CALIFORNIA HAS STAKE IN ARIZONA PLAN

PHOENIX -- For Beverly Waddle, Arizona's landmark drug-diversion measure is
nothing short of a lifesaver.

The law has expanded treatment programs that have helped the 42-year-old
former crack-cocaine addict quit drugs and get a job. Now she hopes she can
be reunited with her children.

For Maricopa County prosecutor Jerry Landau, the law is an obstacle that
takes away one of the best ways to pressure addicted criminals into
quitting: threatening them with jail.

These views illustrate the clash over Arizona's new strategy for fighting
the war on drugs.

Besides diverting those guilty of first-and second-time drug possession
from jail and prison to treatment, a California ballot initiative also
would redirect nonviolent parole violators -- those whose violation is a
drug offense -- from prison to treatment. The initiative would increase the
state's treatment budget by $120 million a year.

Arizona, a conservative, Republican-dominated state with tough drug laws,
would seem an unlikely place for a truce in the national war on drugs.

But Norman Helber, chief probation officer for Maricopa County in Phoenix,
said the ballot measure passed partly because of dissatisfaction with the
state's strict drug laws.

The measure, Helber said, appealed to voters' practical instincts -- and to
their pocketbooks.

"The fiscally conservative community understands that a kid doing a joint
at a concert isn't an ax murderer," he said. "He's probably their child or
grandchild."

Searching for solutions

Like the California initiative, Arizona's Proposition 200 was funded by
three wealthy businessmen who want to promote new ways of fighting drug
addiction.

One of them, John Sperling, is an Arizona resident and founder of the
University of Phoenix. The others are New York billionaire financier George
Soros and Cleveland insurance titan Peter Lewis. The three funded
California's Proposition 215, an initiative to legalize medical marijuana,
in 1996. Arizona's Proposition 200 also supported legalization of medical
marijuana.

Arizona's law mandates treatment for anyone convicted of drug possession
for the first or second time, except those with previous convictions for
violent crimes.

To pay for the expanded programs, the measure earmarks half the money from
the state's alcohol and liquor tax for treatment, and the other half for
prevention programs aimed mainly at schoolchildren.

Since it was passed, the initiative has provided enough money to triple the
state's budget for drug treatment to $6 million a year.

"This was the first real money we got for treatment," said Helber. "The
amount of money we got before was negligible."

The extra money has added 6,000 new drug-treatment slots, mostly for
outpatient counseling programs; beefed up probation supervision of drug
offenders; helped fund drug courts throughout the state; and paid the costs
of transporting addicts to counseling sessions.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Susan Bolton, who founded Phoenix's
drug courts, called the mandate for drug treatment "fabulous."

"It's one of the most sensible things I've ever heard of," she said.

Long-term savings

The Arizona Supreme Court, which administers the program, estimated that it
saved $2.5 million during its first year because it diverted about 551
defendants from prison.

Court officials say there also are long-term savings.

"These people are now getting treated and being supervised," said Colleen
McNally, a Maricopa County drug court commissioner. "If they stop using,
you're not just reducing the number of drug cases, you're also reducing the
number of burglaries and thefts."

California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office predicts an even
greater savings from the California initiative. The office estimates the
measure would divert up to 37,000 nonviolent offenders, including parolees,
from jails and prisons each year.

The state would save about $175 million a year in prison and jail operating
costs and save $500 million in prison construction costs, the office
concluded in its preliminary report on the measure.

In Arizona, however, judges and administrators say they are frustrated that
the measure prevents judges from ordering first-time drug offenders who
violate probation to go to jail.

"Why should we have probation that can't be revoked?" Bolton asked. "That
doesn't make any sense."

Second-time offenders can be sent to jail in Arizona.

California drug court judges have a similar complaint about the measure on
the November ballot.

The California initiative would allow first-time offenders to be sent to
jail for 30 days, but only after they have failed in treatment or
repeatedly violated probation.

Some judges object

Many judges argue that this takes away one of the best tools for forcing
addicts to quit.

"You are depriving the court of the one thing that has made treatment
effective," said San Diego County Superior Court Judge James Milliken, a
leader in the drug court movement. "People are not likely to recover unless
there are consequences for using."

Landau, the special assistant county attorney for Maricopa County, said the
Arizona law "undercuts drug courts and drug treatment" because it amounts
to a get-out-of-jail-free card.

"A person can just blow off treatment. There's no reason to take it
seriously because sanctions aren't there," he said.

Landau and other prosecutors concede that the measure has helped to expand
drug-treatment programs in Arizona, which Landau said has had "some
positive influences."

Since first-time offenders can't be thrown in jail, officials in the
Phoenix criminal-justice system are experimenting with a separate drug
court for first-timers that rewards them when they complete treatment.

"It's difficult for us in the criminal-justice system based on punishment
to reorient ourselves toward a rewards-based system," Bolton said.

The new drug court, which has been in operation for about three months,
offers zoo tickets, science center tickets and discounts at local
restaurants to defendants who successfully complete their assignments.

"We've been encouraging our staff to be creative about what motivates
addicts to change," said Zachary Dal Pra, chief deputy probation officer
for Maricopa County.

'Tired of the drugs'

Several addicts at a June drug counseling session in Phoenix said they have
powerful motivations besides avoiding jail.

Some wanted to complete their treatment so they could knock felony
convictions down to misdemeanors, while others were hoping they could be
reunited with their families.

"I'm tired of the drugs. I'm tired of the life. I'm tired of the cravings,"
said Waddle, the former crack-cocaine addict, who said she resorted to
prostitution to fund her habit.

Six years ago, she served 18 months in an Arizona prison for attempted
robbery, but didn't receive any treatment until she was arrested for
possession six months ago.

Now, she's attending outpatient counseling sessions, living in a halfway
house and working at a dry cleaner. She hopes to convince social workers
that she is stable enough to be reunited with her children, who are now 13
and 9 years old.

Waddle, like all probationers under Proposition 200, has to pay $20 per
week to help defray the costs of counseling.

Another defendant, Tommie Jones, 44, has managed to hold down jobs in day
care and as an employee of Northwest Airlines during most of his 13 years
of addiction to cocaine. But he said he wants to change so he can be a
better father to his four children.

"I always thought that I'm doing the cocaine just for myself and I'm not
hurting anyone," he said. "But I've also been victimizing my family.
They're not asking to be part of your madness."