LIVING WITH PROP. 36

New Drug Law Prompts More Questions Than Answers.

Between now and the end of June, some $60 million dollars in drug treatment
funds promised by Proposition 36 are supposed to be dispensed. Over the
next 51/2 years, the state is required to spend another $660 million to
treat and monitor addicts who will be diverted from jail and prisons under
the initiative.

As evidenced by a recent Sacramento workshop sponsored by the treatment
advocates who put Proposition 36 on the ballot, it's clear that those
responsible for implementing the revolutionary new law are unclear about
how to proceed. They need guidance and leadership. The governor and state
Legislature must provide it and soon.

The questions are basic. For example, which county agencies will receive
the treatment money from the state -- probation departments, alcohol and
drug program administrators or county supervisors? What formulas will be
used to distribute funds? Who decides, the Legislature or the state
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs? The proposition requires the state
to evaluate the measure's effectiveness -- but what constitutes success,
and how is it measured? Is it the number of addicts who successfully
complete a drug program or the number of addicts who test clean for drugs?
Since the initiative explicitly states that Proposition 36 funds cannot be
used for testing, who pays for that? Nobody knows.

How can understaffed county probation departments, already struggling to
supervise large numbers of probationers, add thousands of new drug
offenders to their caseloads? Isn't there a danger that treatment money
will be eaten up by probation department monitoring efforts?

The conference exposed tensions between law enforcement officials, who
opposed the measure and want more testing and strict accountability, and
treatment providers, who supported the measure and argued strongly that all
the funds ought to go to them.

But even within the treatment community, disagreements abound. A debate
emerged about what treatment is and who is qualified to dispense it. One
workshop participant wanted to know whether faith-based treatment programs
will receive any funds. During the sessions, treatment providers squabbled
over the causes of addiction. Is it hereditary or is it learned behavior?
In his luncheon address to the 750 treatment professionals, public
defenders, district attorneys and politicians who attended the conference,
Attorney General Bill Lockyer articulated the one unassailable truth about
the new measure: "You'll find it's a lot easier to write a law than to
administer it."

But California must administer it. The task seems daunting, but no one can
afford to walk away from this challenge and this opportunity.