TREATMENT QUESTION AWAITS AND ANSWER

California voters have spoken. Treatment, not prison, is the new,
prescribed way of dealing with first- and second-time drug users.

No fewer than 36,000 people a year are expected to be channeled toward
treatment that is currently lacking in the number of programs, funds and
expertise. Not even $120 million a year that must come from the state for
the first five years will be enough to pay for the care expected.

Proposition 36 was short on specifics but long enough on emotion to tap the
public pulse. While police, prosecutors, judges and politicians opposed the
carrot-for-stick proposal, voters were convinced the drug war had failed
and that a little compassion was better - and cheaper - than building more
prisons. Thus it passed overwhelmingly - 61 percent to 39 percent.

Easily lost in the shuffle is the redefinition of drug use inherent in the
measure. It is now more a medical and health issue, less a criminal matter.

Since the statewide program accepts its first clients July 1, efforts are
under way to create in barely six months a system where there is now a mere
skeleton of the support network needed.

The Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs is to implement Proposition 36
and on Dec. 18 a conference will be held in Sacramento to explore the wide
array of state and county issues, legislative proposals and treatment
questions. Many questions remain. How many and what kind of treatment
centers are needed? Where? Who will certify them and what are the criteria?
Where in the state's presently bulging pocketbook will the $120 million
come from? Will other services or programs be cut or will funds come out of
the surplus? Money above and beyond the $120 million a year also may be
needed for county probation departments, which could be inundated with new
clients, and other local agencies that must deal with the new approach and
its fallout.

Judges who oversee existing drug courts say there are too few treatment
programs. Good ones are more rare. They and other critics fear the short
timetable and sudden influx of state money creates ideal conditions for
"fly-by-night" operators and "sham" treatment programs. Proponents say once
implemented, Proposition 36 will reduce California's prison population by
11,000, save more than $200 million a year in operating costs and eliminate
the need for new prisons. The math appears simple: California sends about
12,000 people a year to prison for drug possession. It costs $24,000 a year
to incarcerate an addict as opposed to $4,000 for treatment.

And California voters have plainly said that treating simple users as
criminals doesn't work. Voters may not approve of people using heroin,
cocaine, or even marijuana, but most don't want offenders thrown in jail
for first and second offenses either.

Implementing and operating a treatment system will be costly, difficult and
at times unpleasant. The biggest question still unanswered is, will it
produce the results proponents have promised?