SECOND THOUGHTS ON THE WAR ON DRUGS

Across The Country, The Drug Policy Reform Movement Is Having
Legislative And; Ballot Victories

Election Day 2000 was a big day for drug policy reform. In California,
voters overwhelmingly endorsed Proposition 36, the "treatment instead
of incarceration" ballot initiative that should result in tens of
thousands of nonviolent drug possession offenders being diverted from
jail and prison into programs that may help them get their lives together.

The new law may do more to reverse the unnecessary incarceration of
nonviolent citizens than any other law enacted anywhere in the country
in decades.

It wasn't just California that opted for drug reform. Voters in Nevada
and Colorado approved medical marijuana ballot initiatives, following
in the footsteps of California, Oregon, Alaska, Washington state,
Maine and Washington, D.C.

In Oregon and Utah, voters overwhelmingly approved ballot initiatives
requiring police and prosecutors to meet a reasonable burden of proof
before seizing money and other property from people they suspect of
criminal activity -- and also mandating that the proceeds of legal
forfeitures be handed over not to the police and prosecuting agencies
that had seized the property but rather to funds for public education
or drug treatment.

These were not the only victories for drug policy reform at the ballot
in recent years. California's Proposition 36 was modeled in part on
Arizona's Proposition 200. In Oregon, the first of 11 states to
decriminalize marijuana during the 1970s, voters in 1998 rejected an
effort by the state Legislature to recriminalize marijuana. And in
Mendocino County, Calif., voters this year approved a local initiative
to decriminalize personal cultivation of modest amounts of marijuana.

Clearly, more and more citizens realize that the drug war has failed
and are looking for new approaches. The votes also suggest that there
are limits to what people will accept in the name of the war on drugs.

Parents don't want their teen-agers to use marijuana, but they also
want sick people who could benefit from marijuana to have it. People
don't want drug dealers profiting from their illicit activities, but
neither do they want police empowered to take what they want from
anyone they merely suspect of criminal activity. Americans don't
approve of people using heroin or cocaine, but neither do they want
them locked up without first offering them opportunities to get their
lives together outside prison walls.

So what do drug policy reformers do next? In the case of medical
marijuana, three things: enact medical marijuana laws in other states
through the legislative process; work to ensure that medical marijuana
laws are effectively implemented; and try to induce the federal
government to stop undermining good-faith efforts by state officials
to establish regulated distribution systems.

The strategy post-Proposition 36 is somewhat similar. The struggle
over implementation of the initiative in California has already begun,
with many of its opponents trying either to grab their share of the
pie or to tie the process up in knots. Powerful vested interests in
the criminal justice business, accustomed to getting their way, did
not look kindly on the challenges the proposition posed to the status
quo.

If California's new law is implemented in good faith, with minimal
corruption of its intentions, the benefits could be extraordinary,
saving taxpayers up to $ 1.5 billion in prison costs over the next
five years while making good drug treatment available to hundreds of
thousands.

Proposition 36 also provides a model -- both for initiatives in other
states where public opinion favors reform but the legislature and/or
the governor are unable or unwilling to comply, and in states like New
York, where no ballot initiative process exists to repeal draconian
and archaic laws.

The initiative victories demonstrated once again that the public is
ahead of the politicians when it comes to embracing pragmatic drug
policy reforms.

Yet there was also growing evidence this year that even some
politicians are beginning to get it. Three states -- North Dakota,
Minnesota and Hawaii -legalized the cultivation of hemp (to the extent
permitted by federal law). Hawaii enacted a medical marijuana law this
year, with the support of Gov. Ben Cayetano.

And, most significant in terms of potential lives saved, three states
- -New York, New Hampshire and Rhode Island -- each enacted laws making
it easier to purchase sterile syringes in pharmacies.

New Mexico doesn't have the initiative process, but it does have a
Republican governor, Gary Johnson, committed to far-reaching drug
policy reform.

Many state Democratic leaders are critical of the war on drugs but
wary of the governor. The question is whether bipartisan support for
sensible drug reforms can transcend generic partisan hostilities. The
drug policy reformers' job is to help make that happen.

Perhaps it's too early to claim that all this adds up to a national
vote of no confidence in the war on drugs. But the pendulum does seem
to be reversing direction. Call it a new anti-war movement. Call it a
nascent movement for political and social justice. Or simply call it a
rising chorus of dissent from the war on drugs.

The election results have made it clear that drug policy reform is
gaining momentum -- in California and across the country.

Ethan A. Nadelmann is executive director of the Lindesmith,
Center-Drug Policy Foundation (www.drugpolicy.org), a drug policy
reform organization. This article first appeared
in the Los Angles Times.