EXPAND SENSIBLE OPTION

The Washington Supreme Court last week ruled unanimously, and quite
sensibly, that defendants have no constitutional right to opt for drug
court in lieu of a potential felony conviction. It's clear that when the
Legislature allowed counties to establish drug courts, it did not mandate
their creation.

There was no merit to the argument that access to the drug court option is
an entitlement. An excellent argument can be made, however, both that drug
courts offer an economical alternative to prosecution and that treatment
can ultimately diminish the drug dependency that figures in the criminal
activity.

The most expensive possible option is incarceration. It's expensive to
taxpayers and to offenders. Not only are taxpayers saddled with room and
board and 24-hour maintenance of non-violent offenders who can make no
contribution to society behind bars, but also -- absent treatment -- a jail
term is only a temporary detour on a journey of drug dependence and perhaps
more crime to support that dependency.

Drug courts are successful because they address the cause -- not just the
results -- of offenders' behavior. They have demonstrated their success
across the country, reducing recidivism, drug use and costs, says Donald P.
Lay, the senior judge for the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

It's clear what the Legislature should do now: mandate and -- here's the
crucial part -- fund them in all 39 counties.

Offenders and taxpayers are entitled to a more sensible and less expensive
drug prosecution policy.