DEBATE RAGES OVER DRUG MEASURE

Prop. 36 Would Offer Some Addicts Shot At Treatment Over Prison

America's war on drugs will enter a new battlefield Nov. 7 when California
voters decide whether convicted drug addicts should go to prison or to
drug-treatment programs.

Proponents say Proposition 36 will devote $120 million annually to provide
much-needed drug treatment for tens of thousands of drug addicts in
California, many of whom are serving time in state prisons for drug-related
crimes.

Opponents contend the ballot measure will legalize hard-core drugs like
methamphetamine, crack cocaine and PCP and damage the state's budding
drug-court program, which requires that defendants undergo drug testing and
carries the threat of incarceration for failed drug tests.

Proposition 36 supporters and opponents may disagree over the impact that
the ballot measure will have, but no one disputes the fact that
California's prison gates have become revolving doors for thousands of
convicted drug abusers. Today, nearly 20,000 people are in state prisons
for simple drug possession, and even more are on parole.

The costs to the state have been enormous: $24,000 a year to house each
inmate, and hundreds of millions of dollars to build new prisons.

There are also the human costs in violence and property loss, in lost
opportunities and wasted lives, that stem from substance abuse.

Seeking treatment

Sharon Padilla knows a lot about wasted opportunities. Padilla, 33, is in a
substance-abuse program at the Northern California Women's Facility
southeast of Stockton. The slender, dark-haired woman is a recovering
heroin addict who started using drugs when she was 13.

Padilla, a self-described "dope fiend," thinks that if she had gotten into
a drug-treatment program earlier in life, she might not be in prison today.
It's her 12th time behind bars.

If the passage of Proposition 36 means there will be more drug-treatment
programs available for addicts, it's a good idea, she said in a recent
interview at the prison.

"I've asked (for drug treatment) in the past, even before I started state
time (in prison)," she said. "I said, 'Look, I'm an addict, I need help.'
But with my record, they didn't feel a program was going to work."

Padilla had spent so much time in jail and prison that law enforcement
officials assumed she would not be likely to change her ways, said Velda
Dobson, a correctional counselor who oversees the substance-abuse program
at the women's prison.

"They don't think there's hope for her," Dobson said. "She's never been
given the opportunity or tools for change."

Those tools are being made increasingly more available in state prisons,
where 8,000 beds are designated for substance-abuse treatment. That's in
addition to community drug-treatment programs to which defendants are sent
from drug courts.

The women's prison on Arch Road has 200 beds for substance-abuse treatment,
half for inmates who will be released in less than a year. Many inmates
head to residential programs after their parole to reinforce the lessons
and skills learned in the prison substance-abuse program.

The program, which started a year ago, has a fairly impressive recidivism
rate so far, Dobson said. Out of 300 to 400 inmates who have graduated from
the short-term substance-abuse program, only 14 have returned to prison.
The long-term program has graduated 150 inmates, of whom only two have
returned, she said.

More programs needed

Prison substance-abuse programs meet only a tiny fraction of the need, said
Dave Fratello, campaign manager for Proposition 36.

"We should give treatment to people in prison, but we should not put people
in prison in order to give them treatment," he said. "It's not necessary,
and it's not the only way to be effective."

Proposition 36 funds would pay for additional drug-treatment programs,
which would be licensed and certified, Fratello said. Even though the
ballot measure does not specify which agency will be responsible for
certification, the assumption is that the state Department of Alcohol and
Drug Programs, which now certifies substance-abuse programs, would be the
certifying agency, he said.

Judges would be responsible for choosing responsible drug-treatment
programs, Fratello said.

"You would not send someone to Joe's Treatment Program because Joe put up a
shingle. You would have to have a critical failure of government and
judicial systems for anyone to end up in a slipshod program."

Under Proposition 36, defendants who plead guilty to simple drug possession
and have no other convictions such as violence or use of a firearm would be
eligible for diversion to the program. Judges would not be able to send
them to prison unless they were "unamendable" to treatment or had failed
drug-treatment programs two or more times. With a successful completion of
the program, the person's felony conviction could be erased.

It's the lack of incarceration, and a lack of drug testing, that make
Proposition 36 a poor solution, said Jean Munoz, a spokeswoman for
Californians United Against Drug Abuse, which is leading the campaign
against Proposition 36.

