DRUG TREATMENT LAW CALLED 'MURKY'

Funding, Implementation Uncertainties Worry Sonoma County Officials

To most of Sonoma County's drug treatment community, Proposition 36 sounded
like a great idea.

A law requiring rehabilitation instead of prison for first- and second-time
drug-use offenders was exactly what the state needed.

"When I read the ballot, I said, 'I'll vote for this. Cool,'" said Michael
Spielman, executive director of the Drug Abuse Alternatives Center in Santa
Rosa. "It just said treatment versus prison and it's going to save the
state X number of dollars."

Then he read the 4,500-word measure.

"If you asked how could you throw a wrench into the works of drug treatment
in California," he said, "this proposition has done that."

Nearly two weeks after Proposition 36 was passed by an overwhelming 61
percent of voters, drug counselors, lawyers and law enforcement agencies
throughout the state are struggling to make sense of what some say is an
ambiguous law.

A similar measure was adopted in Arizona four years ago and remains
controversial.

Both initiatives were bankrolled by a trio of wealthy businessmen led by
billionaire investor George Soros, who also were key backers of Proposition
215, the medical marijuana law approved by California voters in 1996.

While some controversial initiatives -- including Proposition 215 -- have
triggered protracted litigation, post-election talk has focused on how to
implement Proposition 36.

Task forces have been set up in Sonoma County and elsewhere, meetings have
been called and conferences have been scheduled as drug treatment providers
rush to figure out exactly what the proposition means for local communities
before it takes effect July 1.

They've come to one conclusion:

No one knows.

"This is very murky right now," Spielman said. "We would rather have had an
initiative that had more teeth to it. We don't know how much money we're
going to get. We don't know how the resources will be allocated."

Proposition 36 campaign organizers didn't return telephone calls.

Under Proposition 36, any person convicted of nonviolent drug possession
will be sent to a drug treatment program. Criminal prosecution is
prohibited for the first two offenses, unless authorities can prove in
court that the defendant is a danger to the community.

The law makes $60 million of state general fund money available immediately
to expand drug treatment facilities. It adds $120 million each year to pay
for treatment programs.

Supporters say it will save taxpayers millions by keeping nonviolent
criminals out of jail. By some estimates, as many as 37,000 people a year
will be diverted into treatment statewide.

Opponents say it's a nice theory that may not work in reality.

"The proposition has passed and the first issue to try and resolve as best
we can is the ambiguity," said Sonoma County District Attorney Mike Mullins.

Mullins says one of the major problems he has with the law is the money factor.

Proposition 36 does not say how the $120 million should be divided among
the state's 58 counties.

"We don't have a clue, dollarwise, what the impacts of Proposition 36 will
be on the county," said John Abrahams, president of the Sonoma County
Advisory Board on Alcohol and Other Drug Problems.

"There was nothing in the legislation that says how the money is
distributed. Some portion of that $120 million will come to Sonoma County,"
he said.

Abrahams, who is also a public defender in Sonoma County's drug court, said
the county might receive about $2 million to fund Proposition 36.

But even that, he said, won't be enough.

Sonoma County has about 90 people in jail waiting for slots in a
county-sponsored drug treatment program, said Tom Newell, the outpatient
program manager for the county's alcohol and other drug services division.

The new law, however, may force drug treatment providers to keep those
people waiting because Proposition 36 offenders will have to take priority,
Spielman said.

"We don't want to break the law," he said. "We have to kind of stop what
we're doing and serve these people."

Some county officials estimate that Proposition 36 could mean between 1,000
and 1,500 new drug treatment cases for Sonoma County each year.

Local drug treatment providers are worried that whatever chunk of
Proposition 36 money they do receive, it's probably not going to cover the
costs of implementing the law.

"It's not going to be enough money to provide the treatment services that
this initiative requires," Newell said.

For now, the county is in planning mode, trying to figure out what steps
need to be taken before the downtime between Election Day and July 1 expires.

"I think they were overly optimistic in their thinking that we would be
ready by July 1," Spielman said.

In Sonoma County's already overburdened drug treatment community,
Proposition 36 money probably will be used to cover a lot more than just
rehabilitation programs, Newell said.

The initiative does not pay for drug testing or cover the dozen new
probation officers the county may have to hire.

"It's possible that all the money could be eaten up with probation
officers. It hasn't been worked out," Spielman said.

Building new drug treatment facilities will be easier said than done, as
will finding enough counselors to staff them.

Abrahams said he hopes state lawmakers in coming months will draft
Proposition 36 "cleanup legislation" so that counties have a better
understanding of what the law really means.

"It wasn't well drafted. But in concept I'm for it," he said. "If they get
behind this and adequately fund it, it's going to be great."