PROP. 36 CONTROVERSY: HOW TO HANDLE DRUG CASES

Depending on whom you ask, Proposition 36 will lead to the
decriminalization of drugs in California or begin to eliminate them by
curing addicts.

Those are the extreme positions in the debate over the controversial
measure on Tuesday's ballot. Prop. 36 mandates probation and treatment for
most people (violent felons are excluded, for example) convicted of using,
possessing, transporting or being under the influence of drugs -- provided
the amount is small enough for only personal use.

Proponents, composed mostly of substance-abuse treatment professionals,
argue the war on drugs has failed and a new strategy is needed. They
estimate it would save the state $40 million by diverting thousands of
addicts from prison stays. It would also pump $120 million of state money
into local counties for treatment; an estimated $1.3 million would go to
Santa Barbara.

Opponents, mainly from the criminal justice system, counter that
eliminating prison sentences removes a key incentive for addicts to kick
the habit. They also criticize the lack of funds for testing drug users to
monitor their progress. Further, that eliminating the prospect of
punishment invites more drug use.

The position of local officials mirrors the statewide debate. Santa Barbara
County Superior Court Presiding Judge Frank Ochoa, District Attorney Thomas
Sneddon Jr. and Sheriff Jim Thomas oppose the ballot measure.

"They don't allow any money for drug testing and no money for in-custody
treatment," said Thomas. "(The supporters') agenda is a free society. You
can do anything you want as long as you don't hurt anyone."

Ochoa presides over Santa Barbara's Drug Court, which diverts select
addicts into court supervised treatment with drug testing. He argues that
the prospect of prison serves as a powerful motivator. Upsetting the status
quo, which is on its way to reform, is not the solution.

"What you really do is create a revolving door for drug addicts," the judge
argued. "We are doing a lot better things in drug treatment without Prop. 36."

John Van Aken, member of the board of directors for the Santa Barbara
Mental Health Association, disagrees.

"It puts an emphasis on treatment, not incarceration," said Van Aken, a
retired attorney. "The prospect of jail is not taken away. All that happens
is that it's postponed."

Another wrinkle in the proposition would eliminate drug convictions from
the individual's record upon successful completion of the treatment
program. Also, addicts would have three chances at treatment before facing
significant jail time.

Prop. 36 allows voters to decide which philosophy the state should employ
in the war on drugs. A "no" vote preserves the status-quo, keeping criminal
justice resources in enforcing the law. A "yes" vote radically changes the
system to concentrate on treatment. Polls show a majority of the voters
support the measure, which mirrors similar efforts enacted in Arizona and
New York within the past year.