CALIFORNIA RETHINKS DRUG WAR STRATEGY

Initiative Would Put Emphasis On Rehab

LOS ANGELES -- Opening a new front in the war on drugs, a citizens
group is pushing a California ballot initiative that aims to emphasize
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. And 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
$500 million a year.

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

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

At the same time, a growing chorus has criticized 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 past five years, experts say they reach only about 3 percent of
arrested drug users who 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 $60 million in 2001
and $120 million annually after that to treat 35,000 users, the
majority of first- and second-time non-violent drug offenders in the
state. A Field opinion poll released last week showed that 64 percent
of those surveyed support the initiative and 20 percent oppose it,
with the remainder undecided.

Among opponents are victims groups, a prison guards union, judges,
prosecutors and treatment specialists involved in drug court programs.
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 $120 million cost for treatment, would save
$200 million annually in prison and jail costs. Moreover, the program
would save as much as $575 million in 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
decriminalization 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.

"Yes, [the initiative] would improve the capacity. But the quality of
treatment would be diminished," Harberts said.

Launched in 1989 by judges in Florida's Dade County, 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, defense lawyers and probation departments agree
to send certain drug offenders into treatment programs rather than to
jail. In addition to staying clean, participants in many programs 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 $40 million from $12 million.

Drug courts have succeeded in keeping offenders off drugs and out of
trouble, according to a recent study by the National Center 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 percent to 28 percent, compared to 50 percent 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 non-violent offenders, are much the same.

Arizona voters approved the treatment law, Proposition 200, in 1996.
The law allocates $4 million a year for treatment. A 1999 study by the
state Supreme Court showed the law saved $2.5 million in prison costs
and that 77 percent 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 customized 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 face only 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 would not
be eligible.

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

"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 organization 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."