REWRITING THE RULES FOR USERS

Court Officials And Police Fear Prop. 36 Will Prevent Prosecution Of Offenders

Drug Treatment

SACRAMENTO -- Supporters of a controversial measure mandating that first-
and second-time drug offenders receive treatment rather than jail time plan
to parlay the initiative's approval in California into a torrent of
legislation and initiatives across the country.

California became the second state to embrace the measure when Proposition
36 won 61 percent of the vote Tuesday. The initiative, first approved in
Arizona four years ago, has come under heavy criticism from prosecutors and
law enforcement, but has been heralded by supporters as a new approach to
confronting the nation's drug epidemic.

"We think this will be a national turning point on drug policy," said Bill
Zimmerman, the campaign manager who worked for the initiative's passage.
"Prop. 36 is a clear sign that voters want a new direction on drug policy."

But opponents downplayed the significance of Tuesday's result and said
voters had been deceived by a well-funded campaign that drew on the immense
wealth of supporters George Soros, Peter Lewis and John Sperling.

"They came in from New York with 3 million bucks," said Ray McNally, who
ran the campaign against the measure. "We had no money."

Others said the proposition will hamper the ability of law enforcement to
crack down on illegal drug use.

"It absolutely ties the hands of prosecutors and judges in giving
appropriate dispositions on cases," said Larry Brown, executive director of
the California District Attorneys Association. "It will create a revolving
door of criminal drug addicts."

Prop. 36 proponents said the measure will save taxpayers money by diverting
people from prison, and will go to the root of the drug problem by weaning
people from their addictions. The initiative covers nearly all illegal
drugs, including methamphetamines, heroin and cocaine.

A report by the nonpartisan state Legislative Analyst's Office backed some
of the claims by supporters. The agency estimated the measure would take in
36,000 drug users who are convicted each year and who would otherwise go to
jail, and therefore save the state more than $200 million a year and local
governments $40 million a year.

Nevertheless, law enforcement officials predicted the initiative would
wreak havoc on the state's criminal justice system. The measure was fought
by judges, sheriffs, prosecutors, jailers and Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

"I think the attorney general shared one view with the proponents of Prop.
36, and that is it should be our goal to reduce the number of people who
are addicted to drugs," said Lockyer spokesman Nathan Barankin. "We have
major disagreements on what is the best way to do that, but the voters have
spoken and we respect that."

Barankin said the attorney general is contacting local law enforcement and
court officials to discuss how to implement the new law.

Supporters made no mention of several provisions contained in the measure's
fine print, said Brown. For instance, the first and second drug offenses
are counted from the time the initiative becomes law, allowing everyone who
has prior drug convictions to be treated as a first-time offender, he said.

Also, the measure limits jail time for subsequent offenses to no more than
30 days. The measure sets aside $120 million a year but prohibits the money
from being used for drug tests.

"I am convinced a vast majority of voters thought they voted for probation
and treatment for first and second drug offenses only," Brown said. "In
reality, what they voted for is far more sweeping and far more dangerous."

Rank-and-file prosecutors and police officers believe the measure will
create a headache. For one, according to prosecutors, the law encourages
those charged with simple drug possession to take their cases to trial
because prosecutors cannot threaten jail time to force a plea agreement.

"Even if one in 10 charged asks for a jury trial, we're going to double the
total maximum capacity we can handle," said Jeff Rubin, an Alameda County
deputy district attorney.

Alameda County prosecutors charged 2,700 people with drug offenses in 1999,
and Rubin estimated that most of those cases would fall under the
provisions of Prop. 36. Contra Costa County officials could not provide the
relevant figures, but said they expect the initiative to produce the same
type of fallout.

"If we're forced to prioritize scarce resources, we're going to continue
prosecuting murders and domestic violence, not simple possession," said
Gary Yancey, the Contra Costa County district attorney.

At Contra Costa County Superior Court, Judge Harlan Grossman worried about
the impact on court administrators. Prop. 36 will require the court to keep
a second calendar for those offenders, he said.

Meanwhile, drug treatment counselors said they like the idea behind the
measure but have questions about how it will work. The initiative does not
provide money for drug testing, so treatment centers will have to find
other ways to pay for that if needed for treatment.

"It could be a real boon, or it could be really damaging if it's done
wrong," said Jim Bouquin, the executive director of New Connections
Behavioral Healthcare Services, a Concord center that contracts with Contra
Costa County to provide drug treatment.

Staff writer Ethan Rarick contributed to this story.