EASES PENALTIES

Prop. 36 Is Disguised Drug Legalization

One of the nation's foremost experts on substance abuse, Dr. Herbert
Kleber, says government support for drug treatment has been a "bipartisan
failure."

But the co-founder of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse
at Columbia University (CASA), who has worked in this field since 1961,
still opposes California's Proposition 36, even though it mandates $120
million a year for drug treatment. The reason? It would create a dangerous
trade-off: Treat-ment funding for decriminalization.

Under Proposition 36, judges could not send first-or second-time drug
offenders on probation to jail, which is how drug courts coerce addicts to
get clean. As a result, the initiative would dramatically reduce effective
sanctions that break through an addict's wall of denial.

Proposition 36 also bans spending the $120 million on drug testing. So, not
only would there be few consequences for addicts in treatment who relapse,
but there also would be no way to know if they relapse.

If addicts wanted to get rid of their disease, like cancer patients do,
Proposition 36 would be fine. But addiction is not like other diseases.
Most addicts don't want to get clean, says Kleber, who has written 200
research papers on the subject.

Drug-taking is still pleasurable for the addict. It's the people around the
addict -- his family, friends, employers and the rest of society -- who
suffer. Pressures from family, employers or the legal system may make the
addict suffer. But drugs themselves still bring pleasure. So, if we reduce
the consequences and testing for drug addicts, addicts won't quit, Kleber says.

"If, as under Proposition 36, you tell an addict he has to get convicted
three times before he goes to jail, he won't feel the need to do anything
until after the second arrest. He'll say, 'Terrific! Two
get-out-of-jail-free cards,' " says Kleber.

Voters should make no mistake about Proposition 36: It is a
decriminalization measure.

It is co-authored by the Lindesmith Center, a think-tank created by
billionaire financier George Soros, who believes drug laws are a violation
of drug users' human rights, as though they're an oppressed minority group.
The Lindesmith Center champions "harm reduction," a euphemism for
decriminalization, and argues for an end to "drug prohibition." The
campaign for Proposition 36 is financed by Soros, Cleveland insurance mogul
Peter Lewis and University of Phoenix founder John Sperling. The three have
who have spent millions pushing decriminalization and legalization causes.

Kleber believes this movement toward decriminalization and legalization
portends disaster. Decriminalization will make drugs more acceptable;
legalization will make them more accessible. Increased acceptability and
access will mean a lot more drug addicts, Kleber said.

"If current illegal drugs were legal, they'd actually be more appealing to
an addict than alcohol," he said. "Right now, we have about 15 million
alcoholics, 2.5 million cocaine addicts and a little less than 1 million
heroin addicts. If the latter two substances were readily available and
acceptable, the number of people addicted to them would rise to almost
parallel alcohol. I don't think we want 10 million coke addicts in this
country."