TIME TO END DRUG WAR

It's only natural that Judge Frank Hoover feels threatened by Proposition
36. So do thousands of other criminal-justice professionals with vested
financial interests in perpetuating the drug war. But being experts in
caging drug users does not qualify these people as experts in medical
problems, like addiction.

Their motivation is not improved public health, but money. The Substance
Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 could very well derail the drug war
gravy train, something long overdue. While drug warriors may fear that
coercion-based drug courts may be undermined by the initiative, they fail to
appreciate the manner in which law enforcement's involvement in substance
abuse discourages treatment.

In order for drug treatment to be truly effective -- and not necessarily
preceded by an arrest -- policymakers are going to have to tone down the
zero tolerance rhetoric of the drug war. Zero tolerance attitudes discourage
the type of honest discussion necessary to facilitate treatment.

Driving illicit drug addiction underground is counterproductive and only
compounds the problem. Would alcoholics seek treatment if doing so was
tantamount to confessing to criminal activity? Likewise, would putting every
incorrigible alcoholic behind bars and saddling them with criminal records
be cost-effective?

Increased drug treatment options, like drug courts, are a step in the right
direction, but until peace is declared in the failed drug war the success of
treatment will be severely limited.

Robert Sharpe, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Washington, D.C.

ARTICLE CALLED MISLEADING

Judge Frank Hoover is misleading in his Sept. 17 Viewpoint article about
Proposition 36. The truth is that even the mild reforms advocated by
Proposition 36 would save California the need to construct to a new prison
and would additionally keep an estimated 37,000 non-violent drug offenders a
year out of prison. Given that California already has by far the highest
rate of incarceration of non-violent drug users in the nations, the present
system -- the one he defends -- is doing a miserable job.

The savings to California, a state which has already mortgaged its
educational future to build prisons, would be at least $350 million a year.

One need look no further than the fact that Hoover is a drug court judge who
spent his early career as a prosecutor to understand his motivation. We have
a drug policy which is predicated on punishment -- even as it claims to
treat nearly all drug use as an addition. He also strongly implies that any
"scheme to keep people out of jail for using any drugs, even the hard drugs
like heroin, crack and date rape drugs like rohypnol" is wrong. This is
bizarre, since he's participating in a plan (drug court) which claims to be
doing just that.

"Accountability" won't be lost under 36; it would simply be deferred until
less coercive treatment had received a realistic trial. A similar system was
passed in Arizona in 1996. It has been working well and saving money for
Arizona ever since.

Tom O'Connell, San Mateo