PULLING OUT In curbing the Drug War, withdrawing the troops is a complicated matter. This November a measure on the California ballot, Proposition 36, would throw people convicted of simple drug possession into treatment rather than jail. While the details of the measure are proving to be a complicated matter, the terms of the debate show how far the discussion of drug issues has come in recent years. Five additional states have followed since California and Arizona made marijuana legal for medical purposes in 1996, and now California is ready to take the lead again with this new initiative to provide help to drug users instead of punishment. As with previous initiatives, financial backing comes from philanthropist George Soros as well a few other well-off libertarians. Opposition to the initiative ranges from the prison guards' union to the popular, if fictional, Democratic president Martin Sheen, who was commissioned to do a few television spots. While there are many arguments in favor of Proposition 36, what's interesting are the arguments being used against it. While the California Correctional Peace Officers Association has an obvious financial interest in keeping the prisons full of drug offenders, they are far from alone within the law-enforcement community in opposing the measure. They are joined by virtually every other major law-enforcement group in the state, including district attorneys, drug-court judges, and police chiefs. The twist is that virtually all of their arguments accept the premise that the Drug War, as we know it, is a failure. Though some of the arguments are still based on the fundamental assumption that drug use must be punished with jail time for the good of society, many of the arguments are more concerned with procedural questions. For instance, the measure makes it more difficult for judges to threaten those in treatment with jail time or to order drug tests. Drug court judges, who in California already exercise the authority to send offenders to treatment rather than jail, argue that these restrictions prevent them from using the treatment option effectively by forcing offenders to take treatment seriously. Others in the law-enforcement community argue that drug dealers would be let off because many dealers receive plea bargains down to simple possession. Still others argue that there are not enough treatment facilities in California and that the measure doesn't provide sufficient safeguards to ensure that participating treatment facilities are qualified. Some have even argued that the language of the law would legalize possession of date-rape drugs. All of these arguments, whether persuasive or not, at least express valid concerns. And they have one other important positive trait in common: They don't oppose the premise of Proposition 36. The arguments don't question whether or not treatment is preferable to jail time for possession offenses; they only question whether or not Proposition 36 achieves this end in an appropriate way. As Ethan Nadelmann, head of the Soros-funded, anti-Drug War Lindesmith Center puts it, "Almost everyone is forced to give at least lip-service to treatment instead of incarceration." The question is, as he adds, "will this lip-service ever translate into action?" Despite the heckling of its opponents, it seems that Proposition 36 will indeed be made law. Though opposed by many, the initiative has also received significant support. Several state medical associations, including the California Society of Addiction Medicine, have endorsed it. The California Nurses Association, the state AFL-CIO and a number of state politicians from both parties are all on board. Even the New York Times praised the measure in an editorial. With 54-28 percent of people supporting the proposition in a recent Los Angeles Times poll, its chances could scarcely look better. But even if it loses, it wins. Whether or not the measure's opponents actually share the same goals as its sponsors, they have been forced to engage on its proponent's terms. The political climate in California now dictates that simple possession of drugs is not a crime worthy of jail time. What a treatment-based approach to the drug problem might look like is an open question. Fortunately, though, the fact that such an approach must be taken has been established in California and Proposition 36 is one possible model for the future. Lindesmith's Nadelmann says that if the proposition passes his group and others will push similar initiatives around the country. Though medical marijuana has been a significant movement, Nadelmann says, if Proposition 36 passes, "it will be the greatest single leap forward in drug policy today."
No member comments available...
|