An Aug. 17 article in the Mercury News detailing the early results of California’s Proposition 36, overwhelmingly approved in 2024 with promises of treatment for drug addiction and more accountability for crimes like burglary, showed thus far in the Bay Area, the measure has compelled only a few dozen people into addiction or mental health programs. According to the Mercury, backers place much of the blame for Proposition 36’s slow start on Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers, who have refused to put enough funding into treatment, courts, and law enforcement to support the measure’s implementation. “It’s kind of sad and disappointing that the governor and legislature opted not to provide the funding necessary to do what the voters want to see done,” Jonathan Raven, assistant chief executive with the California District Attorneys Association, told the newspaper.
While Proposition 36 empowers local prosecutors to bring felony charges against repeat drug and theft offenders, drug defendants can complete a treatment program to have their charges dismissed. In the six months since Proposition 36 took effect, Bay Area prosecutors filed roughly 600 felony drug possession cases, according to a county-by-county review of charging data obtained by the Mercury, and as of July, only 60 people had “agreed” to treatment under the law across the entire nine-county region.
While Santa Clara County accounted for almost half of the new drug possession felonies filed in the Bay Area, the district attorneys’ offices in Alameda and San Francisco counties brought only a handful of cases, prompting reporter Ethan Varian to point out “the discretion prosecutors have in charging decisions.”
Of course, San Francisco’s notoriously lenient judges get some of the blame, letting defendants plead to lesser charges, doling out short jail sentences, and allowing drug users to opt for probation rather than wait “sometimes weeks in custody” for a treatment bed.
“Proposition 36 cases are procedurally complicated and take a lot of time and create great incentives for defendants to just plead out for a short sentence,” David Angel, an assistant district attorney in Santa Clara County, told Varian in an email. “Of course, if there were no wait list and robust services, their decisions might be different. We’re hoping that by bringing these charges, it will signal to the court and the treatment providers how seriously we want to get people into treatment.” Angel also said that some Proposition 36 defendants in Santa Clara County are still receiving treatment by other means, whether through separate felony or misdemeanor charges, the terms of their probation, or in jail or prison.
District Attorney Brooke Jenkins will only charge treatment-mandated felonies if the current offense has occurred within five years of a prior conviction.
Alameda and San Francisco, however, came in second to last and last, respectively, with Alameda filing six felony cases during the first six months of Proposition 36 and San Francisco bringing just one. The Alameda County district attorney’s office did not provide an explanation to the Mercury for its charging decisions “despite multiple requests for comment.” Varian writes that in an emailed statement, the San Francisco district attorney’s office “did not directly answer why it has filed so few charges, but noted it continues to use its drug court program and other avenues to refer defendants to treatment.”
Anyone who has read my articles about San Francisco’s diversion courts knows how ineffective they are. Some of the blame may lie with now ousted progressive district attorneys Chesa Boudin in San Francisco and Pamela Price in Alameda who refused to prosecute drug possession during their time in office, meaning potentially less opportunities for prosecutors to “stack” the necessary prior convictions required to charge felonies under Proposition 36.
‘Why would Chesa do this to us?’
In a post on X, Lilly Rapson, director of public affairs at San Francisco district attorney’s office, said they have filed just one treatment-mandated felony case because it was the only one they were able to substantiate. “To prove an 11395 case requires PREVIOUS convictions. We only file cases that we believe we can prove.” Those previous convictions were not happening under Boudin.
A San Francisco district attorney’s office charging policy addendum on the implementation of Proposition 36 regarding narcotics cases states Health & Safety Code § 11395 — Treatment Mandated Felony — possession of “hard drug” as defined by statute with two prior drug-related convictions: The law as drafted did not impose any age limitations on the prior convictions, just that they must occur before the commission of the new offense. Consistent with our discretion to create guidelines to generate fair and equitable treatment of individuals, we will only charge this section if the current offense has occurred within five (5) years of the prior conviction.
In other words, San Francisco’s district attorney’s office has discretion to create guidelines that are “fair and equitable” for all drug users, and that means only charging treatment-mandated felonies if the current offense has occurred within five years of a prior conviction, which in some instances goes back to Boudin’s tenure.
Through Aug. 16, 2025, the district attorney has been presented with 411 felony narcotics cases and has filed 333 of them. During the same time period, they had 90 cases that have been resolved by a conviction and an additional 43 cases that were resolved with a guilty plea in another case. The office has filed only one treatment-mandated felony case because to prove an 11395 case requires previous convictions. Those previous convictions were not happening under the Boudin administration. Just because an 11395 charge wasn’t filed doesn’t mean that a defendant wasn’t charged with a crime. Data shows Jenkins is filing more drug possession cases than ever before. But San Francisco will still only charge treatment-mandated felonies if the current offense has occurred within five years of a prior conviction.
To quote the infamously crass X account “Crooke Jenkins” (now permanently banned for exposing the cell phone number of the real Brooke Jenkins), “Why would Chesa do this to us?” From Jan. 1, 2020, through March 1, 2021, Boudin — a prison abolitionist social justice warrior worshipped by the far left — tried just 23 cases resulting in 16 convictions, including four assaults (three convictions); one auto burglary, one residential burglary, one gun felony (no conviction); three sexual assaults (two convictions); two robberies; seven misdemeanor DUIs (four convictions); and one misdemeanor vehicular homicide, which he lost. What is missing from those numbers? Drug convictions. According to documents from San Francisco Superior Court, Boudin failed to obtain a single conviction for sales of the opioid fentanyl in 2021, and he flat out refused to bring cases against even the most hardcore drug users, no matter how much mayhem they created for the community or how much money they cost in taxpayer funded resources.
When Jenkins took office, she revoked more than 30 pending plea deals offered to suspected fentanyl dealers by her recalled predecessor, one involving a man arrested six times for selling fentanyl in the Tenderloin. There’s no doubt Jenkins is tougher on dealers than Boudin was, but the question remains as to why treatment-mandated drug possession felonies are only charged if the current offense has occurred within five years of the prior conviction. If the district attorney’s office can rewrite the “fair and equitable” part of the Proposition 36 charging addendum which overlaps with Boudin’s term, they probably should.
Anyone walking the streets of San Francisco sees the devastation that drugs, particularly fentanyl, have caused, but it’s not just the dealers. Visit Santa Clara County, which accounted for 273 of the new drug possession felonies filed in the Bay Area since the implementation of Proposition 36, and you won’t see addicts using fentanyl or dying of overdoses on the sidewalks in front of homes, businesses, and schools. Why? Because Silicon Valley officials won’t tolerate it. Complacency is complicity, and San Francisco definitely ranks number one for that.
Updated Aug. 26 at 10:53 a.m. to add a hyperlink.