CALIFORNIA ELECTS TREATMENT FOR DRUG USE

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

Setting up such a system is a monumental task. As befits what will almost
certainly be the largest, most comprehensive help-and-health approach to
drug use in this country's history.

No fewer than 36,000 people a year are expected to be channeled toward
treatment that is currently woefully lacking in number of programs, funds
and expertise. Not even the $120 million per annum 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 matter, less a criminal problem.

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

A trust fund has been created and after the state certifies the Nov. 7
election this week, $60 million will be transferred into it. Another $120
million will be added July 1.

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 now-bulging pocketbook will the $120 million come from? Will
other services or programs be cut or will funds come out of the surplus?

And what about bringing private hospitals, clinics and health specialists
into the process? Also, it behooves the insurance industry, which has
lessened the amount of time it will pay for drug treatment, to reassess
their policies.

Judges who oversee existing drug courts say there are too few treatment
programs. Good ones are even rarer. 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.

Dr. Robert DuPont of the National Institute on Drug Abuse at Georgetown
University Medical School says, "Treatments that do not do drug testing are
very suspicious." Proposition 36 has no provision for testing.

The California Campaign for New Drug Policies has since sent Executive
Director Bill Zimmerman to Sacramento to ask for drug testing money above
and beyond the $120 million a year. More funds 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.

Proponents say once implemented Propostion 36 will reduce our prison
population by 11,000, save more than $200 million a year in operating costs
and eliminate the need for new prisons. Since Nov. 7, foes have questioned
the need to construct a proposed 5,160-inmate facility in Delano. Clanging
the door shut on it would save $335 million alone.

The math seems 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.

Attempting to jump from No. 1 in putting drug users in prison to No. 1 in
drug treatment is a tall order. Nothing of this size or scope has been
tried before. Arizona, the pattern for such programs, deals with a
much-more-manageable 6,000 offenders a year, not 36,000.

Treating drug use, abuse and addiction as an illness rather than a crime is
a good neighbor approach. It is easier to lock people away than accept the
daunting task of dealing with and treating addiction.

But Californians have plainly said that treating simple users as criminals
doesn't work. We may not approve of people using heroin, cocaine, or even
marijuana, but we don't want offenders thrown in jail for first and second
offenses either. We must give them an opportunity to put their lives back
together. It's a softer, gentler approach.

Treatment is a sensible, middle road, not an extreme one. Implementing and
operating such a system will be costly, difficult and at times unpleasant,
but no one said it would be easy.