SF TO SET EXAMPLE FOR STATE'S NEW DRUG REFORM LAW

Every state official who stands to benefit from the prison industry through
its massive web of campaign contributions has come out against California's
new drug reform policy - Proposition 36 - with criticisms ranging from
prosecutors' claims that "the threat of jail keeps people in treatment" to
California's Democratic senior senator stating that the measure
"decriminalizes drugs."

When the smoky rhetoric clears, however, there will be little left to do but
implement the ballot initiative-turned-law, which voters last week passed
overwhelmingly by 61 percent, according to unofficial returns. Proposition
36 means that thousands of people convicted of simple drug possession -
often sentenced to life prison terms, thanks to the state's archaic "three
strikes" law - will not go to jail but instead enter treatment, where they
may actually stand a chance of getting clean and rebuilding their lives.
California currently imprisons more drug users than any other state;
convicts, of course, are disproportionately poor; the dot-com junkie and
other drug users of privilege are rarely targeted for arrest.

The statewide law goes into effect July 1, 2001, specifically dictating that
the $120 million allocated for treatment should not replace existing
rehabilitation programs. The new policy will not have much effect on San
Francisco, which already diverts many drug offenders to treatment, and
likewise may have trouble in more conservative counties not used to treating
offenders like people.

Yet San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan hopes that the city
will become, as it often is, an example for others to follow. Hallinan's
office, in conjunction with San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey, the
California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, and the Haight-Ashbury
Free Clinic, is holding a community conference on Wednesday, November 29, to
discuss implementation of Proposition 36.

"While everybody else is still trying to figure out what it all means, we're
already organizing, so that we can take off as the model city," Hallinan
told the Bay Area Reporter, noting that San Francisco had the highest
approval rating for the measure statewide.

Hallinan is the only D.A. in the state who supported the measure, a position
that has once again earned him a "soft on crime" reputation from some law
enforcement agencies and others, a criticism he dismisses as ignorance.

"They get this mindset that prosecuting is all there is to do, whereas I
feel our job is to reduce crime and reduce recidivism, which is what this
does," said Hallinan, who is proposing that San Francisco add job training
and family counseling to the new law's treatment mandate, since detox is
often "just the beginning" for people hoping to reshape their lives.

"Simple possession is the second leading cause of a three strikes
conviction," lamented Hallinan. "Instead of sending people to be disposed of
as criminals, this law tries to give them a good second chance."

Officials have also worried that there will not be enough room in
California's "already overcrowded" treatment programs for newly convicted
offenders, but that concern is rarely a factor when the topic is overcrowded
prisons, where the solution is always, "create more."

Hallinan's November 29 meeting is open to the public and will be held at the
West Bay Conference Center, 1290 Fillmore, from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. A host
of community leaders will be on hand, including the newly-appointed Kathryn
Jett, head of California's Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, and
judicial representatives from the state of Arizona, where a similar
diversion law was passed four years ago, and has reportedly been successful.

"It will be a working session, to figure out what the definition of
treatment will be under Prop. 36," said Hallinan, "and to determine where we
will go from here."