Munoz notes that a study by American University asked drug-court graduates
what kept them in treatment. Nine out of 10 cited the threat of jail
sanctions, and 87 percent referred to frequent drug testing.

"If it's (Proposition 36) about treatment, why not include funding for drug
testing? Why limit treatment to 12 months? Why eliminate the sanction of
incarceration, which is known to be an effective tool in helping addicts
overcome their addiction?" she said.

Under Proposition 36, judges still retain the ability to send drug abusers
to jail or prison, but only after the addict has failed several attempts at
recovery, Fratello said.

Even though the measure's language prohibits using Proposition 36 for drug
testing, judges can still order tests funded by other sources, he said.

"A lot of money is spent on supervision, but little is spent on treatment.
We were afraid this money would similarly get eaten up by a lot of drug
testing and not be used for expanding drug programs," Fratello said.

Long waiting lists

The state Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs reports that 6,806 people
were in residential programs funded by public dollars at the end of the
past fiscal year, with a waiting list of 2,500 people.

The department has issued licenses to more than 600 residential
drug-treatment facilities statewide.

One such facility is New Directions, a substance-abuse treatment program
east of Stockton that houses 55 addicts but has a waiting list just as long.

If the state continues putting resources into rehabilitation instead of
incarceration, Proposition 36 would not be needed, said Dale Benner,
executive director of New Directions.

The state has come to recognize that recovering addicts are not likely to
succeed if they are released with no suitable homes or means of support, so
they are directed to residential programs that focus on developing job
skills and employability, Benner said.

"When we started nine years ago, the 'lock 'em up and throw away the key'
mind-set was the prevailing one," he said. "We're moving away from building
more prisons into finding what does work."

Proposition 36's three key bankrollers are George Soros, a New York
financier; John Sperling, founder of University of Phoenix; and Peter
Lewis, a Cleveland insurance executive, all of whom have underwritten
campaigns in other states to change drug policies.

Contributions to the Proposition 36 campaign to date total nearly $2.9 million.

That's more than 13 times the amount of money raised by Proposition 36
opponents. No on 36's biggest contributor is Stockton developer Alex
Spanos, who gave $100,000.

It's a mixed bag of opponents and advocates: Republican Senate candidate
Tom Campbell is one of the few members of the GOP to come out in favor of
Proposition 36, which is opposed by the state Republican Party, judges,
prosecutors and even liberal Democrats like actor Martin Sheen, whose son
Charles Sheen has been jailed for substance abuse.

Supporters include the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, the
California Society of Addiction Medicine and the California Association of
Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors.

There are flaws in the current judicial system, acknowledged San Joaquin
County District Attorney John Phillips.

"Any prosecutor will tell you treatment is preferable to incarceration.
That's just common sense. Incarceration does not seem to have solved our
problem," he said.

Proposition 36 is not the answer, however, Phillips said. He contends it
will lead to the decriminalization of hard drugs, a contention that the
measure's supporters say is not true.

Expanding the drug-court system is one solution, but that requires more
resources, Phillips said.

That expansion already has started, albeit at a slow pace, said Superior
Court Judge Rolleen McIlwrath, who oversees San Joaquin County's drug court.

"It takes time for a good idea to prove itself economically as drug courts
have now done," she said, noting that the California Legislature added
money this year to help fund county drug courts.

About 11 percent of drug-court graduates return to custody, compared to
more than half of prison inmates released on parole.

Prison alone and treatment alone are not nearly as successful as a
treatment program that retains the threat of incarceration while teaching
new life skills, McIlwrath said.

"You're getting people to change their lifestyles, not just give up their
substance abuse," she said.

Inmate Sharon Padilla expects to be paroled from the women's prison near
Stockton on Oct. 26, 13 days before voters will cast their ballots on
Proposition 36. As a convicted felon, she won't be one of them -- but as a
recovering drug addict, she thinks she should be allowed to help decide the
ballot measure's fate.

"I feel bad that I can't vote," she said. "Law-abiding citizens will be the
ones to check that box. But they should allow those of us who live it to
vote on it."

To reach reporter Nancy Price, phone 546-8276 or e-mail nprice@recordnet.com