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."