A RESOUNDING 'YES' TO DRUG TREATMENT

Proposition 36, the "Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000,"
would provide that people convicted of simple non-violent possession of
illicit drugs would receive probation and mandatory drug treatment rather
than jail. It would be an important step toward a more humane approach to
addiction and substance abuse. It has received support from most of the
medical community.

The PBS program "Frontline" (www.pbs.org) recently did a two-part series on
drug policy and discovered something striking: "Perhaps the most surprising
thread running through 'Drug Wars,'" reads the program synopsis, "is the
agreement by virtually every drug enforcement official interviewed that the
decades-long strategy of fighting drugs through interdiction and tough
sentencing should be replaced with a policy emphasizing drug treatment,
education, and prevention."

That's what Proposition 36 will do in California, creating a treatment
program similar to a program that has saved considerable money and misery
in Arizona, and a program just instituted in New York state. Under the
program, judges will have discretion to impose additional conditions of
probation, including drug testing, vocational counseling and community
service. Those who commit other crimes in conjunction with drug possession
would not be eligible.

If the person in the program doesn't complete the prescribed treatment
program or fails it, an alternative program could be used, but a person who
doesn't show up or cooperate can be sent right to jail. For those who take
treatment lightly there will be consequences beyond mere failure to get
help.

The California Psychiatric Association, along with the California Society
of Addiction Medicine, the California Nurses Association, Mental Health
Association, San Francisco Medical Society and Southern California Public
Health Association support this initiative.

Opposition comes from law enforcement groups (with substantial financing
from the prison guards union) and the National Drug Court Institute.

The objections are twofold. While Prop. 36 allocates money for drug
treatment programs (and still saves taxpayers $100 million to $150 million
a year according to the state Legislative Analyst's Office) it doesn't
allocate any of it for drug testing. And it doesn't allow what's called
"flash incarceration" - the ability by a drug court judge to order a
subject into jail overnight immediately, to get his attention.

Those opposed to the initiative also argue that without the threat of jail
drug treatment will not be effective.

These objections are not substantial. Other funds are available for drug
testing, and a judge can order testing under Prop. 36. And the notion that
there is only one way to do drug treatment, the method drug courts now use,
with more sticks than carrots, is too narrow, in our view. No single method
of drug treatment is 100 percent effective and no one approach stands
head-and-shoulders above the rest.

It may well be that the attitude of the addict - whether he or she is ready
to confront the problem and work to change - is more important than the
specific kind of treatment. If a person is ready to confront addiction, any
number of programs might help, but if the person is still in denial none
might work. Given that each person with a drug problem is different, it
makes sense to have a variety of approaches available.

Not all counties in California have drug courts and policies vary from
county to county. Most simple possession drug offenders do not currently
have the opportunity to be diverted to a drug court. If Proposition 36
passes more of them will be reached with a good-faith treatment approach.
Not all will be helped but some will.

Almost everybody agrees that the old approach to drug addiction isn't
working.

Proposition 36 might not be perfect, but it's worth a try.

Yes on 36.