Proposition 5 sounds good. Its authors say it would provide more drug treatment and rehabilitation programs for California's nonviolent offenders. This, in turn, would supposedly save the state billions of dollars due to reduced costs in prison and parole operations.The details of this ballot measure, however, should lead sensible voters to oppose it. One of Proposition 5's opponents, Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, says that if the measure passes, more than 50,000 criminals countywide would escape accountability for their actions each year.

Under Proposition 5, a defendant who completes a treatment program could have his felonies dismissed and all files sealed. This option applies to such crimes as identify theft, sexual exploitation of teenagers, grand theft and driving under the influence.

According to Cooley, under Proposition 5 the number of defendants who could opt for drug treatment rather than incarceration would more than double, causing major backlogs in the court system.

Another misleading part of this proposition is that it doesn't really apply only to nonviolent offenders. According to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, some of Proposition 5's provisions would still apply to an offender convicted of violent crimes more than five years in the past.

The drug treatment rules under this measure also differ with the strict terms and conditions that today guide the state's drug courts. Under Proposition 5, convicted criminals on parole can test positive for drugs without fear of being sent back to prison.

The lax treatment provisions of this measure are one reason Martin Sheen, a rehabilitation proponent, strongly opposes it. Sheen, whose son Charlie had drug-abuse problems in the 1990s, contends that Proposition 5 would actually feed addicts' "cycle of self-destruction" because it fails to punish those who take drugs while in treatment. Successful programs push offenders into treatment programs and force them to stay sober or face incarceration.

According to the state legislative analyst, the cost to fund Proposition 5 would exceed $1 billion annually. Court costs for Los Angeles County alone are estimated at $84 million. And if the treatment programs fail to pay off and offenders commit more crimes, you can expect the societal costs to soar even higher.

And even if the measure fails to achieve its goal of reduced prison costs, fixing it would be difficult because Proposition 5 requires a four-fifths vote of the Legislature to change its provisions.

Law enforcement groups and crime victims oppose Proposition 5, as does Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Additional funding for effective drug treatment programs makes sense, but this measure lacks a real-world approach to dealing with crime and addiction. On Nov. 4, vote "No" on Proposition 5.