DRUG COURT COULD PROVIDE THE STICK NEEDED FOR PROP. 36

For all its good intentions to treat drug addicts as people with social
problems rather than as criminals can Proposition 36 work? Moreover,
does San Bernardino County have the will and the wherewithal to make it
work?

Law enforcement officers, for the most part, opposed the measure that
makes drug treatment, rather than incarceration, state law. While most
of them favor drug treatment if it works, they say that Proposition 36
is too lenient to make drug offenders overcome their addiction. And they
fear that drug offenders undergoing treatment will continue to commit
crimes while on probation, since they won't be locked up and can't even
be threatened with being locked up.

We believe these misgivings are absolutely right.

Indeed, it already has been long established that drug abuse has boosted
the number of burglaries, robberies, petty thefts and clandestine drug
labs, vastly increasing the workload of practically every police
department and sheriff's station in San Bernardino County.

Is drug addiction a problem for the courts or the public health sector?
Each could play a constructive role, but we don't see Proposition 36
leading to that sane balance.

San Bernardino County's nationally acclaimed drug court uses random drug
testing and the threat of jail time as the stick to keep addicts on the
straight and narrow. Proposition 36 would eliminate those tools.

Indeed, it was the lack of funding for drug treatment and removal of
judicial sanctions that convinced Judge Patrick Morris, founder of the
county's drug court, to oppose Proposition 36. Someone should have
listened.

"The critical component of drug testing was taken away," said Morris of
the impossible conundrum set up by Proposition 36. "You can't decipher
if someone is clean or sober. ... If all a judge can do is preach from
the bench, there is little motivation for the person to change their
behavior."

Therein lies the key to recovery. An addict must be self-motivated and
desire a change to be able to effect that change. Mandated drug
treatment alone, lacking any sanctions or reproof for failure, won't
convince every drug offender to stop using. Proposition 36 tends to
forget that crucial element.

But well-placed judicial prodding can be the niggling factor that helps
spur on an addict's motivation to quit.

Morris favors integrating those eligible under Proposition 36 into the
drug court model, so that defendants would get the benefits of jail
time, if all else fails, and of drug testing to effect their change to
sobriety.

Drug court judges then could offer a true chance at making
rehabilitation work by helping users to overcome their addiction, so
that they can restart their lives on an even keel.

And there is a further incentive for Morris. If the initiative fails,
conservatives will say the hypothesis of treatment as a cure doesn't
work, and they will push for mandatory jail time. Liberals, on the other
hand, will believe that the criminal justice system fails addicts and
will want the problem moved entirely to the public health arena and out
of the courts.

Both sides have cogent points. But both sides are wrong when they carry
their points to the extreme.

While substance abuse may be viewed as more of a social ill than a
criminal offense, treating addicts requires the structured approach that
the courts provide.

That, of course, will take money something the county doesn't have.

The county Office of Alcohol and Drug Programs estimates that it will
take $20 million a year for the county to implement the strictures of
Proposition 36. But the state is only providing a portion of that money
$2.7 million in seed money and another $5.3 million or so when the law
takes effect July 1.

Superior Court Presiding Judge Roberta McPeters maintains that there
isn't the staff or the money to carry out the kind of drug court model
that Morris advocates. Money being sent from the state won't begin to
cover what's needed.

That admission is the first step toward failure.

So far, the county Board of Supervisors has approved $1.3 million to
cover additional prosecutors, public defenders and some court costs not
covered by Proposition 36. But that still leaves the county several
million dollars shy on court, probation and treatment expenses.

Each county is pretty much on its own to find ways to make the program
work.

It would behoove San Bernardino County, which has the benefit of a
tried-and-true drug court model of its own, to put that valuable
resource to work on behalf of those whose lives will be dramatically
affected by Proposition 36.

What it will take is better training of judges, so that they recognize
how to handle addicts and keep them engaged in the system, Morris said.

Having a centralized court calendar, which groups drug offenders
together on the court docket, also would be a help in streamlining the
process.

In the long run, that would be a cost-effective expenditure of front
money. Even giving it the benefit of a doubt, we see Proposition 36 as a
likely flop, but failing to adhere as closely as possible to the already
established drug court model compounds the likelihood of failure,
setting the stage for a massive misadventure with taxpayers' money.