LAUDABLE DRUG LAW IS IRONIC

The compassionate attempt to put drug offenders into treatment programs
instead of jail sounded good to 60 percent of California voters who
passed Proposition 36 a year ago.

Ya gotta love those one-paragraph blurbs in our voter guides that tell
us all we need to know.

The funny thing was, some compassionate people already in the business
of getting addicts into treatment didn't like Proposition 36.

Specifically, people like Judge Patrick Morris and Judge Tara Reilly,
who oversee the Drug Court programs in San Bernardino and Redlands and
saw flaws in the new law.

They knew first-hand that people with drug problems often need more than
a mere invitation to clean up. Drug Court founded on the notion that
addicts need help, not incarceration has been successful, in part,
because it uses both the carrot (treatment) and the stick (threat of
short jail stays).

But so much for expertise.

Proposition 36, which takes effect July 1, is aimed at nonviolent,
first-time and second-time offenders. They are people who use or possess
relatively small amounts of controlled substances. They will be placed
on probation and recommended to a treatment program. No jail.

Proposition 36 has repositioned drug law, a laudable idea in that many
cases are a social ill, not a crime.

For offenders who act as if addiction is neither, however, it was a
gift. Addicts can fail the treatment process twice before a third arrest
puts them back into the criminal justice arena. Imagine all the time
that can buy an addict. Maybe a lifetime if he only gets caught twice.

How's that for compassion?

This week, Morris took one more swing. He addressed the county Board of
Supervisors, asking that its Proposition 36 program (each county can
fashion its own) more closely reflect the Drug Court approach, which
emphasizes frequent contacts between judges, offenders and
rehabilitation professionals. It orders individualized help. The coming
mass of Proposition 36 cases are unlikely to get such close attention.

Citing budget reasons, the board said no.

As it turns out, making it easier for addicts to remain addicts is just
one of several ironies with compassionate Proposition 36.

Drug Court now figures to be seen in a whole new light. Users who once
may have felt Drug Court was a merciful alternative to jail will now try
to avoid its dreaded impositions close monitoring and jail-if-you-fail.

Meanwhile, those prosecutors who still regard all drug offenses as
criminal and may once have seen Drug Court as a coddler of lawbreakers,
may now work to steer violators its way, tailoring charges to fit Drug
Court, not Proposition 36. Making a user/possessor accountable to a
judge like Morris is better than making him accountable only to his
conscience and will power.

We get the feeling a lot of Proposition 36 cases eventually will find
their way to Drug Court anyway, just a year, or even five years, later.
Hopefully, not too late.