." Making Sense of Student Drug Testing: Why Educators are Saying No, published by the Drug Policy Alliance and the American Civil Liberties Union, can be found online at www.safety1st.org.