PROP 36 WINS BIG DESPITE POLITICOS

Drug Treatment Favored Over Jail, But Plan May Need Work

The state's top politicians said no to Proposition 36 but California voters
didn't listen, overwhelmingly passing the initiative that requires
treatment instead of jail time for most first-time and second-time drug
offenders.

By supporting Prop. 36 with almost 61 percent of the vote during Tuesday's
election, Californians adopted policies that have been popular in San
Francisco for nearly a decade.

Prop. 36 was criticized by most of the state's major politicians and law
enforcers, but supported by San Francisco's sheriff, mayor and District
Attorney Terence Hallinan, who ran campaigns for election in 1995 and 1999
on platforms that touted drug treatment over incarceration.

With nearly 92 percent of the votes counted in the state, 60.6 percent of
Californians were in favor of the initiative, which will allocate $120
million in funds each year for drug treatment.

The state's legislative analyst estimated that Prop. 36 will save taxpayers
more than $100 million a year by diverting people into treatment instead of
prisons, jails and courts.

Yes on 36 campaign director Bob Zimmerman said the numbers show that
Californians are ready for a new approach in the war on drugs.

"I think we knew early on that voters were fed up with all the money that's
been wasted, all the lives that are wasted on the drug war," Zimmerman
said.

Opponents of the measure said on Tuesday night that they would appeal to
the Legislature to "clean up" the measure, which they said lacks money for
drug testing.

But unlike Proposition 215 - the state's 1996 medical marijuana initiative
t hat resulted in immediate legal challenges - Prop. 36 opponents were not
immediately looking to thwart the measure in the courts.

"I think we have to look to the future now in a positive way," said Stephen
Manley, a Santa Clara County drug-court judge who had spoken out against
Prop. 36. "My view is that we have to look to a very positive effort to
make the best we can out of a very difficult situation."

MOST D.A.s, POLITICOS OPPOSED

Proposition 36 was criticized by most district attorneys in the state and
by politicians real and fictitious, including Gov. Davis, Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, Attorney General Bill Lockyer and actor Martin Sheen, who plays
U.S. President Josiah Bartlett on TV's "The West Wing." Some
treatment-center representatives also opposed the measure, including the
president of the Betty Ford Center.

But in San Francisco, it's hard to find an opponent of the initiative.

Sheriff Michael Hennessey, Public Defender Jeff Brown and Mayor Willie
Brown were among its supporters.

Hallinan, the only district attorney in the state to endorse Prop. 36, said
Tuesday's vote represented "a tidal wave of change when it comes to
society's view of the drug war."

"Law enforcement needs to catch up to the voters on this issue," Hallinan
said late Tuesday. "The criminal justice system really has not put
treatment first."

Diversion in drug courts first began under former San Francisco District
Attorney Arlo Smith in the early 1990s.

SAN FRANCISCO LIKE AMSTERDAM

"San Francisco is sort of seen as the Amsterdam of North America," said
Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of The Lindesmith Center. "It's always
pushing things forward." The New York-based Lindesmith Center pushed Prop.
36 and five other drug-related initiatives in four other states. The
drug-policy foundation's top donor, New York financier George Soros, also
supported the medical marijuana proposition.

No on 36 spokeswoman Jean Munoz said millionaires from The Lindesmith
Center were able to outspend their opponents 10 to 1, giving the voters the
false impression that the current system doesn't already allow for
treatment.

The top donor for the No on 36 campaign was Alex Spanos, owner of the San
Diego Chargers, who gave about $100,000.

Opponents are concerned that the initiative will undercut the power of
prosecutors, judges, and police and probation officers.

"The voters were misled," Munoz said.

But Nadelmann pointed out that even the opponents of Prop. 36 didn't do a
lot of campaigning against it. He said Feinstein didn't officially announce
her position on the issue until a few days before the election.

"Their heart wasn't in it," Nadelmann said.

Under Prop. 36, nonviolent defendants would be treated instead of
incarcerated after they are convicted of drug possession for the first or
second time. People convicted of violent offenses or other major crimes in
conjunction with drug possession could still be sent to prison.

AFFECTS UP TO 24,000 PEOPLE

The nonpartisan state analyst's report says that as many as 24,000
nonviolent drug-possession offenders would be diverted to drug treatment
instead of being sent to state prison. The treatment costs about $4,000 per
person in a typical year. A year of prison for one drug user costs about
$20,000.

Critics of the measure said that even if there is no legal challenge, there
will be appeals to the Legislature to make sure the structure is in place
to make Prop. 36 work.

And both sides agreed that there is more work to be done.

No on 36 spokeswoman Munoz said a system has to be put in place to
guarantee that treatment programs are monitored and held accountable. And
drug-court judge Manley said money for drug testing is "very important."

"Now the battle is going to be over implementation," said Nadelmann with
The Lindesmith Center. "This ($120 million) could do a lot of good or it
could be frittered away."

I Jim Herron Zamora of The Examiner staff contributed to this report.