AMERICA RETHINKS DRUG-WAR POLICIES

Almost lost in the wake of the nation's Election Day chaos was this
development: Americans apparently are rethinking the prevailing law
enforcement approach to the drug war, if the success of a variety of reform
propositions around the country is any indication.

Of seven drug-law reform measures on state ballots Nov. 7, two were
defeated but five passed by substantial margins.

And even the two failed measures found fairly strong support. An Alaska
measure found support among 40 percent of state voters. It was among the
more extreme proposals - it not only would have legalized marijuana for
personal use but also issued an amnesty for prisoners of the drug war and
set up a commission to consider reparations for those harmed by the drug
war in the past. Alaska's campaign suffered from a lack of money.

Obviously, public attitudes toward the war on drugs are changing. The Daily
News' sister newspaper in California, The Orange County Register, talked
after the election with Bill Zimmerman, executive director of the Campaign
for New Drug Policies, and Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the
Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation, about what these election results
mean for future drug policies.

In California, Proposition 36 passed by a 61-39 margin, a landslide by any
measure, despite opposition from the state's governor, the attorney
general, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and almost every public law enforcement
figure. It provides probation and drug treatment for first- and second-time
nonviolent violators of laws against simple possession of drugs and $120
million to establish and beef up treatment facilities.

"We anticipated a lack of adequate treatment facilities," Mr. Zimmerman
said. "That's why the first six months (after Jan. 1, 2001) and the first
$60 million are devoted to getting treatment systems up and running. The
new law won't affect offenders until July 1 of next year."

Mr. Zimmerman does not expect a legal challenge to the new law; he said
that it was carefully written to avoid constitutional problems and any
conflicts with federal law.

A similar but more far-reaching proposal in Massachusetts was defeated by a
53-47 margin. In addition to treatment for nonviolent possession offenders,
it would have reformed civil asset-forfeiture laws, providing that proceeds
from drug-related police seizures go to drug treatment rather than police
budgets. And it expanded the roster of those eligible for treatment to
include low-level dealers who could convince a judge they were dealing only
to support an addiction. Opponents stressed that fact in radio ads and
persuaded 53 percent of Massachusetts voters to reject the proposal.

Medical marijuana initiatives passed handily in Colorado and Nevada. In
Colorado, an initiative in 1998 was invalidated because of confusion over
how many signatures had been submitted. This year it passed by a 54-46 margin.

Nevada requires that constitutional amendments pass in two consecutive
general elections; so a Nevada initiative that passed by a 59-41 margin in
1998 was on the ballot again this year. It passed by a 69-31 margin.
Nevada's version requires the state to set up a distribution system for
certified drug patients.

In Utah and Oregon, measures to reform state civil asset-forfeiture laws
passed by large margins. In both states, current laws allow property to be
seized on suspicion that it was involved in or was the fruit of drug law
violations, and the money seized goes directly to the police departments
performing the seizures.

The Utah reform, approved 69-31, reverses the burden of proof, requiring
the government to prove the property was involved in drug crimes rather
than the person to prove that it was not. The proceeds of seizures will go
to public education rather than to the police.

In Oregon, the new law will require a conviction before a seizure can be
completed and provides for the proceeds of seizures to go to drug treatment
rather than police budgets. It passed by a 66-34 margin.

As Ethan Nadelmann put it: "Most elected officials have assumed that the
voters want nothing but tougher drug policies and are willing to pay for
the prisons needed to enforce them. These initiatives demonstrate that when
presented with alternatives, voters will choose safer, cheaper, smarter and
more effective drug policies."

It is time for elected officials to start to catch up with the people on
these issues.