VOTER-APPROVED DRUG TREATMENT MEASURE HAS OFFICIALS GUESSING

OROVILLE - For the second time in less than five years, Californians have
chosen medication over incarceration for personal drug use.

By nearly the same wide margin as the medical marijuana law in 1996,
Proposition 36 was approved at the polls last month. It requires treatment
for first- and second-time convictions of a variety of drug use, ranging
from cocaine and methamphetamine to heroin and crack.

Butte County Drug Court Judge Darrell Stevens called the two initiatives
nothing short of "revolutionary."

"One of the frightening things of governing by initiative is there are no
hearings or opportunity for a total study," he noted.

"If this type of thing continues and the people continue to pass
initiatives, I think it could point to decriminalization of all drugs,''
the local judge predicted.

Not so, responds Jim Gonzalez, a spokesman for the Prop. 36 campaign in
Sacramento.

"Proposition 215 gave an affirmative defense to bonafide patients to use
marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. This (Prop. 36) gives more
convicted felons an opportunity for drug treatment.

"Drug possession is still a crime in this state. Opponents are saying
because these initiatives don't punish, you've made it a non-crime; that's
a stretch,'' added the drug treatment advocate.

Both sides do agree that, if nothing else, the two state initiatives
indicate a change in the public's attitude toward drug use and are certain
to have far-reaching effects on the criminal justice system.

Stevens, whose widely-acclaimed and nationally-copied Butte County Drug
Court will be directly impacted by Prop. 36, said he has been named by the
California Judicial Council to head up a panel of court, legislative and
health care officials to help guide its implementation.

Although he contends there are still 3a lot of unknowns ... it (Prop 36) is
the law in this state and we're committed to making it work; the problem is
just too big not to.''

State Senate Pro Tem John Burton, a vocal supporter of the drug-treatment
initiative, has called for a legislative 3summit2 to discuss where to go
from here.

In a recent press release, Burton identified three areas of potential concern:

? Is the $120 million provided yearly to treat drug users under Prop. 36
sufficient?

? Is more money needed to hire additional probation officers to monitor
Prop. 36 cases?

? And should there be additional money for drug testing to ensure
compliance of court-ordered drug treatment under the new law.

Proponents say Prop. 36 monies will be adequate to treat the estimated
36,000 individuals the state legislative analyst predicted will be treated
the first year of the five-year program.

Gonzalez points out the measure's "first priority" is to expand drug
treatment opportunities. He objects to using any of the money for
additional probation officers or drug-testing.

"The state has a $10 billion surplus. If the Legislature determines more
money is needed for probation and drug testing it can allocate more
resources," he says.

Stevens, who publicly opposed Prop. 36 with drug court judges statewide,
believes both the predicted cost and number of persons that will be treated
under the initiative have been underestimated.

Some "preliminary estimates,'' he says, indicate the measure could effect
more than 50,000 persons a year and cost as much as $400 to $500 million
annually.

"There are concerns that the state is going to look to the counties to help
implement Prop. 36. That's going to be of concern to counties like Butte
County. I don't know the resources are going to be there for a full
implementation of Prop. 36; that's a legislative question," the judge says.

In her proposed budget for next fiscal year, Butte County chief probation
officer Helen Harberts is requesting seven more probation officers plus
support staff and equipment at a cost of $924,000 "in anticipation of Prop.
36 implementation.''

She noted a similar law in Arizona has a built-in formula for hiring
additional probation officers as the number of drug treatment cases
increases in that state, something not provided for in the California
initiative.

Harberts, who campaigned against the drug-treatment initiative, predicts
Butte County probation could have as many as 200 new Prop. 36 3clients2 to
supervise in the first year and double that number by 2004.

The probation chief has calculated the county may absorb another $100,000
hit if the state does not provide money for drug testing, which she and
Stevens both believe is necessary.

