A NEW ERA FOR DRUG POLICY?

One of the more important things California voters did this year was to
pass Proposition 36, which changed sentencing laws so that most non-violent
drug-possession offenders will receive at least a chance at drug treatment
before being put in prison, by a whopping 61-39 percent margin. It may well
be the most significant event of the year 2000 when people look back on it
five or 10 years from now.

Taken in conjunction with similar measures passed and decisions made in
other states, it could represent a turning point in the country's approach
to drug use and addiction. But there will be numerous opportunities for
mistakes and wrong turns along the way, and no doubt many will be made.

It will not be easy for state and county governments to implement this
measure - even though it provided $60 million to get a system up and
running between now and July 2001, when the new law goes into effect.
Already we are hearing some grumbling as agencies scramble to stake claims
to the money.

The biggest mistake would be to view the new law as a cure-all for drug
problems and to spin problems and failures as evidence that the new
approach can't work. Voters approved the initiative because they have come
to recognize that the old system of putting people who have problems with
certain drugs in jail was not exactly a rip-roaring success.

As Dave Fratello, spokesman for the Campaign for New Drug Policies, chief
sponsor of Proposition 36, told a reporter earlier this month, "The false
promise of the drug war is that we can get rid of drugs and persuade
everyone to quit. We are trying to be more realistic here." That realism
suggests that, whatever policies government adopts, some percentage of the
population is going to have trouble with certain drugs.

It is also correct to wonder if a taxpayer-funded treatment system might
encourage addicts to depend on the state rather than take personal
responsibility for their choices. But while such a policy is bound to be
imperfect, it is probably less harmful than using tax money to throw
addicts in jail to receive a graduate education in crime. Some concerns
about the new policy are no doubt legitimate.

Many authorities, noting a shortage of treatment programs under the current
system, wonder if enough facilities can be up and running by July 2001 to
handle the estimated 36,000 people expected to be diverted from jail under
the new policy.

Many critics have noted that the initiative does not provide funds for drug
testing, which some consider essential to recovery. Others note that the
new system could put new pressures on a probation system that, according to
state Sen. John Burton, D-San Francisco, has suffered "years of neglect."

While the initiative requires that treatment programs be state certified,
many wonder how the money provided by Prop. 36 ($120 million a year, much
less than the cost of incarceration) will be allocated. Some worry that
police will "upcharge" - add trivial charges to possession cases to prevent
full implementation of the treatment policies. "I have been around for 30
years of big things in drug treatment, like Proposition 36," said Douglas
Anglin, director of UCLA's Drug Abuse Research Center, "and they are always
a mess." On the bright side, the state government released money to prepare
for implementation as soon as the election results were certified. Kathryn
Jett, newly appointed director of the state Department of Alcohol and Drug
Programs, is apparently motivated to make the new policies work. On
December 18 some 650 proponents and critics of the new approach, including
doctors, nurses and counselors along with other health and law enforcement
officials, met for a conference in Sacramento on implementing Prop. 36.

Bill Zimmerman, executive director of the Campaign for New Drug Policies,
told us that plausible answers to most of the potential problems emerged at
the conference. "Concern about probation budgets is legitimate," he said,
"but under Prop. 36 treatment providers can provide much of the supervision
needed for probation officers to monitor those in treatment."

What is striking so far, however, is the apparent good faith with which
most of the players are proceeding. Many law enforcement organizations and
judges opposed Prop. 36, but Mr. Zimmerman doesn't expect serious
foot-dragging. We hope he's right. There are bound to be problems, and it
is healthy to discuss potential pitfalls before Prop. 36 goes into effect.
Californians should understand that drug treatment is not utopia and give
the new policies some time to work or fail before delivering a verdict.