VOTERS KNOW LITTLE OF PROP. 36

Support has slipped: The Field Poll finds 49 percent of people likely
to cast ballots favor the plan, down from 64 percent in June.

Although Proposition 36 would have a profound impact on how California
treats drug offenders, only one in five likely voters now knows enough
about the Nov. 7 ballot measure to favor or oppose it.

That was the finding of the latest Field Poll, conducted little more
than a month before the nation's most populous state will vote on an
issue that would mandate community treatment instead of jail or prison
for an estimated 36,000 drug and alcohol abusers a year.

The poll, released today, also shows that support for the proposition
continues to slip, dropping below 50 percent for the first time.
However, it still enjoys a large margin -- 49 percent to 28 percent --
over those who say they oppose it. In the first Field Poll conducted
on the issue in June, 64 percent favored the measure. That had eroded
to 55 percent in August.

Meanwhile, the percentage of those who say they would vote ``no'' if
the election were held today has risen from 20 percent in June to 28
percent.

`A little surprising'

The Field Poll found that, ``just one in five likely voters say they
have seen or heard anything about Proposition 36, and one-fourth of
those could not express an inclination to support or oppose the proposal.''

``The low numbers of people who say they have heard of it is a little
surprising,'' said Dave Fratello, chief of the Yes on 36 campaign,
``but that's the reality of campaigns today. Most people don't tune in
until the end of the campaign. But we still have almost a majority, so
we feel we're in good shape.''

To take advantage of any late interest, Fratello said his campaign,
which has raised some $3 million, will spend $1 million on television
ads from now until the Nov. 7 election. Most of the money -- $2.6
million -- came from three wealthy financiers who favor drug reform.

Opponents, who, by comparison, have little more than $100,000 in their
bank account, will have to make a more modest pitch on television,
according to No on 36 campaign spokeswoman Jean Munoz.

If Proposition 36 is adopted, according to an independent study by the
state's legislative analyst, those convicted of first or second
non-violent drug offenses generally would be sentenced to probation
instead of state prison or jail. Offenses covered by the proposition
would be felony or misdemeanor crimes, such as being under the
influence, possession or use of drugs, or transporting illegal drugs
for personal use.

The analyst has concluded the measure would -- within several years --
save the state and counties some $200 million to $250 million in
incarceration costs a year and would avoid onetime prison building
costs of $450 million to $550 million. The proposition appropriates
$120 million a year to pay for treatment.

It would divert some 36,000 drug and alcohol offenders a year from
jail or prison, according to the state analyst. Communities would have
to absorb the burden of addicts' treatment in clinics or residential
treatment programs, a prospect for which opponents have great
reservations.

The measure, which essentially would decriminalize the personal use of
drugs, has drawn the support of numerous health organizations and
community groups that provide help to addicts and alcoholics. Most of
the opposition comes from law enforcement and judges, who believe it
takes away the power of jurists to decide each case on its own merits.

The proposition clearly would change the face of drug enforcement and
the operation of the courts in the state.

Comprehensive court system

California currently has one of the most comprehensive drug-court
systems in the country, which already provide for treatment for
offenders who quality.

``Proposition 36 will cripple drug courts,'' said Santa Clara County
Superior Court Judge Stephen V. Manley, one of the principal drug
court judges in the county. The drug courts in California, he said,
``are the most effective we have in the country. This proposition
would dramatically affect their success by taking away the power
judges have to hold drug addicts accountable.''