Responded Gonzalez, 3Judges are trying to inflate the numbers to justify
going to the Legislature and asking for more money. Don't say it's due to
Prop. 36; it's because drug treatment has been underfunded for years in
this state that there are waiting lists now for people to get help.2

"We haven't tried to create a new regulatory system, just expand the one we
now have in place," the spokesman for the drug treatment initiative added.

After the Prop. 36 judicial implementation committee which Stevens chairs
met for the first time earlier this month, the Butte County judge said it
was clear that funding is not the only questions raised by the drug
treatment initiative.

"Prop. 36 has a lot of holes; It clearly was not written with the court
system in mind," the local judge asserted.

For example, he said, the initiative doesn't define what constitutes treatment.

"We have a lot of people in this county calling themselves treatment
providers who leave a lot to be desired. We want to ensure they adhere to
standards that will produce a clean and sober person," said the Butte
County judge.

And, too, he said, the law provides no guidance as to how Prop. 36 monies
are to be allocated to individual counties.

Although Prop. 36 is technically now in effect, the state has been given
until July. 1 to implement it.

The initiative provides an initial $60 million in start-up funds for the
state Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs in Sacramento among other
things to assess the current capacity of treatment facilities to handle the
influx of Prop. 36 patients and set the ground-rules under which they will
operate.

Under Prop. 36, after next July, all first and second-time convictions for
non-violent drug possession, use or transportation, will qualify for
treatment as a condition of probation. Persons convicted of sales or
manufacturing of drugs are ineligible as are persons arrested for other
concurrent non-drug charges or who have a violent offense on their record
within the past five years.

A major selling point for the 3Yes on 36'' campaign, was the state
legislative analyst's prediction the initiative would save an estimated
$450 to $550 million for new prison and jail construction by diverting drug
addicted defendants into treatment instead of a prison cell.

Critics of Prop. 36 charged it lacked accountability and the 3hammer2 of an
immediate jail sentence for failure to comply with the judge's orders, as
is the case in county drug courts.

Stevens likens the situation to drunk-driving laws.

"Why do fewer people drink and drive? It's because the consequences are
tremendous; that's how we've reduced the rate of alcohol deaths and
crashes," notes the local judge.

"Drugs are harmful; there's no way around it. We've always had treatment,
but if there isn't some consequence of using drugs then it's going to be
far more difficult to confront recovery.''

But Prop. 36 campaign worker Robert Harris points out anyone unwilling to
undergo court-ordered drug treatment or otherwise "not amenable" to it
under the new law, can have his or her probation violated and be sent to
jail or prison from one to three years, which in his opinion, is 3a very
real hammer hanging over their heads."

And he notes 3local judges can only refer someone to a licensed or
certified treatment center.'' The state, he says, 3has to assess treatment
centers and evaluate whether they meet a quality standard of care and if
they don't, they don't get a license."

The new law also requires annual progress reports on drug treatment under
Prop. 36 to the Legislature, which ultimately will determine whether to
extend the law beyond the initial five-year period, Harris noted.

"With any significant shift in public policy, there is going to be some
confusion over how it works,'' the Prop. 36 proponent acknowledged.

"How the treatment programs will work and interrelate with the courts and
the probation departments are the subject of ongoing discussions,'' he added.

Stevens doesn't believe county drug courts like his will go out of
existence because of Prop. 36, but 3we will be focusing on a different
target group now.''

He said he will be looking to expand drug court to juveniles, 3hard-core''
drug defendants and those charged with additional non-violent crimes such
as burglary.

Since a large majority of all criminal activity is 3drug-related,'' perhaps
the largest question, says the local judge, is whether crime will be
reduced under Prop. 36.

"That is the real unknown; only time will tell.''

Gonzalez, the Proposition 36 spokesman, contends the new law will help many
more people struggling with substance abuse in their lives that were not
being reached by local drug courts.

"Sixty-one percent of the voters in this state said substance abuse is an
illness," noted Gonzalez. "They say we need to treat it as such and only
incarcerate people as a last resort.''