Guest Commentary written by
Vern Pierson
Vern Pierson is the district attorney of El Dorado County and was a co-sponsor of Proposition 36. He is a past president of the California District Attorneys Association.
California’s drug crisis has only escalated, with so-called “compassionate solutions” like harm reduction and past policies that decriminalized hard drugs making things worse.
Many drug addicts in the state have essentially faced two stark choices: homelessness or incarceration. This false dichotomy has normalized substance abuse, endangered public safety and failed to address the root causes of both homelessness and addiction.
In response, California voters last fall overwhelmingly passed Proposition 36, a third option that prioritizes rehabilitation over incarceration and offers a clear path to recovery, helping break the cycle of addiction and homelessness.
Programs like syringe exchanges, for example, have fallen short in addressing addiction itself. While well-intentioned, these programs have led to unintended consequences, including public spaces littered with used needles, increased health risks and the normalization of drug use. While syringe exchanges help reduce disease transmission, they don’t always guarantee that people enroll in treatment programs, and research shows they can even increase mortality rates.
The scale of this problem is stark. In 2021 alone, nearly 11,000 Californians died from drug overdoses, with over two-thirds involving opioids like fentanyl. Each of these lives lost represents a missed opportunity for intervention and recovery. Prop. 36 has given the state a framework to address this crisis by requiring treatment and rehabilitation for people struggling with addiction. This approach has the potential to reduce recidivism, save lives and help people reclaim their futures.
The negative consequences of harm reduction policies are evident in communities like El Dorado County. Despite having relatively low addiction rates, the county faced rising safety concerns and a public outcry over the lack of meaningful solutions. When state officials, including Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, sued the county, it underscored the limitations of one-size-fits-all approaches. Local communities deserve the flexibility to implement policies that reflect their unique challenges while prioritizing treatment and accountability.
California must now leverage the tools Prop. 36 provides to move beyond the shortcomings of harm reduction. Drug courts, for example, offer a proven model for addressing addiction by combining judicial oversight with mandatory treatment and rehabilitation services. Studies show that these programs reduce both substance use and criminal behavior, making them an effective strategy for fostering long-term recovery.
Public education campaigns also play a vital role, and can shift cultural attitudes toward addiction and encourage healthier choices — as they did for smoking and drunk driving. School-based education programs, community outreach and interventions for at-risk youth can help us create a prevention-focused culture.
The need for action is urgent. As Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a former addict and the current nominee to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has noted, “Addiction requires long-term treatment, not short-term harm mitigation.” His leadership could inspire California to expand its commitment to treatment-based solutions and reimagine its approach to the opioid epidemic.
Normalizing addiction is neither compassionate nor effective — it’s destructive. California must ensure the success of Prop. 36. Alongside drug courts and prevention-focused public education, this new law can address the root causes of addiction and homelessness, offering people a chance at recovery and stability.