PROPOSITION 36 WOULD REHAB THE DRUG WAR

"If it were your child, you'd prefer treatment over jail." That
simple statement, made by Rep. Tom Campbell, R-Campbell, in a debate
with Sen. Dianne Feinstein last month, is the essence as to why
voters should pass Proposition 36, the ballot measure that would
mandate treatment over incarceration for most people convicted of
drug possession.

In the official ballot argument, opponents argue that Proposition 36
``decriminalizes heroin and other hard drugs.'' Not true. Drug
dealers would remain subject to the same tough state laws. Offenders
who repeatedly wash out of treatment would be jailed. Many ex-cons
with a violent or serious felony on their record would be subject to
prison if they're caught possessing drugs. People who commit crimes
on drugs can be jailed for those crimes.

But most users won't go to jail or prison. The nonpartisan
legislative analyst estimates that if 36 passes, each year as many as
36,000 nonviolent drug offenders would enter treatment programs
instead of cells. This is as it should be. Incarcerating individuals
to save them from self-destructive behavior does not make sense. The
punishment exceeds the crime.

The Yes on 36 folks argue that it is better to treat drug users than
to have them spend time with hardened criminals. The No on 36 folks
tend to agree, but argue that the threat of incarceration is key to
helping chronic addicts get and stay clean. ``What does work requires
sanctions, carrots and sticks and it requires drug testing and
frequent reviews and accountability,'' explained Judge Stephen V.
Manley, president of the California Association of Drug Court
Professionals.

Manley also fears that despite the measure's promise to set aside
$120 million annually for drug treatment programs, judges won't have
the leverage -- the threat of prison time -- to force addicts into
residential treatment programs.

``In the first 30 days, people are not convinced that they need to be
in a program,'' explained Johnnie Lewis of the successful SISTER drug
treatment program in Oakland. If drug courts can't pressure addicts
into such programs, she fears, those who need residential treatment
the most won't accept it.

The fact remains that even perfunctory outpatient treatment is a more
humane response to drug use than prison.

What's more, while opponents argue that 36 is misleading, they're no
pikers in the misleading department. Watch what will happen if 36
passes. Today, opponents say that 36 would tie their hands and
prevent them from incarcerating users who don't stay clean during
rehabilitation; next year, they'll be citing language in the law that
allows them to do just that. Yes on 36 spokesman Dave Fratello noted,
``The night after the election, I'm sure that most of our opponents
will embrace this law and make it work.''

San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Brown figures that the measure
will end a ``disparity of sentencing'' so that first-time offenders
won't be sentenced to prison mainly because they went before the
wrong judge or lived in the wrong county.

To go by the legislative analyst's numbers, a lot of users have been
to the wrong judge or county.

It's also important that this measure pass because it would send a
message to Washington and Sacramento that voters want more than harsh
sentences, they want smart sentencing. Let violent criminals do hard
time, but don't incarcerate nonviolent drug users who stand convicted
of no other crime. It's a waste of their lives and -- with an annual
cost of more than $21,000 per inmate -- taxpayer resources.

``If you show that the voters can get behind a smart, different drug
policy,'' Fratello noted, ``that's going to help politicians grow a
backbone.''