TAKING RESPONSIBILITY

As legislators and the Dean administration work to formulate a new and more
comprehensive program for combating drug abuse, they would do well to look
at the experience of California.

A story in The New York Times describes the dilemma that California voters
have created through passage of Proposition 36, which mandates drug
treatment instead of incarceration for first- and second-time drug users.
Passage of the proposition reflects voter frustration with the inadequacy
of imprisonment as a way to address the drug problem. Nevertheless,
California's new mandated treatment programs have forced the state to
confront the programs' complexity and cost.

Vermont is among those states now looking at expansion of drug treatment as
a way to stem the increasing tide of hard drugs, particularly heroin. It
will be important for Vermont to recognize that, as in California, the cost
may be high but that models for success exist.

California began to change its thinking about drugs after voters realized
they were paying more for jails than for higher education. Between 1980 and
2000, the number of convicts rose from about 30,000 to 161,000, largely
because of drug enforcement.

It turns out, however, that Californians are facing a number of problems in
implementing Proposition 36. For one thing, the new law does not have a
mechanism for ensuring that defendants actually take part in treatment or
for subjecting them to drug testing.

Still, those trying to put Proposition 36 into effect have some models of
success to follow, notably Los Angeles County, where drug courts that had
placed addicts in treatment reported a 75 percent success rate. One of the
keys to the Los Angeles County program, according to the New York Times
story, is that drug court judges retain jurisdiction over the defendant and
that if they fail to take part, they go back to jail. In addition to
intensive treatment, the program also provides for an extended period of
probation and drug testing four times a week.

All of that costs a lot of money, and one of the obstacles to spending a
lot of money on drug treatment has always been the sense that the drug
addict's problem is of his own making and that there are many more
worthwhile uses for public money.

There are two answers. First, even if addicts are not particularly
deserving, there are other reasons for addressing the drug problem. For
example, we are wasting an enormous amount of money on corrections and law
enforcement. And curbing the drug problem makes our communities safer. So
even if we resent giving addicts something for free, it may be in our own
interest to do so.

Second, the drug problem has international ramifications. America's
appetite for drugs is corrupting Mexico, Colombia, and other Latin American
countries. American troops and hundreds of millions of dollars are being
drawn into the war in Colombia and Ecuador. But America's appetite for
drugs is as much a part of the problem as the willingness of suppliers to
feed that appetite. Effective programs to curb drug usage would be a sign
we were willing to accept responsibility for our part in the drug dilemma.

Though the dimension of the drug problem in Vermont is much smaller than in
California, there is no doubt that a comprehensive approach would still be
costly. Now is a good time for the Legislature and Gov. Howard Dean to
throw away old models and to expand their vision, to embrace the need for
real solutions, and to face up to our responsibilities.