VOTERS CLEARLY PUNCHED 'NO' TO WAR ON DRUGS

The results of the presidential vote may be ambiguous, but one clear result
of the Nov. 7 election was the electorate's fading allegiance to the
nation's war on drugs. There were drug-policy issues on the ballots of
seven states during this election cycle, and in five of those states voters
chose anti-war policies.

That shouldn't be surprising; the drug war has been a colossal failure.
Rather than curb drug abuse, these disastrous policies have fueled a
murderous underground economy, corroded the civil liberties of all U.S.
citizens and transformed the world's leading democracy into the world's
leading jailer. "Those political victories are part of a broader strategy
to promote more sensible drug policies," said Ethan Nadelman, executive
director of the Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation, which
co-sponsored six of the state initiatives and is backed by financier George
Soros.

California voters passed Proposition 36, which requires treatment, not
jail, for drug possession or use. The initiative, which passed by a 61-39
margin, also provides treatment instead of a return to prison for parolees
who test positive for drug use. The measure allocates $120 million a year
to pay for expanded drug treatment, supplemented by job and literacy
training and family counseling.

Since California has the highest incarceration rate for drug use in the
nation and is often seen as a bellwether for national trends, voters there
may have given a nudge to others who bemoaned the disastrous consequences
of the drug war but were intimidated from speaking out about pro-drug-war
propaganda.

California was not the first state to adopt a "harm-reduction" approach to
drug policy. In 1996 Arizona voters passed Proposition 200, which also
required drug treatment rather than jail for first-time drug offenders.

According to a recent report by the Arizona Supreme Court, Nadelman said,
the Arizona policy has been successful. Harm-reduction policies seek to
reduce the social harm of drug abuse by framing it as a public health
rather than a criminal justice problem. "For too long drug policies have
been driven by a combination of ignorance, fear, prejudice and profit,"
Nadelman said in a news conference following the 1996 election. "We want
policy based on common sense, science, public health and human rights."

Nadelman's organization joined with the Campaign for New Drug Policies to
co-sponsor the California measure as well as initiatives in Colorado,
Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon and Utah. They were victorious everywhere but
Massachusetts. Alaska voters defeated an initiative they did not sponsor,
which called for the legalization of marijuana.

In Nevada and Colorado voters passed initiatives to make marijuana legal
for medical use upon recommendation of a physician. Residents with certain
illnesses will be eligible for credentials that permit them to possess or
cultivate marijuana for personal use. Those two states join six others that
already allow patients with cancer, AIDS and multiple sclerosis, among
other diseases, to possess or grow the plant for personal use.

Voters in Oregon and Utah decided to end the practice that allowed law
enforcement agencies to seize and sell the assets of drug crime suspects.
Police could confiscate the property of any drug suspect and profit from
the proceeds without any proof of guilt. Such policies provide a perverse
incentive for police agencies to pursue drug cases, even if they aren't
really drug cases. Property may still be seized with probable cause.
However, the proceeds of the forfeitures will now go into a new drug
treatment fund instead of into the pockets of the law enforcement agency
that seized the assets. The news wasn't as good for harm-reduction
strategies in Massachusetts, where voters defeated an initiative that would
have reformed the system of property seizures and provided treatment
instead of jail to low-level drug offenders including some low-level drug
dealers.

"Sympathy may be growing for drug users but that sympathy does not extend
to drug dealers," said Bill Zimmerman, executive director of the Campaign
for New Drug Policies. He blames the defeat of the Massachusetts measure on
its offer of treatment to low-level drug dealers.

"We won a very significant and hopefully trend-setting victory in
California," Zimmerman said. He said our self-destructive drug policies
have remained in place because politicians assume voters want lock-'em-up
policies. "I think Proposition 36 will teach elected officials that voters
want drug policies that are safer, cheaper, smarter and more effective."