VOTERS TAKE A NEW TACK IN WAR ON DRUGS

SACRAMENTO -- California voters spoke loudly in Tuesday's election in favor
of a new approach toward fighting the war on drugs that emphasizes
rehabilitating users rather than locking them up.

Now the sponsors of Proposition 36, which diverts nonviolent drug users
from incarceration to treatment, plan to use their victory to try to
persuade other states, including Ohio, Michigan and New York, to change
their drug laws.

Supporters point out that Tuesday's vote represents a significant departure
from the tough-on-crime policies generally favored by California voters and
politicians.

During the past three decades, voters have routinely approved measures to
expand the death penalty, impose lengthy sentences on repeat offenders and
treat juvenile offenders more harshly.

By contrast, Proposition 36 would keep between 25,000 and 37,000 nonviolent
drug users, including parole violators, out of jail and prison each year
and send them to treatment centers.

Backers say the initiative is an attempt to treat addiction like a sickness
rather than a crime.

"What it's saying is what everybody knows -- there's a hell of a lot of
people in jail whose only crime is being chemically dependent," said Senate
President Pro Tempore John Burton, D-San Francisco.

The initiative applies to nonviolent first-and second-time drug users and
parole violators. It allocates $120 million a year to expand drug treatment
programs, which are in short supply.

Voters -- ignoring the opposition of law-enforcement leaders, drug court
judges and many political leaders, including Gov. Gray Davis and Sen.
Dianne Feinstein -- approved the measure 61 percent to 39 percent.

Ironically, the one politician who made support for the measure a key part
of his campaign, Republican Senate nominee Tom Campbell, lost in a
landslide to the better-known and better-funded Feinstein.

Proposition 36 was one of five successful measures on Tuesday's ballots in
several states sponsored by a trio of wealthy businessmen. Others legalized
medical marijuana in Colorado and Nevada and tightened asset forfeiture
laws in Oregon and Utah.

So far, the three businessmen, led by New York financier George Soros, have
passed 17 of the 19 drug-related measures they have bankrolled, including a
1996 California initiative legalizing medical marijuana.

Soros' drug policy adviser, Ethan Nadelmann, called California's
Proposition 36 "one of the most significant sentencing laws in the last
century."

"It's going to provide a powerful example to other states," he said. "The
fact that it was approved by such a large margin enhances the power of our
message."

Nadelmann said his organization, the Lindesmith Center, plans to build on
the California experience to try similar ballot measures in states like
Michigan, Ohio and Florida.

He said he also plans to highlight the vote in his efforts to persuade
lawmakers in New York to change that state's Rockefeller laws, which impose
lengthy sentences on low-level drug offenders.

Nadelmann, however, acknowledged that there was still much work to do to
implement Proposition 36, including licensing new treatment centers and
expanding county probation departments. The measure doesn't take effect
until July 1, 2001.

Opponents reject the idea of voter dissatisfaction with the drug war. They
argue that they lost because they were outspent by more than 10 to 1.

"We didn't have the resources to educate voters as to what was contained in
Proposition 36," said Larry Brown, executive director of the California
District Attorneys Association. "Voters were misled."

Brown believes the initiative might harm the state's successful drug courts
because it takes away a judge's ability to put a relapsed offender in jail
for a couple of days.

Proponents predict, however, that drug courts will adjust, possibly by
focusing on a different group of offenders than those who qualify under
Proposition 36.

Prison guards union president Don Novey, whose organization opposed
Proposition 36, said the measure may lead to more crime because it applies
to those convicted of using hard drugs.

"I'm worried about the heroin and cocaine crowd," he said.

University of California Berkeley political scientist Bruce Cain said he
believes the measure passed because the state Legislative Analyst estimated
that it will save about $190 million a year in prison operating costs.

"A lot of it is dollars and cents," he said. "I don't think there's a lot
of compassion for drug users."

Still, he believes the result may lead to a more open discussion of the
effectiveness of the war on drugs by politicians -- many of whom fear that
advocating treatment will tar them with a reputation as soft on crime.

"They may come out of the shadows," he said. "But I don't think they're
going to leap out."