DRUG TREATMENT PLAN MAY BE BACK

A controversial proposal to allow some of Florida's nonviolent drug
offenders to receive treatment instead of jail time is dead for now, but
look for it to return with renewed vigor in 2004.

That's when the California-based Campaign for New Drug Policies expects to
try a second time to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that
would decriminalize an entire category of drug offenses.

After initiating similar programs in Arizona and California, the campaign
pulled out of Florida on April 17. Campaign officials said they left
because the state Supreme Court still has not ruled on the
constitutionality of the measure. Opponents said the group left because
their plan drew little support and would have been rejected by voters.

The plan was to put the question on November's ballot. It's part of a
national push to undo some of America's stringent drug laws. But as of
Thursday, the court had not ruled on the measure. Oral arguments in the
case were held in December.

The "dysfunctional review" resulted in a "pocket veto," said advocates of
the measure, including Harold Koenig, president of Satellite Beach's Help
Early Addicts Receive Treatment.

"The Bush people and people under his influence campaigned hard to have the
Supreme Court throw it off the ballot, because it's contrary to the
approach Bush has chartered," Koenig said. "It's unfortunate, because this
would have saved some lives."

Advocates such as Koenig said the measure would be a step in the right
direction in a state with tight budgets, dips in treatment spending and
overcrowded jails. But it drew vigorous opposition from Gov. Jeb Bush, the
law enforcement community and even treatment advocates.

"I am neither surprised nor sorry to see the backers of the initiative
leave Florida," Bush said. "It is evident by the absence of support by
treatment professionals that the backers of this did not appreciate what
constitutes effective treatment."

The ballot measure would have asked voters if people busted for drug
possession should automatically receive treatment, eliminating all
incarceration options. It would have targeted first- and second-time
offenders and capped treatment at 18 months.

Advocates argue the measure would have saved millions of dollars while
increasing treatment across the state. But a blanket program rife with
loose guidelines and little oversight would do more harm than good,
skeptics said.

Bush and some drug treatment advocates said neither funding nor
drug-testing guidelines were outlined in the measure. It also would have
removed the criminal justice system from the equation.

"Our position should make people take note of what this is," said John
Daigle, executive director of the Florida Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Association, which represents about 100 of Florida's treatment centers.
"This wasn't what it appeared to be."

Daigle had a number of concerns.

"It created a right to treatment, whether an individual needed it or not,"
he said. "So it would have backed up treatment facilities. There also was
no real requirement that they complete the treatment. And Florida has a
wide variety of diversion programs that are working pretty well."

If implemented, the Right to Treatment and Rehabilitation for Nonviolent
Drug Offenses would have worked similar to Proposition 36 in California,
said Whitney Taylor, leader of a watchdog group that monitors Proposition 36.

California voters approved the measure with 61 percent of the vote in 2000.

Treatment providers must be licensed by the state, and drug testing is
required in 56 of 58 counties, Taylor said. The program is funded with $120
million annually from the state's general fund. The California State
Legislative Analysts Office estimates it will save the state about $1.5
billion during a five-year period.

"Individuals are convicted of a crime," Taylor said. "They're still under
probation, so they have the monitoring of the criminal justice system. But
if we get them services and treatment, they no longer become part of the
revolving doors of the criminal justice system."

Programs are tailored to individual needs and last up to 18 months, Taylor
said. A similar program was passed in Arizona in 1996. A 1999 review by the
Arizona Supreme Court estimated the state saved more than $6 million in
prison costs by diverting offenders to treatment, which is funded with a
tax on alcohol.

Some like the program because of the savings, because prisons are full and
because they favor treating addiction as a public health issue, said Julie
Dybas, an administrator who oversees the program for the Arizona Supreme Court.

"The opponents, judges, prosecutors and law enforcement, don't like it
because there are offenders who are not without previous felonies," Dybas
said. "And you don't have the option for any jail time with a first-time
offender. Without that hammer, (opponents) don't feel like they have a lot
of options."

There also is a major loophole, Dybas said.

"If a first-time offender rejects treatment, ultimately there's nothing we
can do with them," she said.

Despite that, a similar program could help numerous Floridians, said
Taylor, who worked for the California campaign.

"There are many people who need treatment who are getting jail or prison,"
she said.

Jim McDonough, Bush's drug czar, said the measure was a veiled attempt to
legalize drugs. Bush said the program would not have provided valid
treatment and would have undermined existing treatment programs.

More than 40 percent of first-time offenders in Florida are sentenced to
drug courts, which doubled under Bush from 33 in 1999 to 66 today,
McDonough said. Addicts in drug courts are required to complete a rigorous
12-month treatment program in exchange for a clean criminal record.

Bush's daughter, Noelle, in treatment after an arrest on a charge of
prescription drug fraud, will eventually be processed through the drug
court system.

As governor, Bush worked to increase Florida's budget for drug enforcement
and treatment, which grew 59 percent in the three years he's been in
office. But spending hasn't consistently increased.

For example, parolees and people behind bars are receiving less treatment
than they received two years ago. Bush's 2002-03 budget recommendation
calls for $58.2 million. In 2000-01, $61.4 million was budgeted.

The drop in funding is one of the reasons the Campaign for New Drug
Policies targeted Florida, said Dave Fratello, who directed the campaign.

After leaving Florida, the campaign turned its attention to similar ballot
proposals in Ohio and Michigan. The group collected about 300,000
signatures in Florida but needed another 488,000 to get the measure on the
ballot this fall.

"With barely more than two months left to collect signatures, it would be
far too expensive and uncertain to try to make this November's ballot,"
Fratello said. "Instead, win or lose at the Supreme Court this year, we
will postpone our campaign and work toward a vote in November 2004."

Three wealthy American businessmen bankroll the campaign: New York
financier George Soros, John Sperling of Arizona, founder of the for-profit
University of Phoenix, and Cleveland insurance executive Peter Lewis.

The group won 17 of the 19 campaigns it has put on ballots throughout the
country, Fratello said. The campaigns include several issues such as
medical use of marijuana and the reform of property seizure laws in drug
arrests.

"It's been an unstoppable machine," McDonough said. "They targeted Florida,
but they got beat bad and they've taken their hoax elsewhere."