COMMON SENSE ON DRUG LAWS, FOR A CHANGE

Hallelujah. There it is in black and white, a proposal that makes sense,
saves money and seems destined to become law.

House Bill 2338, endorsed by law-and-order officials and passed on a nearly
3-1 ratio by the House, would increase treatment for drug abusers. It also
would make a little more sense of Washington's sentencing laws.

Right now, if you assault someone, you're likely to get the standard
six-month sentence.

Even robbing a bank, if you hand a note to a bank teller and carry no
weapon, can net just six months in the slammer.

But if you're convicted of selling a $35 piece of crack, you're sent to
prison for two years.

Worse, when you get out, chances are good that you'll go back to the
streets to support your drug habit.

You'll commit more crimes, create more victims and cost taxpayers more
money for the time you spend in the court and prison systems.

Norm Maleng, King County's prosecuting attorney -- and a Republican -- has
a better plan.

He believes the time is right, given the lousy economy and the public's
increased understanding of drug addiction, to change the way Washington
treats drug offenders.

Everyone knows someone who's had a drug problem. It cuts across divisions
of race and economics and class.

"We have a window of opportunity," Maleng said. "What people want is to be
tough on crime and to have some hope for redemption."

Prison is about punishment. It makes little pretense of providing
rehabilitation.

And that's fine for people who mutilate or molest or commit other violent
crimes. Lock them up for a very long time. Keep the rest of us safe.

But that philosophy makes no sense for people we know will be out in a few
years. Prison typically doesn't make them better people. It makes them
better criminals.

So here's the deal:

Reduce sentences for non-violent drug offenders, who make up 15 percent of
Washington's prison population. A two-year sentence for selling crack would
be reduced to 18 months, for example.

Take the money saved on prisons -- $24,700 a year per inmate -- and provide
drug treatment and supervision. Save $700,000 the first year, $15 million
by the third year.

We won't have to build more prisons. More people will have a chance to turn
away from crime and become law-abiding citizens.

It's happening in other states.

A report released last month by the Washington, D.C.-based Sentencing
Project and the Justice Policy Institute found that states that adopted
alternatives to prison, such as drug treatment and supervision, saw crime
drop and spent less money.

California's Proposition 36 is projected to divert as many as 36,000
prisoners and probation and parole violators to treatment programs, saving
the state between $100 million and $150 million a year in prison costs.

Arizona saves nearly $7 million a year under a similar plan.

Maleng remembers the comprehensive approach discussed in 1989, when the
Legislature doubled prison sentences for dealing heroin and cocaine and
established drug-free zones around schools and parks. Education and
treatment were supposed to be part of the package.

The extensive treatment envisioned 13 years ago never happened. We have
drug courts that offer an alternative to jail for users -- they must agree
to take random drug tests, attend support meetings and appear in court
regularly -- but otherwise, we treat drug abuse by locking people behind bars.

"We in law enforcement have done what we can do," Maleng says, but it isn't
enough.

So he is stepping outside the courthouse to ask for better public policy.

"If we don't do something, we're just going to keep adding 500-bed prisons
each decade. Drug treatment works," he says. "The facts are that treatment
does work for some people some of the time."

H.B. 2338. No new taxes, just better quality of life.