CITIZENS QUIETLY REBEL AGAINST DRUG WAR

Public Tries New Options As Prosecution Appears To Harm, Not Help, Users

California voters approved a radically different approach this November to
dealing with the drug problem. By a difference of 61 to 39 percent, or by
roughly 2 million votes, people backed probation and treatment instead of
jail for non-violent crimes of drug possession or drug use.

Contrast that generous margin with the closeness of the presidential
election. Some day, I believe, the passage of Proposition 36 may be
compared to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the
Berlin Wall.

Those two stunning political reversals seemed to occur overnight, to the
bewilderment of most experts. In retrospect, the collapse of the Soviet
bloc was not that sudden.

We simply missed many of the early signs of deterioration within the Soviet
Union. Proposition 36 and other drug-ballot initiatives passed by American
voters during recent years are signals of a similar erosion, signs that the
public commitment to the "war on drugs" is deteriorating.

A similar public disenchantment with the drug war could be seen in the 1996
presidential election. Proposition 15, which legalized the use of medicinal
marijuana in California, received a half-million more votes than Bob Dole
and 250,000 more than Bill Clinton got in this state, despite dire messages
of opposition from the federal government, prominent politicians and law
enforcement groups.

Since then, eight other states and the District of Columbia have passed
medicinal-marijuana initiatives or laws. In the last election, Oregon and
Utah passed initiatives that limited the ability of law enforcement
agencies to seize property they suspected was used in a drug crime, sell it
and keep the proceeds for their departments. At the same time, Nevada and
Colorado passed medicinal-marijuana initiatives.

A few years ago, Arizona voters approved an initiative that is even
stronger than Proposition 36, and also is meant to get drug users into
treatment and keep them out of jail.

I endorsed Proposition 15 and Proposition 36 because, during my early years
in policing, I arrested many drug users for petty drug crimes without
seeing any indication that those arrests helped them or lessened the
community's drug problem.

In fact, as my academic studies of drugs grew and my police career
progressed, I became convinced that arrests for such minor offenses did
more harm than good.

I served about 18 of my 35 years in policing as police chief of two of
America's largest cities, San Jose and Kansas City, Mo. As chief, it became
even more apparent to me that an overwhelming percentage of drug arrests
disrupted school careers, caused defendants to lose their jobs, exposed
them to brutal incarceration experiences and often led many to become
career criminals and addicts.

On the other hand, a large number of people who used illegal drugs seem to
have grown out of their youthful drug experiments and led productive lives.
In fact, most of the police applicants I hired had admitted to some drug
use in their youth. If we had automatically disqualified them, we would
have severely damaged their lives and lost many fine police officers.

The California legislative analyst indicated that Proposition 36 would save
the state between $100 million and $150 million annually in saved
incarceration costs, plus about $450 million to $550 million in
prison-construction costs and an additional $40 million annually for local
governments. More important, the legislative analyst estimated that the new
law would keep as many as 34,000 non-violent drug offenders out of state
prison each year.

Measure Opposed By Many

Despite these enormous benefits, Gov. Gray Davis, Attorney General Bill
Lockyer and almost every law enforcement organization in the state opposed
the measure. Proposition 36 was also opposed by almost every newspaper
editorial board in California.

There were many arguments for and against the measure. The principal
argument advanced in opposition was that the measure would send the "wrong
message" to children and result in more drug use and crime.

Yet, crime has been declining in California and the other states that have
passed drug-reform initiatives. And, since the passage of Proposition 15,
there has been no increase in marijuana use by teenagers in California,
whose rate is 2 percent below the national average.

Quite frequently, opponents of the drug-reform measures, instead of
sticking to the issues, launched personal attacks on three men who have
contributed around $4 million to state campaigns for drug reform.

The naysayers imply that three secretive wealthy men duped the voters into
believing that the various initiatives were beneficial. Actually, Peter
Lewis, a car insurer, John Sperling, who founded Phoenix University, and
financier George Soros were quite open about their contributions, which
were a matter of record.

Answering attempts to attribute sinister motives to them, the three said
their intent was similar to that of thousands of other volunteers, myself
included, who feel that the drug war has failed and is eroding our civil
liberties. (I am an unpaid board member of the non-profit Lindesmith-Drug
Policy Foundation in New York, which distributes $3 million a year in
grants, some of it from George Soros, to further drug research, education
and hygiene programs.)

The federal government probably spends more than $1 billion a year in
efforts to boost public support for its war against drugs; nevertheless,
the much-smaller sums contributed to drug reform have energized many Americans.

Costs Of Drug War

Almost all of the opponents of these measures argued strongly that holding
the threat of jail over the heads of drug users was essential to
rehabilitation. But this contention has been advanced without any
substantiation ever since President Richard Nixon first mentioned a "war
against drugs" in 1972. Since then, the annual federal budget for the drug
war has risen from roughly $100 million to more than $19 billion. When
state and local costs are included, the drug war costs us over $40 billion
a year.

Here's another way of looking at it: The average monthly Social Security
check in 1972 was around $177. My research shows that, if Social Security
benefits had increased at the same pace as drug-war spending, the average
check today would be more than $60,000 a month, instead of around $800.

Despite this hurling of money at drug enforcement, foreign production of
heroin and cocaine has significantly increased.

Some 90 percent of illegal drugs entering the United States come in undetected.

The drug war has not sheltered our children from being exposed to drugs. In
fact, the vast profits increase the marketing of drugs.

This is the result of a roughly 17,000 percent markup for illegal drugs as
they move from raw products in Peru, Colombia, Brazil or Mexico to retail
sales on American streets. The corruption and violence associated with
prohibition is staggering. More than 400,000 Americans, disproportionately
low-income minorities, have been jailed for non-violent drug crimes.

Change Of Public Mindset

Voters may not have all of these details at their fingertips, but they are
well aware that the law of supply and demand is far more powerful than laws
passed by Congress.

In 1990, a nationwide Gallup Poll indicated that 94 percent of those
responding did not believe that the best way to handle the drug problem was
to jail drug users. California's propositions 15 and 36 and other states'
similar initiatives seem to be votes against the government holding jail
sentences over the heads of people ingesting certain chemicals, but not
others that can be equally dangerous, such as alcohol and Valium.

It frightens drug-war hawks that voters may be beginning to think about
drugs as social and medical problems, as we did before Congress introduced
criminal prohibition of drugs in 1914.