Proposition 36, passed by California voters, diverts certain nonviolent drug offenders into treatment rather than jail. However, the measure has long been underfunded, leaving Los Angeles County to absorb the costs of treatment and supervision. With rising public frustration over visible mental illness and addiction in urban areas like Los Angeles, advocates and local officials are pushing the state to fully fund Prop 36 implementation.
Should California fully fund Proposition 36 drug diversion and treatment programs in Los Angeles County?
How OpenCampaign quiz-takers stand on this issue
No quiz question covers this exact issue — showing responses to the closest one, Civil Liberties and Civil Rights.
32% call it a high-priority issue (rating it 7+ out of 10).
Liberal20%
Lean liberal28%
Moderate26%
Lean conservative14%
Conservative12%
Where do you stand?
Should California fully fund Proposition 36 drug diversion and treatment programs in Los Angeles County?
Republicans and many local officials are ramping up calls for the state to fully fund Proposition 36, the measure that diverts certain nonviolent drug offenders into treatment rather than jail. While widely supported in principle, Prop 36 has long been underfunded, leaving counties to absorb the costs of treatment and supervision.
Positions on this issue · liberal → conservative
Fully fund Prop 36 and expand treatment capacity well beyond current levels to address root causes of addiction.
Provide state funding for Prop 36 and pair it with robust social services, housing, and mental health support.
Fully fund Prop 36 as passed and split costs fairly between state and county governments.
Fund Prop 36 only with verified accountability measures ensuring treatment programs meet outcome benchmarks.
Replace Prop 36 with stricter enforcement; treatment-only approaches are insufficient to deter drug offenses.
Prop 36 funding and addiction treatment
Republicans and many local officials are calling for the state to fully fund Proposition 36, which diverts certain nonviolent drug offenders into treatment rather than jail. The measure has been underfunded, leaving counties to absorb treatment and supervision costs amid rising public frustration over visible mental illness and addiction in urban areas, particularly Los Angeles.
Should California fully fund Proposition 36 treatment programs for nonviolent drug offenders in counties like Los Angeles?
How OpenCampaign quiz-takers stand on this issue
No quiz question covers this exact issue — showing responses to the closest one, Civil Liberties and Civil Rights.
32% call it a high-priority issue (rating it 7+ out of 10).
Liberal20%
Lean liberal28%
Moderate26%
Lean conservative14%
Conservative12%
Where do you stand?
Should California fully fund Proposition 36 treatment programs for nonviolent drug offenders in counties like Los Angeles?
Republicans and many local officials are ramping up calls for the state to fully fund Proposition 36, the measure that diverts certain nonviolent drug offenders into treatment rather than jail. While widely supported in principle, Prop 36 has long been underfunded, leaving counties to absorb the costs of treatment and supervision. With rising public frustration over visible mental illness and addiction in urban areas, particularly in Los Angeles and San Francisco
Positions on this issue · liberal → conservative
Fully fund expansive voluntary treatment and housing-first services; minimize criminal justice role
State should fully fund Prop 36 treatment and supervision so counties can implement it properly
Partial state funding paired with county flexibility and some accountability measures
Fund treatment but require stricter compliance, sanctions, and more enforcement for noncompliance
Reject diversion emphasis; prioritize jail time and enforcement over underfunded treatment mandates