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.