MEDDLING TYCOONS OR VISIONARY ACTIVISTS? 3 Push Drug Initiative Supporters call them visionary philanthropists, men with the courage to fuel a nationwide debate on a topic most politicians are too afraid to discuss: the failed drug war. Critics call them meddling millionaires and billionaires who are spending their fortunes on a quest to legalize drugs. Others just call them successful. So far, this trio of tycoons, led by New York financier George Soros, has succeeded in passing 12 of the 13 ballot measures on drug policy they have funded across the nation. One of those successes was California's Proposition 215, which legalized marijuana for medical use in 1996. Now the three are back in California, putting an initiative before voters next month that would overhaul the way the state deals with drug offenders. Under Proposition 36, nonviolent defendants would be treated instead of incarcerated after they are convicted of drug possession for the first or second time. The measure also would provide $120 million a year to bolster rehabilitation programs. The California measure, the threesome's most ambitious political fight to date, is only a small part of a nationwide agenda that includes five other drug-related initiatives in November. Soros also is bankrolling a research institute that examines new ways of dealing with drug-related problems and is funding lobbying efforts across the nation. Last month, his center opened an office in Sacramento. Opponents of Proposition 36 have tried to make Soros and the others, Cleveland insurance mogul Peter Lewis and University of Phoenix founder John Sperling, the top issue in the campaign. The three have been derided as out-of-state liberals trying to force drug legalization on Californians. ''Their agenda is clear,'' said Larry Brown, executive director of the California District Attorneys Association, a leading opponent of Proposition 36. ''They want to legalize drugs.'' Soros, who declined to be interviewed, explained his views in a 1997 newspaper column. ''I am not for legalizing hard drugs,'' he wrote. ''I am just as concerned about keeping drugs away from my children as any responsible parent. But I firmly believe that the war on drugs is doing more harm than good.'' Soros' adviser on drug policy, Ethan Nadelmann, said none of the measures Soros has supported would legalize drugs. Instead, he said, Soros' efforts are devoted to reducing the harm done not just by drugs but by the war on drugs. ''Our overall mission is to reduce the negative consequences of drug use and drug prohibition,'' Nadelmann said. ''We recognize that both will continue for the foreseeable future.'' They say the harm ranges from prisons bursting with nonviolent drug offenders, who are disproportionately members of minorities, to the spread of HIV and other infectious diseases through the use of dirty needles. Men behind measure Soros, a New York financier worth about $5 billion, is a Hungarian-American Jew who survived the Nazi roundup in 1944 and then immigrated to America, where he amassed a fortune as a currency speculator. In the 1980s, he emerged as one of the nation's leading philanthropists, giving more than $1 billion to help Eastern Europe and Russia. In 1994, he turned his giving toward the United States, investing in research on welfare, services for legal immigrants and new approaches toward compassionate care for the dying. In the mid-1990s, he pledged millions to promote new drug policies. ''Our drug policy is insane,'' he told Time magazine. ''And no politician can stand up and say what I'm saying because it's the third rail instant electrocution.'' The second backer of Proposition 36, Sperling, is a one-time San Jose State University professor who founded a for-profit higher education company that operates the University of Phoenix, which is aimed at midcareer professionals. Lewis, the third backer, is head of Progressive Corp., a Cleveland-based auto insurer, the fifth-largest in the nation. In a newspaper column, Soros said he once used marijuana but no longer does. Lewis was arrested earlier this year in New Zealand on charges of possession of marijuana, but charges against him were dropped after he contributed to a rehabilitation center, reported The Plain Dealer in Cleveland. Nadelmann, a former Princeton political science professor, acknowledges that some in his movement support the eventual decriminalization of marijuana. He said he believes in decriminalizing drugs. ''Adults should not be punished for what they do to their own bodies,'' he said. ''They should be punished for the harm they cause others.'' The movement he leads, however, is encouraging less-dramatic policy changes, including providing heroin addicts access to methadone, supporting needle-exchange programs and reducing sentences for drug users. In the past year, the Lindesmith Center, which Nadelmann directs, has prompted changes in laws in New York, New Hampshire and Rhode Island to allow people to buy syringes without a prescription. They argue that making syringes more readily available cuts down on the spread of diseases, including HIV, among addicts. The center's new Sacramento office wants California to pass a similar law. California is one of the last states to require syringe prescriptions. Proposition 36, Nadelmann said, addresses one of the important missions of Soros' movement: getting government to view drug addiction as a health problem rather than a criminal justice problem. Soros has spent between $5 million and $6 million supporting political movements, Nadelmann said. Nadelmann said that each member of the trio is likely to donate up to $1 million in favor of Proposition 36. IN THE WORKS The group also is supporting medical marijuana measures on the ballots in Nevada and Colorado and initiatives in front of voters in Oregon, Utah and Massachusetts that would require asset forfeiture proceeds from drug-related arrests to go toward drug treatment and education. Another November ballot measure, one that would legalize marijuana in Alaska, is not supported by this group. That measure is losing in opinion polls. Since 1996, the three tycoons have compiled a strong record. Their only loss was a drug diversion measure in Washington in 1997. Nadelmann said the explanation is easy. ''We don't move forward with a ballot initiative unless there's strong evidence that the public will support it,'' he said. ''The public is way ahead of the politicians on this one.'' In addition, he said, the group hires experienced consultants, including Bill Zimmerman, who has directed both California efforts. Opponents say Soros and his partners buy their victories. The three dramatically outspent their opponents in the 1996 campaign to pass Arizona's Proposition 200, about $1.5 million to $30,000. ''The other side overwhelmed us with commercials,'' said Barnett Lotstein, special assistant county attorney in Phoenix's Maricopa County. ''It was extremely frustrating.'' Lotstein said supporters misled voters by contending that the proposition was an attempt to get tough on drugs, instead of an effort to ease drug laws and mandate diversion for users. Proponents had a similar spending advantage in passing California's Proposition 215. In the latest reporting period, which covers June through September, backers of Proposition 36 raised $1.7 million, while opponents collected $104,000. The measure's backers have never before faced a well-funded campaign. So far, San Diego Chargers owner Alex Spanos, who donated $100,000, has provided the lion's share of the anti-Proposition 36 money. That could change. A representative of the powerful California prison guards' union has said his organization plans to spend ''serious'' money to defeat Proposition 36. So far, the union has chipped in $25,000.
No member comments available...
|