NEW TACTICS IN DRUG WAR

California and other states are trying treatment rather than prison for
some non-violent drug offenders.

The move is both compassionate and sensible.

These words were spoken not by some Cannabis Society member but by George
Pataki, the Republican governor of New York who wants to "dramatically"
reform his state's notoriously harsh drug laws. Another Republican
governor, Gary E. Johnson of New Mexico, has been even more outspoken in
criticizing the nation's anti-drug strategy.

Johnson headed a commission that, among other things, has proposed
eliminating all penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana
(President Clinton has taken the same position) and getting rid of
mandatory minimum sentencing laws in other first and second drug offenses.

Even the outgoing White House drug czar, retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, has
joined in the call for reform (see his commentary on this page) as doubts
about the nation's approach to battling illegal drugs are surfacing all
across the country.

The politics of the war on drugs are changing, and it appears some elected
officials are waking up to a reality that many Americans have known for
years -- that a rigid, punitive approach to drug abuse is not only
ineffective but, in some ways, counterproductive.

In a landslide decision on Nov. 7, California voters said they prefer
treatment to prison for non-violent first-or second-time drug offenders.
The new law and others like it allow states to treat drug use as the public
health matter it really is, rather than relying on the wasteful
incarceration of low-level drug offenders.

California's ballot change is similar to a recent New York state measure
and a 4- year-old initiative in Arizona that have helped more than 75
percent of program participants to remain drug free. These efforts to shift
emphasis from jail to treatment coincide with the passage of relaxed drug
measures in four other states.

As compassionate as this shift in attitude may seem, it has some pragmatic
motives as well. With a prison population in New York that has ballooned
from 14,700 prisoners in 18 facilities in 1973 to a 1999 figure of 70,000
inmates in 70 prisons, Pataki must look with envy on California's projected
savings.

California's independent Legislative Analyst's Office estimates the measure
will cut its prison population by 36,000 non-violent offenders each year.
Since Californians pay $24,000 to incarcerate each state prisoner, compared
with a treatment cost of $4,000, savings are expected to run close to
$250-million annually. Moreover, the state will reap a one-time savings of
between $450-million and $550-million that would have gone to prison
construction; local governments will save an estimated $40-million a year
in operation costs.

And those figures don't even include savings from health care, public
assistance and law enforcement when the number of addicts is reduced over
time. Such measures also free up beds for violent offenders without
releasing other inmates early.

As a safeguard, California's law is narrowly tailored to give probation and
treatment only to people convicted of possession and personal use of
controlled substances. So those caught selling or manufacturing drugs, or
who are also arrested for charges like weapons possession or theft, get
processed under the old rules.

The California measure also gives judges broad leeway to mandate vocational
training, family counseling, literacy training and community service.

Offenders failing treatment twice can be sentenced to prison, and those who
fail three times are required to serve time. The threat of incarceration
provides a needed measure of accountability.

California's proposition is not perfect, but it is an encouraging step in
the right direction and marks an important turning point in the national
debate over anti-drug policy.

This outbreak of common sense cannot spread fast enough to other states,
including Florida.