Proposition 36 is being touted as a solution to the state’s issues with retail theft, the housing crisis, and the opioid epidemic. But make no mistake—this is not a measure of restorative justice. Instead, it’s a dangerous throwback to the failed policies that fueled mass incarceration, disproportionately targeting Black and Brown communities once again. The rhetoric behind Prop 36 isn’t new; it echoes the tactics used in the War on Drugs in the 1980’s, which criminalized poverty and survival while ignoring the systemic roots of inequality.
As a Black man who grew up in East San Jose, I vividly recall a thriving, close-knit community of individuals I considered family. The bond within our "left-behind tribe" was often just as strong as actual genetic ties, a necessity forged by the legacies of slavery and redlining that pushed us to extend our sense of family. In the mid to late 1980's though, I watched our neighborhood transform as the police presence grew, becoming a dominant force in our daily lives. I remember a daycare in Verde turning into a police substation, and soon after, many of the fathers of those kids disappeared, casualties of the War on Drugs. This shift not only devastated families but fractured the strong sense of community we had built. This generational destruction is what Prop 36 will bring back.
Criminalizing Survival
A misguided focus prop 36 aims is to crack down on retail theft by increasing penalties, turning misdemeanors into felonies. However, the portrayal of retail theft as a widespread, serious public threat is misleading. In reality, retail theft is often a victimless crime when it comes to businesses themselves. Corporations have insurance policies in place to cover losses, as mandated by the state, meaning they are reimbursed for the goods stolen. The only real losers are insurance companies, which can easily absorb these losses as part of their business model. Yet, media outlets sensationalize Black and Brown individuals committing theft, similar to how the War on Drugs in the 1980’s showcased people of color as the face of drug crime. This narrative doesn’t consider that many of these individuals are stealing out of necessity, having been left behind by society. Instead of addressing the underlying issues of poverty, hunger, and unemployment, Prop 36 criminalizes survival. Retail theft doesn’t happen in isolation; it occurs because the socioeconomic system fails those in need. This proposition does not address the root causes of this type of crime—it merely punishes the poor and disenfranchised.
Prop 36 takes crimes of necessity—like stealing food or basic goods—and elevates them from misdemeanors to felonies. This shift is dangerous, as it sets the stage for harsher penalties and future laws that will use Prop 36 as a precedent. We’ve seen this before. When California passed the Three Strikes Law in 1994, it was marketed as a way to curb violent crime, but it ended up disproportionately affecting people of color for non-violent offenses. This law tore apart families, decimated communities, and increased prison populations to historic levels. Now, with Prop 36, we risk repeating the same mistake. Imagine stealing a sandwich because you’re hungry and have no money, only to face felony charges that could lead to years in prison. That’s exactly what this law allows. Minor offenses can spiral into life-altering convictions, locking people up for trying to survive.
Raymond Goins speaking at a No on Prop 36 rally in front of San Mateo Jail.
The Housing Crisis and Incarceration
A cruel response proponents of Prop 36 argue is that it will help solve the housing crisis by targeting those committing petty crimes, but this claim is deeply flawed. Homelessness is not a crime; it is a crisis of poverty, mental illness, and systemic inequality. Incarcerating individuals who are homeless or struggling financially does nothing to solve the underlying issues—they simply get caught in a cycle of punishment and release. Santa Clara County, for instance, has one of the highest costs of living in the country, with the U.S. Census Bureau reporting a median home price of over $1 million. The idea that locking up those who can’t afford housing will somehow improve the situation is not only cruel but illogical. Studies show that incarceration worsens the housing crisis by creating barriers to employment and housing for formerly incarcerated individuals. In fact, a Prison Policy Initiative study found that formerly incarcerated people are nearly 10 times more likely to experience homelessness than the general population. Instead of locking people up, we should be investing in affordable housing and job training programs.
The Myth of Rehabilitation in Prison
Another false promise of Prop 36 is the claim that it will offer rehabilitation to those struggling with addiction. But prison is not rehabilitation—it is punishment. California’s prisons are overcrowded, under-resourced, and ill-equipped to provide the type of treatment necessary to help individuals overcome drug addiction. Incarceration only exacerbates the problem, as shown by the National Institute on Drug Abuse which reports that nearly 85% of the prison population struggles with drug or alcohol, yet only 11% receive treatment while incarcerated. The idea that we can solve the opioid epidemic by locking people up is absurd. What people with addiction need is access to healthcare, mental health services, and community support—not years behind bars.
Families held a No on 36 rally in front of San Mateo District Attorney's Office.
The broader truth is that Proposition 36 is a mass incarceration redux. It does not seek to heal the communities most affected by crime and poverty; instead, it continues the cycle of criminalizing the poor and marginalized. If Prop 36 passes, we will see a return to the mass incarceration that culminated in the 1990s. The same tactics used to pass these earlier laws—fear-mongering, misleading narratives, and promises of public safety—are being employed again.
If Prop 36 passes, it will lead to more families being torn apart, more lives ruined, and another generation of Black and Brown men and women locked away, all in the name of “justice.” The promise of Prop 36 is a false one. It is not a solution to the complex issues of retail theft, homelessness, or addiction. Instead, it is a return to failed policies that have devastated communities of color for decades. If we want true justice, we must reject Prop 36 and push for measures that address the root causes of these issues—poverty, systemic racism, and addiction. We need to invest in education, affordable housing, healthcare, and mental health services, not more prisons. Say no to Prop 36 and yes to a future that prioritizes rehabilitation, opportunity, and dignity for all.
