BUT PROPOSITION 36 ISN'T THE WAY TO DO IT

CALIFORNIA leads the nation in its zeal for locking up drug addicts. Over
the past 20 years, we've increased 20-fold the number of people sent to
prison for drug possession.

Yet tougher sentencing for drug offenses has not reduced crime or drug use.
It has merely packed our prisons with addicts who continue to use drugs
while they learn to be hardened criminals.

The only way to get addicts off drugs is to get them into drug treatment.
Treatment doesn't always work, but it's our best hope. In California only a
fraction of addicts get treatment.

So when a ballot proposition comes along that appropriates $120 million a
year for drug treatment, it's hard to oppose it. We can't imagine our
``tough on crime'' governor and Legislature coming up with that kind of
money to help addicts.

Proposition 36 on the Nov. 7 ballot would mandate treatment instead of
incarceration for first- and second-time offenders convicted of drug
possession. It would divert up to 37,000 addicts from jails and prisons and
would save the state as much as $500 million over time, according to the
Legislative Analyst.

Yet we cannot support Proposition 36. The money is tempting, but the
changes the proposition makes to state law would be devastating to current
successful treatment efforts.

As Proposition 36 proponent Dave Fratello explains, this measure would
require judges to sentence most of those convicted of simple drug
possession to treatment. Defendants would get two chances to complete
treatment programs. If they failed twice, they'd go to jail for 30 days
and, under some circumstances, could go to prison for up to three years.

Unfortunately, experience shows that addicts who are ordered to go to
treatment usually don't complete it the first time -- or the second time.
That's why California has special drug courts, where judges closely
supervise drug users and jail them overnight if they test positive for
drugs or fail to show up at their treatment programs.

This ``shock incarceration'' is considered the judges' most powerful tool
to get an addict's attention and cooperation.

Drug courts serve only a fraction of those who need treatment because they
are woefully under-funded. But there's no question that they work.
Proposition 36 would seriously undermine drug courts because it forbids
judges to send addicts to jail until they've flunked out of treatment
twice. And then it's too late for treatment because, under this measure,
the court can declare them ``unamenable to treatment'' and ship them off to
prison, where they are unlikely to get any treatment. Proposition 36
includes no money for treatment in jail or prison.

Superior Court Judge Stephen Manley, who runs a drug court in Santa Clara
County, is fighting hard to defeat Proposition 36. He sees addicts
routinely who fail several times before they finally get serious about
treatment.

``Given a choice, addicts won't choose treatment,'' he said. ``Drug courts
were created because voluntary treatment didn't work. We don't need more
money for something that doesn't work.''

Manley is one of about 180 judges in the state who oppose Proposition 36.
That's in addition to many drug-treatment professionals and addicts
themselves campaigning against the proposition.

Last week the head of Phoenix House, the nation's largest drug treatment
provider, warned that Proposition 36 would ``undermine the drug courts and
all the state has done to reduce drug use by California's most
drug-troubled citizens.''

In his defense of Proposition 36, Fratello points out that drug courts
serve only a very small number of offenders. That's true. But the right
answer is to appropriate more money for drug courts, not scrap the
drug-court model for one that doesn't work.

This year the Legislature appropriated $18 million for drug courts. Make
that $120 million and we will be getting somewhere.

Proposition 36 proponents call their measure an experiment because it only
appropriates money for five years. True, the money runs out in 2006, but
the law would stay on the books unless two-thirds of the Legislature voted
to amend it.

Proponents point to a similar measure that passed in Arizona in 1996 as a
great success. Arizona's Proposition 200 has saved the state money, but
it's too early to tell whether it is getting addicts off drugs.

Proposition 36 opponents have been disingenuous, too. They say dangerous
felons will be roaming the streets if it passes, and the courts will be
clogged with cases that now are plea-bargained. They warn that residential
treatment centers will pop up in every neighborhood.

We don't buy the scare tactics. If Proposition 36 passes, the worst that
will happen is that addicts will be caught in yet another revolving door,
failing in treatment and going in and out of jail.

The Legislature will decline to put money into drug testing -- Proposition
36 dollars can't be used for testing -- and that will cripple efforts to
hold addicts accountable. Californians will declare treatment a failure and
go back to the lock-'em-up model.

Why risk that outcome? Vote No on Proposition 36. Then pressure the
governor and the Legislature to put more money into drug courts.