CALIFORNIA VOTERS TO PUT DRUG OFFENDERS IN TREATMENT RATHER THAN JAIL

SAN JOSE, Calif. - A proposition that will dramatically alter the way
California's criminal justice system deals with non-violent drug offenders,
sending them into treatment programs in stead of jail cells, won
overwhelming support from voters Tuesday.

Proposition 36, similar to a measure that won popular approval in Arizona
five years ago, rode a surge of support among the state's populous coastal
counties from the Mexican border to one county short of the Oregon border.

Voters in Santa Clara County backed the measure by a margin of better than
60 percent to 40 percent and the proposal won wide spread support throughout
the Bay Area and even most rural counties on the eastern flank of the
Sierra.

Among other propositions, bonds to finance veterans home loans and limits on
campaign contributions were leading handily, while a measure giving
governments authority to hire private architects for back-logged projects
was holding a 10 percent margin. A measure that would require two-thirds
votes to pass new fees on businesses was trailing narrowly, while one that
would permit legislators to join the state employee pension system was
losing badly.

With the single exception of tiny Del Norte County, the drug-treatment
measure drew heavy support along the north coast, where the growing of
marijuana has become a staple of the local economies.

Sick of the war on drugs, street crime and bulging prison populations,
voters seem to agree with the position of Andrea James, 38, a service
administrator from Mountain View as she emerged from voting in favor of the
issue:

"If you can help, then why not help?" she said. "What's jail going to do?
You should help them in stead of slamming the doors."

The proposal would divert some 37,000 people a year from jails and prisons
and put them into residential, clinical and other treatment programs in the
community. Al though the system of treatment facilities is not sufficient at
present to accommodate those numbers, proponents have said county and state
drug and alcohol programs will quickly fill the gap.

If passed, the measure will take effect in July, 2001. It appropriates $120
million a year to provide the necessary treatment programs, but none of the
money can be used for testing of offenders, which opponents contended is
absolutely necessary to chart an addict's progress toward recovery.

Proposition 36 mandates treatment instead of jail or prison for first- or
second-time non-violent drug offenders arrested, for example, for simple
possession.

It drew a contentious line in the sand between those in the criminal justice
system and many in the treatment and health fields.

It was viewed by hard-line prosecutors and others as a thinly veiled attempt
to open the door to decriminalization of drugs in California. Drug treatment
court judges, who already send thousands of offenders to treatment instead
of incarceration, also opposed the measure.

But those who favored it saw it as a step toward needed reform of the
present system _ symbolized by the much-maligned war on drugs, which many
feel has been a disastrous failure.

Critics, and some supporters, agreed that the proposition contains numerous
flaws that would require a bipartisan effort in the Legislature, and the
governor's signature, to fix before it could work effectively.

Chief among its shortcomings is the fact it does not provide nearly enough
money to carry out its mission, according to those who would have to
administer it.

Also, the logical state agency to implement it, the Department of Drug and
Alcohol Programs, does not have the authority to license group homes and
clinics, which both sides said would treat the bulk of drug abusers under
Proposition 36's provisions.

By diverting thousands of drug abusers from jail or prison, the state
Legislative Analyst's Office estimated, the measure would at some point save
taxpayers $100 million to $150 million a year in incarceration costs. It
also would stave off the construction of a prison at a one-time savings of
$450 million.

The measure was supported financially by three businessmen who also have
supported medicinal marijuana propositions in the past. They are billionaire
investor George Soros of New York City; John Sperling of Phoenix, chairman
of the University of Phoenix; and Peter Lewis of Cleveland, chairman of
Progressive Insurance.