CALIFORNIA'S DRUG ADDICTS NOW FINDING KINDER, GENTLER PUNISHMENT

LOS ANGELES -- When actor Robert Downey Jr. was arrested last month in a
Palm Springs spa, news reports cataloged the woes of the troubled actor,
allegedly found once again with illegal drugs after a year in state prison
and numerous bouts of drug treatment.

Downey's latest arrest may land him in prison again. It happened too early
for him to benefit from a new California law that requires community-based
drug treatment -- not jail time -- for most nonviolent drug offenders, even
those already on probation or parole.

Still, some who work with drug offenders argue that Downey's bad timing may,
in fact, be fortunate. While treatment is the key, they say serious
consequences -- specifically, jail time -- often are the only things that
force addicts to straighten out.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Stephen A. Marcus, who runs Los
Angeles' first and largest drug court, said his method of shepherding
addicts through treatment and into recovery involves not just the carrot of
encouragement but the stick of stiff penalties for failure.

``Certainly, the mixture of sanctions and incentives that we use, we believe
that creates a good outcome,'' he said. ``We give them a slap on the back,
we praise them in court, we clap for them, we might give them little awards
for their progress through the program.

``On the other hand, if someone relapses, doesn't go to meetings or maybe
misses a court date, there are consequences. There's accountability. They
can end up going to jail for up to 30 days or for a four-day weekend.''

Last month's passage of Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime
Prevention Act, has left many in the law enforcement and drug treatment
communities conflicted -- happy about the new attention to, and money for,
drug treatment, but concerned about the lack of accountability for drug
users.

That is because the ballot initiative, when it goes into effect in July,
will all but end the threat of jail for those convicted of nonviolent
drug-possession and drug-use charges. The measure, whose sponsors argue that
drug use should be seen as a public health, not a criminal problem, wipes
convictions off offenders' records if they successfully complete licensed
drug-treatment programs.

The campaign was funded by three businessmen -- New York financier George
Soros; Peter Lewis, CEO of Progressive Insurance in Cleveland; and John
Sperling, founder and CEO of the University of Phoenix, a network of private
adult education institutions. It was run by the same team that brought
California the medical-marijuana initiative in 1996 -- and has since helped
pass similar initiatives around the country.

The group's central argument for medical marijuana and Proposition 36 is
that America's drug war has failed. The nation, the group says, needs to
find new ways to deal with its drug problem.

Sixty-one percent of California voters backed the initiative, which argues
that drug use should be tackled as a public health problem. Dave Fratello,
campaign manager for Proposition 36, said voters' overwhelming support for
the proposition indicated that they agreed.

``We're sort of going through a societal learning process, realizing that
drug users are not some other, outside category. They're not a collective
group that everyone agrees is our enemy,'' he said. ``A drug user is likely
to be you or me or your neighbors -- and we want the best for these people.
At the same time as we can be very, very tough on crime, we can be very,
very compassionate about drug users.''

California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office estimated that the
measure each year would move 24,000 drug offenders from prison, and an
additional 12,000 from jails, into community-based drug programs.

The office said the decrease in prisoners would save the state about $100
million to $150 million each year, as well as an additional $500 million
overall if it helped the state avoid building more prisons. Counties also
would likely save about $40 million, the analysis said.

For those who deal with drug offenders, the new money that Proposition 36
makes available for treatment is cause for celebration. The law requires the
state to contribute $60 million to a Substance Abuse Trust Fund in the first
fiscal year, and $120 million each year for the next five years.

The money will be distributed to counties to spend on drug-treatment
programs and related programs for drug offenders, including family
counseling.

Many experts raise concerns about the program details. For example, the
state already has a waiting list of 5,000 for drug treatment without the
huge influx of Proposition 36 candidates. Also, the measure is vague about
what drug-treatment programs will have to include. Finally, there is the
requirement that none of the new funding be used for drug testing services.

Some say they know from experience that chronic users often respond only to
treatment programs that include serious consequences for failure.

``Many people that come to treatment come here because of the threat of
jail, and when treatment gets hard, they stay in because of the threat of
jail,'' said Chris Canter, director of the Walden House Foundation, which
raises money to support programs at Walden House, a 31-year-old
substance-abuse treatment center based in San Francisco that treats about
10,000 people statewide.

He should know. Canter used to be addicted to amphetamines, or speed.

``I arrived at Walden House homeless with a drug problem, and the courts
said you're either going to go to jail or you're going to get treatment. I
said, `OK, well you made this decision easy.' I attribute the threat of jail
to coming to treatment. It was certainly a huge motivational factor,''
Canter said. ``I remember wanting to leave the program. But then I'd think
of the judge saying, `Give me one opportunity and you're gone.' I should
thank that judge. It was the best thing that ever happened to me.''

In Marcus' drug court, offenders receive more than a year of close
supervision as they go through treatment, which includes frequent drug tests
and the threat of jail if they slip up. Marcus, who holds a graduation
ceremony for those who complete the program, said graduates often mentioned
jail in their graduation speeches.

``They often say that one of the turning points was the fact that they were
thrown in jail and began to think about their lives,'' Marcus said.

Marcus opposed Proposition 36 for taking away the option of jail time in
most cases, unless it can be proved that an offender is a danger to others
or completely unamenable to treatment.

``I had two cases today in which I put people into custody,'' he said.
``That was to shake them up because they weren't very motivated.''

Drug courts in California see only a small fraction of drug offenders,
mostly because of lack of funding. But by all accounts, they have high
success rates.

In its seven years, Marcus' drug court has graduated about 500 people, he
said. Most have their cases thrown out after treatment. The program is
tough, he said. Only about 53 percent of those who enter his program
graduate. But of those who do, only about 20 percent are rearrested for any
reason.

Marcus attributes the high success rate to his ability to get tough, to toss
offenders in jail if they start to slide. That is an option he may well lose
under Proposition 36.

``The point is that you have to do things to really, really get the addicts'
attention,'' Marcus said. ``These are people who are consumed by drugs. It's
extremely, extremely difficult to get off them.

``Downey's a prime example. Look at how talented he is. Look at what he's
giving up. He needs real help, real, tough help -- and I'm not sure under
Prop 36, he would get it.''