PROPOSITION 36 NEUTERS DRUG COURTS

PROPOSITION 36 looks and sounds good, but -- as is often the case -- the
devil is in the details.

It is easy to agree that, "The War on Drugs has been a disaster and it's
time to change the way we deal with nonviolent drug offenders."

Many of us share the sentiment and the goal of sentencing "convicted"
first- and second-time "nonviolent drug possession offenders" to probation
revolving around drug treatment instead of county jail or prison.

After all, "California is spending more money on prisons than on schools,"
the liturgy goes. And, according to Proposition 36 proponents and the
legislative analyst, "24,000 nonviolent drug possession offenders per year
would be diverted to drug treatment in the community instead of being sent
to state prison."

Passing Proposition 36 could save California $250 million a year for prison
operations, $550 million in prison construction, $25 million in parole
costs and $40 million for jail operations. The state would provide counties
with $60 million in drug treatment funding the first year and $120 million
each year thereafter until 2006.

Unfortunately, Proposition 36 also could neuter existing drug courts that
are already doing some of what it proposes to do with built-in
accountability and judicial enforcement.

Alameda, Contra Costa and San Mateo counties are among the 46 counties with
drug courts. Having sprung up within the past decade, such courts take a
team approach to drug treatement by involving judges, prosecutors, defense
attorneys, treatment specialists and probation officers in a collaborative
effort to address both a person's problems and underlying causes.

Prosecutors and judges use discretion to tailor the court's approach to
individual needs and apply sanctions if users violate treatment terms.
Judges Peggy Hora and Dick Iglehart, who preside over Alameda County
courts, fear their authority and discretion would be compromised by
Proposition 36. The current system offers a flexible, tough approach with
frequent testing and monitoring. Nationally it has had a 70 percent success
rate with 100,000 offenders. National drug czar Barry McCaffrey fears that
under Proposition 36 drug courts would be "dismantled from within."

Unfortunately, courts are treating too few drug users. We need to make a
state commitment to this effective, existing approach without removing the
judicial hammer that insures patient accountability and compliance. Rather
than scrapping them, we prefer to see more money put into drug courts.

State investment in treatment at the community and prison levels is also
needed. Judge Iglehart says there are only a few good drug treatment
programs to which he can send offenders. Returning thousands of offenders
to the streets without proven treatment programs could multiply, not
reduce, drug and crime problems. And, demand might give birth to
fly-by-night clinics with mere pretenses of treating users.

A better approach is for the state to fund strong prison and countywide
drug treatment programs. Counseling in California prisons is practically
nonexistent and quality programs in communities limited in number.

Tom Orloff, Alameda County district attorney and president of the
California D.A. association, says Proposition 36 offers first- and
second-time nonviolent drug offenders "less treatment and less effective
treatment" than drug courts.

He also fears Proposition 36 would swamp county courts with drug users.
Most have limited court facilities and time -- Alameda County takes only
about 250 felony cases to trial each year -- and couldn't handle the
increased volume. Thus, most drug cases might be dismissed in order to
prosecute more serious crimes.

Jeff Rubin, deputy D.A. under Orloff, also is suspicious of the "24,000 a
year" prison figure for nonviolent offenders. Alameda County has sent about
150 to prison for possession in the past five years. A random sample of 32
found that each defendant would have gone to prison on a more serious
charge, if not possession.

Possession charges are routinely pleaded down from more serious offenses.
Behind most drug possession sentencings are burglary, robbery, drug
dealing, assault or other serious crimes that carry much heavier sentences
without plea bargaining.

A National Institute of Justice's Arrestee and Drug Abuse Monitoring report
says that two-thirds of the adults and more than half the juveniles
arrested test positive for at least one illicit drug.

One of the most troubling statements by Prop. 36 proponents was that during
the "first few years everybody is treated as a first offender." Addicted or
not, with or without a drug-related record, Prop. 36 would "wipe the slate
clean...treat prior drug offenses as not occurring."

That is a no way to start. We agree with the need for more and better
treatment, but prefer to expand and improve drug courts. Vote no on
Proposition 36.