DRUG CRACKDOWN FAILS TO CUT CRIME, STUDY SAYS

California counties that have aggressively pursued lower-level drug
offenders have not seen resulting drops in crime, while those that focused
on stopping major dealers have had significant decreases in crime rates,
according to a study published today.

The study, a 12-page effort by the nonprofit Justice Policy Institute in
San Francisco, tracked arrests in California's 12 largest counties between
1980 and 1998 in order to see whether tough-on-drugs policies had any
effect on the crime rate.

It compared counties like Los Angeles, which saw a 33 percent decrease in
misdemeanor drug arrests between 1980 and 1998 and a 7 percent drop in
violent crime, with counties like Sacramento, which topped the list with a
123 percent increase in misdemeanor arrests over that time and a 12 percent
increase in violent crime.

"The war on drugs has never been oriented toward producing practical
results," said Mike Males, the study's primary author. "A practical person
would say, 'Show us reductions in drug use and crime that result from
spending millions and millions of dollars and incarcerating thousands of
people.' "

But some of the state's top law enforcement officers questioned the logic
in abandoning laws affecting drug use and the timing of the study's release
- -- four weeks before voters decide on Proposition 36, which would mandate
treatment instead of incarceration for anyone convicted of possession or
use of drugs for personal use.

"The premise that vigorous enforcement leads to greater criminality defies
common sense," said Larry Brown, executive director of the California
District Attorney's Association. "It is better fiction than Harry Potter."

Brown said the counties that were singled out as having a disproportionate
volume of low-level arrests -- Sacramento, Fresno, San Bernardino and
Riverside -- are those hardest hit by California's epidemic of
methamphetamine use.

"California has nothing to be ashamed of in its enforcement practices," he
said. "The fact of the matter is we have enjoyed a 50 percent reduction in
the crime rate since 1994, far outpacing the national average."

In Sacramento County, sheriff's spokesman Sgt. James Lewis said detectives
have focused on high-level dealers but have not ignored the lower-level
offenders.

"The reason for the increase in arrests in Sacramento County probably
speaks to the fact that we have committed so many resources to the
problem," said Lewis, pointing out that the Central Valley recently was
designated a federal High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area because of its
methamphetamine problem.

The spokesman for state Attorney General Bill Lockyer said most law
enforcement officers around California are quick to acknowledge that while
there are strong anti-drug efforts in place, there are too far few options
for drug addicts.

"The question is whether there's enough space to get them into an effective
treatment program," said Lockyer spokesman Nathan Barankin.

"It is a false choice to suggest that law enforcement ought not to
prosecute serious drug users because it doesn't have an effect on the crime
rate," he said. "The right choice is to blend in more prevention and
intervention services to supplement law enforcement."

Sacramento's Lewis doubted the effectiveness of programs that take away the
legal hammer for offenders who refuse to complete drug treatment, which
Proposition 36 would do by eliminating potential jail time as a consequence
for not finishing a rehabilitation program.

But Males, the study's author, said time has proven that imprisoning drug
offenders is ineffective.

"The best solution is to admit what's going on here. After 15 years,
California and the United States now have the worst drug-abuse problem in
their history.

And the problem is centered in aging, baby boom addicts," he said.

"Imprisonment is not going to solve their problem," he said. "Very
intensive treatment at least would help -- it would be the best shot."

Meanwhile, Brown at the District Attorney's Association questioned the
motivation of the Justice Policy Institute, which is funded in part by at
least one key backer of Proposition 36. The Institute's vice president, Dan
Macallair, said that while a small proportion of the study's funding may
have come from a Proposition 36 backer, it in no way influenced the choice
to conduct the study or the study's outcome.

"This information is important for people to have," he said. "And as a
public policy agency, I certainly hope it contributes to the debate."