THE WAR ON DRUGS AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

The "will of the people" is all the rage these days. If it were a movie,
they'd be lining up the Oscars. If it were a stock, it would be soaring. If
it were a toy, it would be this year's Furby. It's getting even better buzz
than "the rule of law." "This is a time to honor the true will of the
people," said Al Gore last week, after earlier claiming that all that
mattered was "making sure that the will of the American people is expressed
and accurately received."

I'm glad everyone is now singing the praises of the innate and infinite
wisdom of the American voter. But while the people's choice for president
may come down to a smudged postmark on a rejected absentee ballot, there's
at least one issue on which the American people provided a crystal clear
indication of what their will is: the war on drugs. They want a cease-fire.

Two weeks ago, voters in five states overwhelmingly passed drug policy
reform initiatives, including Proposition 36 in California, which will
shift the criminal justice system's focus from incarceration to treatment.
The measure garnered more than 60 percent of the popular vote, 7 percent
more than Al Gore received in the state, and 18 percent more than George W.
Bush. Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is a mandate.

In fact, since 1996, 17 of the 19 drug policy reform initiatives have
passed. But despite this rather unambiguous expression of the popular will,
politicians have repeatedly failed to honor it. For example, when the
people of California voted in 1996 to allow the medical use of marijuana,
then-Gov. Pete Wilson called it "a mistake" that "effectively legalizes the
sale of marijuana," while the federal government went to court to overturn
the wishes of the electorate.

But perhaps this year, with the margins of victory growing enviably higher,
politicians are beginning to see the writing -- smudges, dimpled, hanging
and otherwise -- on the voting booth wall. When Proposition 36 passed
despite being solidly opposed by the California political establishment,
the response of Gov. Gray Davis, who had campaigned against it, was: "The
people have spoken."

And thank God, because it's in Davis' state that their voices will have the
greatest impact since a third of California's inmates are behind bars on
drug charges. Under Proposition 36, up to 36,000 nonviolent drug offenders
and parole violators are expected to be put into treatment programs
instead. The initiative earmarks $120 million annually to fund these
programs, as well as family counseling and job and literacy training.

With its shift from high-cost imprisonment to low-cost, high-common-sense
treatment, Proposition 36 is estimated to save taxpayers more than $200
million a year -- and an additional half a billion dollars by eliminating
the need for new prisons. As UC Berkeley professor Ruth Wilson Gilmore
pointed out, "California has spent more than $5 billion building and
expanding more than 23 prisons in the past 20 years, while only one new
university has been built from the ground up."

At the same time, voters in Utah and Oregon passed by enormous margins --
69 and 66 percent, respectively -- initiatives designed to make it harder
for police to seize the property of suspected drug offenders. Just as
significantly, all proceeds from forfeited assets will now be used to fund
drug treatment or public education programs instead of to fill the coffers
of law enforcement agencies. Both measures were backed by people from
across the ideological spectrum concerned with property rights, civil
rights and racial justice.

And in Nevada and Colorado, voters passed initiatives making marijuana
legal for medical use -- joining Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Maine, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia.

Meanwhile, post-election editorials in papers across the country reflected
the public's radical rethinking of the drug war. Newsweek even devoted its
election week cover story to "America's Prison Generation," about the 14
million mostly black or Latino Americans who will spend part of their lives
behind bars -- the huge increase being largely the result of drug war policies.

As for our two presidents-in-waiting, they have said remarkably little
about the drug war -- other than that they plan to get tougher on it. But
if either candidate enjoyed the support that drug reform did, he'd be
packing boxes now. The resounding success of drug policy reform initiatives
makes it clear that whoever ends up occupying the Oval Office had better
change his tune if he intends to do more than pay lip service to honoring
the will of the people.