PROP. 36: A DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE

Proposition 36 IS the equivalent of curing a sprained finger by cutting off
the arm. It's a drastic "solution" to a very real problem and it will create
a whole new set of woes for those who can least afford more complexity in
their lives.

Prop. 36 on the November ballot is supposed to help substance abusers. It
has the catchy title of being the Drug Treatment Diversion Program.

It supposedly will provide treatment, rather than incarceration for
nonviolent drug possessions, a great concept. The legislative analyst says
it will save the state more than $100 million a year. It will lower prison
cost operations and reduce the need to build new prisons.

But you know what they say about something sounding too good to be true.

In the case of Prop. 36, the devil is in the details, and there's enough
concern about what's written and unwritten in this initiative that Superior
Court Judge Harlan Grossman is making it almost a personal crusade to see
that it doesn't pass.

"It's bad for the criminal justice system and the people in the criminal
justice system," he says. As the judge in charge of Richmond's "Drug Court"
Judge Grossman is painfully aware of the role substance abuse plays in
criminals' lives, saying that upward of 80 percent of people arrested have a
substance abuse problem or are under the influence when crimes were being
committed.

He knows the futility of just locking away people with substance abuse
problems, without offering treatment. "The big thing is to break the cycle
of addiction."

His frustration with an entrenched judicial system that didn't address that
need sparked him to establish the drug court in Contra Costa in 1997.

The graduated rewards and sanctions that can be administered in the drug
court are why this innovative approach to battling drug abuse has an
overwhelming success rate.

According to a national drug court clearinghouse of the approximately
100,000 offenders who have been through the program, 71 percent have
successfully completed the program or are currently in the program.

The concept of drug court is two fold. Get the criminal to deal with the
crime, and get the abuser treatment.

It takes the coordinated effort of a judge, prosecutor, defense counsel,
treatment specialist and probation officer to be successful. The key, says
Grossman, is the rewards and sanctions that he, as judge, can administer to
the people who agree to enter drug court.

Through coordinated treatment and extensive monitoring, the abuser is more
likely to meet success, rather than traditional approaches, which either
locked up the criminal or sent him back on the street, but never addressed
his or her problem.

A participant who tests negative on a drug test Friday morning can be facing
a weekend in jail or a harsh lecture, or a query about what's going on in
their lives, or any combination of numerous sanctions.

"We use it as a wake-up call," Grossman says. And those who fail in the
program will be incarcerated. The ongoing monitoring of participants is the
major reason for drug courts' effectiveness, yet it's a key component that's
missing in Prop. 36, which does not allow any of the $120 million it will
receive in state funding to go toward drug testing.

"That money (for testing) has to come from other sources," says Dave
Fratello, spokesman for the Prop. 36 campaign.

He says testing could be part of treatment, but it's not mandatory. "It's
not a legal barrier, we just don't have a specific system."

Fratello goes as far as suggesting that offenders may just pay for their own
testing.

Now consider me a cynic, but expecting people with drug problems to
willingly fund their own testing is a bit too much of the honor system for
my likes. It certainly gives credence to the theory that Prop. 36, funded by
three out-of-state gaziliionaires, is an end run to get drugs
decriminalized.

And if the testing loophole wasn't enough of a reason to vote down this
initiative, read the fine print. Offenders can choose the treatment center
of their choice. That's right. Doesn't even have to be in California. A
judge has discretion, at the first offense, to choose the treatment
facility. But if the offender feels it's not appropriate, he can simply
demand a new facility.

It should come as no surprise that major endorsers of Prop. 36 are treatment
facilities, which stand to make a whole lot of money should the initiative
pass.

There are no limits in how much the state would have to pay per day for
treatment and if exclusive rehabilitation centers are an option, as well as
the county health center, guess where the offender and the tax money is
going to go?

And the initiative's demand of no jail for the first two offenses and
30-days for the third, limits a judge's discretion in sentencing. It's an
action that is disconcerting, not only for Grossman, but for all people who
believe our criminal justice system operates to protect society.

"We're dealing with people in the criminal justice system," Grossman says.
It makes sense to let the system work.

"They bill it as being complimentary to drug courts, but it's detrimental to
the criminal justice system. The procedure is really unworkable."

The tragedy in all this is that drug courts have never been fully funded,
which is why they reach so few offenders, yet if Prop. 36 passes, drug
courts will be destroyed.

Rather than pass a flawed initiative, Californians would be better served by
demanding the Legislature put some money into programs that work, especially
drug courts.

Keegan's column appears Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday. She can be reached
at 925-779-7109 or tkeegan@cctimes.com