LEGALIZATION MOVEMENT WANTS TO LEAVE DRUG COURTS OUT

Just two months ago I completed "Rational Drug Policy Reform: A Resource
Guide" (see ADAW June 4). What we then knew of the next generation of drug
legalization initiatives, their proponent's intent, and which states would
be targeted was largely speculative.

Since then, we have learned a great deal that may make a difference in how
substance abuse worker/practitioners react, as legalization proponents move
to consolidate and expand their base, reach out to the media, and attempt
to make the drug policy reform issue their own.

The agenda of the Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation, (the major
funder of legalization initiatives) and its many client organizations in
promoting these initiatives has been a matter of concern, as states
consider the best means of dealing with these proposals.

Until recently, it could be argued that their intent was benign, amounting
to little more than the increasing of resources for treatment programs and
the fine-tuning of court-based rehabilitation systems. For example,
California's s successful initiative appeared to allow some room for the
court's involvement in the treatment process.

The question is how much flexibility is going to be found in the next
generation of initiatives? The answer seems to be clear. If the initiative
proponents get their way, there will be little if any court involvement.

We now know that Florida, Ohio, and Michigan are the immediate targets for
drug reform ballot initiatives. These initiatives go far beyond anything
contemplated in California's Proposition 36.

If passed as presently drafted, they would essentially remove the court
from its traditional role as monitor of treatment accountability. While all
three state initiatives are dissimilar in some aspects, they are clear in
their intent to give treatment providers full responsibility for treatment
and monitoring of the drug-dependent offender.

For example, in both the Ohio and Michigan initiative drafts, there is a
provision that would prohibit any requirement that a program participant
waive treatment confidentiality as a condition of participation in the program.

That means that a treatment provider would be prohibited by federal law
from divulging any treatment information to the court, including drug-test
results, if a participant declines to sign a waiver, virtually eliminating
the court's monitoring capability.

While some may argue that the responsibility for treatment accountability
ought to rest with treatment, experience and science tell us otherwise. A
recently published book, Hooked: Five Addicts Challenge our Misguided Drug
Rehab System" [New Press], written by Lonnie Shavelson, a medical doctor
and journalist, chronicled the experiences of five drug addicts trying to
access drug treatment in San Francisco (see ADAW, June 4).

Shavelson followed the addicts for two years as they were stymied in their
attempts to receive effective drug treatment by the treatment programs
themselves and the bureaucracies that surrounded them.

Shavelson found that the only part of the San Francisco treatment system
that wasn't dysfunctional and was in fact effective in coordinating
treatment services and working with the drug addict was the San Francisco
Drug Court.

Shavelson concludes, "The rehab methods employed by our drug courts provide
an ideal model for successful drug treatment". This book is a critical read
for all concerned with the growing movement to remove the court as an
active partner in the treatment process.

Judge Tauber is the executive director of the Center for Problem Solving
Courts (CPSC) and the former executive director of the National Association
of Drug Court Professionals. For more information on this topic, visit the
Center for Problem Solving Courts (CPSC's) Web site at:
www.problemsolvingcourts.com