CALIFORNIA GETS SET TO SHIFT ON SENTENCING DRUG USERS

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 9 - California's enormous prison system, the largest in
the Western Hemisphere with more than 162,000 inmates, may be radically
altered since voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a measure that will
sentence nonviolent drug offenders to treatment instead of prison.

Nearly one in three prisoners in California is serving time for a drug-
related crime, more per capita than any other state. The new law,
Proposition 36, puts California at the forefront of a national movement to
change drug laws; it will send first- and second-time nonviolent drug
offenders into treatment, reducing the prison population by as many as
36,000 inmates a year, according to the state's nonpartisan Legislative
Analyst's Office.

The measure, which comes as states nationwide re-examine their drug
sentencing laws, was approved by 61 percent of voters despite strong
opposition from virtually all of the state's law enforcement officials,
judges and some health care groups.

It represents the most significant change in California's criminal justice
policy since the 1994 passage of the "three strikes" law, which mandated
tough prison terms for people convicted of a third felony offense.

"This shows that we can draw distinctions between real criminals or real
crime and violent crime and drug users," said Dave Fratello, a spokesman
for the Yes on 36 campaign. "It also punctures the conventional wisdom
among politicians that what voters want is an across-the-board
zero-tolerance drug policy."

Mr. Fratello added, "The only political competition on the drug issue has
been to see who can be tougher, and I think what you're seeing is a radical
rethinking of that."

Proposition 36 seeks to focus on treating drug addiction as a health
problem rather than a crime. It requires probation and drug treatment for
people convicted of possession, use and transporting for personal use of
controlled substances and similar parole violations.

Those caught selling or manufacturing drugs are excluded from the treatment
mandate, as are offenders also arrested on nondrug-related charges like
theft or gun possession. The law is to take effect in July 2001.

Proponents of the proposition, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention
Act, emphasized the cost savings of the shift.

By diverting thousands of drug abusers from jail or prison, the Legislative
Analyst's Office estimated that the measure would save the state about $250
million a year in incarceration costs and save local governments $40
million a year in operations costs.

The measure allocates $120 million a year for drug treatment, estimated at
$4,000 a patient. That represents a large cut of the costs - about $20,000
a year - to keep a person in prison. It also provides what the Legislative
Analyst's Office estimated as a onetime savings of up to $550 million in
reduced costs for prison construction.

Opponents of Proposition 36 said the measure would decimate the state's
drug courts, which already send thousands of drug addicts a year to
treatment instead of prison.

More than 100 judges last month signed a petition criticizing the measure
for banning two tools those drug courts use extensively: it would not pay
for drug tests and it would outlaw the short jail terms the courts use to
punish people caught using drugs during treatment.

"Proposition 36 will spend $120 million on treatment that will not work,"
said Judge Stephen Manley of Santa Clara County Superior Court, president
of the California Association of Drug Court Professionals. "What does work
is when you hold drug addicts accountable."

Under Proposition 36, drug offenders who fail treatment programs twice
could be sentenced to jail or prison if they are found to be unamenable to
treatment, and those who fail three times are required to serve time.
Advocates of the measure say that it will reach far more addicts than drug
courts, which reach only about 5 percent of offenders.

Larry Brown, executive director of the California District Attorneys
Association, said that the initiative's passage would probably mean that
prosecutors will "sharply curtail" their practice of reducing drug-dealing
charges to possession, done to expedite cases. He also expected a decline
in plea bargains that reduce accompanying charges, like theft or burglary,
to possession.

Mr. Fratello said the initiative omitted drug testing from what it would
finance so that treatment would not be short-changed.

"That doesn't mean that judges can't assign testing," he said. "What we may
need to do is reassess the whole way we conduct testing. Maybe we make the
offender pay for his own tests. At $4 to $7 a test, that's not a lot to ask
to stay out of prison."

Proponents of Proposition 36 outspent the opposition by more than 10 to 1.
The measure was supported by three billionaires: George Soros, the New York
financier and philanthropist who also contributed heavily to the measure
that legalized "medical marijuana" in California four years ago; Peter
Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Insurance Company in Cleveland; and John
Sperling, chairman of the University of Phoenix. Each contributed about $1
million for Proposition 36's passage.

The three also financed voter initiatives passed Tuesday that relaxed drug
laws in four other states: those measures concerned legalizing medical
marijuana in Colorado and Nevada, and laws restricting government seizure
of drug offenders' property in Oregon and Utah.

A sixth initiative they financed lost in Massachusetts. It was similar to
Proposition 36 except that it included low-level drug dealers among
offenders who would qualify for treatment.

The three men have vowed to expand their support for initiatives addressing
what they called the failure of the nation's strict drug policies.

The California District Attorneys Association said it had not decided
whether to mount a legal challenge to Proposition 36.

Judge Manley said, however, that the California Association of Drug Court
Professionals would try to make the initiative work by seeking money from
the legislature for drug testing and by pushing for strict licensing and
regulation of drug-treatment providers.

"I think we need to move forward now," Judge Manley said.