CALIFORNIA RETHINKS DRUG WAR STRATEGY

Los Angeles: Opening a new front in the war on drugs, a citizens group is
pushing a California ballot initiative that aims to emphasise rehabilitation
over punishment by diverting all non-violent drug users in the justice
system into treatment programs.

The initiative, which recently qualified for the November ballot, would set
up programs similar to an experiment launched in Arizona in 1996 that,
according to a recent study, kept a vast majority of offenders off drugs and
saved the state millions of dollars. New York state's chief judge last month
ordered all courts there to begin phasing in treatment programs by 2003,
saying it would save the state $US500 million ($A852.51 million) a year.

California's proposal comes at a time of intense debate over the war on
drugs.

Campaigns to legalise medicinal marijuana, an issue approved in California
before passing in states including Arizona, Alaska, Washington, Maine and
Hawaii, and to decriminalise illicit drugs appear to be gaining momentum.

At the same time, a growing chorus has criticised efforts by the federal
government and states to get tough on substance abuse. So-called
three-strikes laws, mandatory prison terms and other efforts, these critics
say, have resulted in overcrowded prisons and more repeat crimes from drug
offenders whose problems with abuse were never treated during their
incarceration.

Amid the criticism, a movement has emerged among judges and prosecutors
across the country to establish drug courts aimed at placing substance
abusers under court-supervised treatment as a condition of probation. Though
more than 450 drug courts have opened in the last five years, experts say
they only reach about 3 per cent of drug users who are arrested and qualify
to be handled by this court system.

Under the California initiative, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention
Act of 2000, the state would allocate $US60 million ($A102.3 million) in
2001 and $US120 million ($A204.6 million) annually thereafter to treat
35,000 users, the majority of first- and second-time nonviolent drug
offenders in the state. A Field poll released last week showed 64 per cent
support the initiative, 20 per cent oppose it and the rest undecided.

Victims groups, a prison guards union as well as judges, prosecutors and
treatment specialists involved in drug court programs oppose the initiative.
They say the initiative would weaken anti-drug laws, reduce penalties for
"date rape" drugs by diverting people possessing such a substance into
treatment programs and overwhelm the court system.

A state legislative analysis of the initiative indicates that the proposal,
subtracting the $US120 million ($A204 million) cost for treatment, would
save $US200 million ($A341 million) annually in prison and jail costs.

Moreover, the program would save up to $US575 million ($A980.4 million)
one-time costs by eliminating construction of a planned new prison.

"This is a response to the overwhelming failure of the war on drugs," said
Dave Fratello, spokesman for California Campaign for New Drug Policies, the
group sponsoring the initiative.

"So many people are going to jail and prison, very few are getting
treatment," added Fratello, who was involved in the group behind
California's medical marijuana initiative in 1996. "To focus more on
treatment would really turn a lot of lives around and save a lot of money."

But while supporting the concept of treatment, officials involved in drug
courts assert that the initiative has several weaknesses. Unlike their
programs, drug court officials say, the proposed law would not provide
strong court supervision or funding for urine testing and would not mandate
certain qualifications for those offering the treatment.

"I believe in accountable treatment. This (initiative) is a drug
decriminalisation bill," said Helen Harberts, chief probation officer in the
Butte County drug court in northern California, one of 101 such programs in
the state.

"As a policy matter, this will eviscerate our drug court," said Harberts, a
member of Californians United Against Drug Abuse, which opposes the
initiative.

Launched in 1989 by judges in Dade County, Florida, drug courts now operate
in 508 jurisdictions in all 50 states, according to the Justice Department's
Drug Courts Program Office. Under drug courts, judges, prosecutors, defence
lawyers and probation departments agree to send certain drug offenders into
treatment programs rather than jail. In addition to staying clean,
participants in many programs also are required to obtain high school or GED
certification, receive job training, perform community service and pay court
fees.

The program took off in 1994, when Congress began allocating money to help
establish new drug courts. Over six years, federal funding has grown to
$US40 million ($A68.2 million) from $US12 million ($A20.5 million).

Drug courts have succeeded in keeping offenders off drugs and out of
trouble, according to a recent study by the National Centre on Addiction and
Substance Abuse at Columbia University. The recidivism rate for offenders in
about 25 drug courts studied around the country ranged from 2 per cent to 28
per cent, compared to 50 per cent for offenders who are incarcerated.

"In the criminal justice system, people have been ordered to go into
treatment for years, but they never go," said Marilyn Roberts, director of
the Justice Department's Drug Courts Program Office.

"In drug courts, court supervision is the important link," she added. "The
critical factor is the offenders are closely supervised and held
accountable."

Results in Arizona, thus far the only state mandating treatment for all
nonviolent offenders, are much the same.

Arizona voters approved the treatment law, Proposition 200, in 1996. The law
allocates $US4 million ($A6.8 million) a year for treatment. A 1999 study by
the state Supreme Court showed the law saved $US2.5 million ($A4.3 million)
in prison costs and that 77 per cent of participants remained drug free a
year after graduating from the program.

The study attributed the success to the quality of treatment programs, which
are customised to address offenders' individual needs.

"We are having phenomenal results, we've very pleased with it," said Norman
Helber, chief probation officer for Maricopa County Adult Probation
Department, based in Phoenix.

"Our drug courts are thriving and healthy," Helber said. "As I read the
California initiative, I think it would do the same thing."

The California initiative, whose supporters include several state
legislators and city council members, is similar to the Arizona law in
concept. But proponents say it would be tougher in limiting participants to
offenders who only face drug possession or use charges-not those who
committed other crimes while under the influence. Unlike Arizona, offenders
in the California program would be subject to probation revocation if they
are found using drugs while in treatment, proponents said.

Only first - and second-time drug offenders would qualify for the program.
Third-time offenders would go to jail. Drug dealers are not eligible.

Participants who successfully complete the program would be able to petition
a judge to dismiss their charges or have the arrest cleared from their
record.

In countering concerns of opponents, the initiative proponents assert that
urine tests would be conducted using money from other existing state
programs. Moreover, they said, the initiative, indeed, does not dictate how
the treatment will be supervised, but leaves the matter to the discretion of
the judges.

"Now people with substance abuse problems are warehoused in jail. Afterward
they come out and experience no intervention and treatment," said Dan
Macallair, vice president of the Justice Policy Institute, a San
Francisco-based organisation promoting effective approaches in the nation's
criminal justice system.

"The public does not benefit from that," he said. "This initiative is a step
toward addressing the root problem."