INITIATIVE FAILS THE DRUG TEST

Proposition 36 is an extreme measure that would decriminalize some
hard-core drugs, strip California judges of discretionary power and gut
county drug courts.

It fails the test of responsible government and should be rejected by the
state's voters.

Its most serious flaws are the exclusive use of rehabilitation for most
nonviolent drug users and its less-serious view of heroin, PCP and crack
cocaine.

Proposition 36 would authorize $120 million per year for the next 5 years
for drug-treatment programs across the state. That's the upside; rehab is
an essential component in every addict's recovery and California could use
more resources in this area.

But, in reality, treatment without punishment yields limited results.

The best argument against this measure comes from San Joaquin County
Superior Court Judge Rolleen McIllwrath, who, writing Sunday on these
pages, said, "To treat addiction with no consequences for the addict's
behavior takes us right back to the past."

Drug courts, she goes on to write, point addicts toward a better future.

Among Proposition 36's other, serious flaws: it prevents using the money
for drug testing, the key to accountability and any successful program.

Those closest to drug users see the initiative as undoing the progress made
in drug treatment while perpetuating addiction.

While we applaud the measure's humane look at nonviolent drug users, it
falls so short of dealing effectively with the problem that it's almost scary.

Proposition 36 is a one-size-fits-all and extreme measure that will
undermine current efforts and endanger the public. Voters should reject it.