DEBATE GROWS OVER CALIFORNIA DRUG-TREATMENT INITIATIVE

Some say it would curb court power

LOS ANGELES - Months before it goes to a vote, the political war is
escalating over a California ballot proposition that some claim would
seriously crimp the war on drugs.

Just two days after the initiative qualified for a November vote, federal
drug policy chief Barry McCaffrey urged voters to reject the measure, saying
it would strip state courts of their power to punish drug offenders. He was
quickly joined by police and prison guard unions.

But only days later, the still-unnumbered proposition, formally known as the
California Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, drew strong support
from Rep. Tom Campbell, the Republican candidate for a California Senate
seat. He joined liberal Democrats like San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and
state Senate President John Burton in condemning current handling and
sentencing of drug abusers as a "failure."

The plan spurring this conflict would require courts to send nonviolent drug
offenders to treatment centers rather than prison the first two times they
are caught. Anyone nabbed dealing drugs and persons committing any other
crimes while in possession of drugs could still be imprisoned.

"If you think you can treat drug addicts without holding them accountable,
you obviously don't understand the nature of the addiction brain disease,"
Gen. McCaffrey told a meeting of the National Association of Drug Court
Professionals in San Francisco.

"You have to have a reward and a punishment for people whose chaotic lives
are completely out of control."

He said the measure threatens to "dismantle drug courts from within."

Hundreds of courts specializing in drug cases have been established across
the nation over the last 10 years, with 101 in California. They can allow
nonviolent offenders to avoid jail if they pass regular drug tests and check
in regularly with judges. In those courts, it's usually up to prosecutors,
not judges, to determine which defendants get treatment instead of jail
time.

The ballot measure would deprive prosecutors of the option to seek prison
for first- and second-time offenders.

Mr. Campbell labeled this and other current ways of handling nonviolent
drug offenders "a failure," saying "we should be debating alternatives. The
danger is to be intimidated into not talking about alternatives for fear of
being called 'soft on crime.' "

It's not the first time Mr. Campbell has advocated radical change in drug
enforcement. During his primary election campaign, he called for the
establishment of government-funded centers to provide heroin for addicts, in
the hope that would remove the financial motivation behind much drug-related
crime.

Backers of the proposition argue that even though their measure would keep
judges from sending nonviolent offenders to jail, it still leaves courts
with plenty of discretion.

"Judges may set any range of conditions for drug offenders processed under
the initiative," said a written statement from the sponsoring Campaign for
New Drug Policies. "Such conditions may include daily, weekly or monthly
court appearances, in addition to drug testing."

Addicts who don't comply would be subject to contempt of court penalties,
including jail time, the group added.

Lobbyists for the prison guards union blamed "out-of-state liberals" for the
measure, saying their organization is willing to spend "some serious money
to deal with them."

The union spent $2.5 million in 1998 helping elect California Gov. Gray
Davis and indicates it may spend as much this year to fight the ballot
measure, which some guards view as a threat to their job security.

On the other side, three out-of-state billionaires are expected to provide
much of the money for the fall campaign to pass the initiative.

One is New York financier George Soros, expected to contribute heavily after
paying for most of the $1 million signature-gathering campaign that put the
measure on the November ballot. Other major out-of-state supporters are
John Sperling, an Arizona resident and founder of the for-profit University
of Phoenix, aimed at midcareer professionals, and Peter Lewis of Cleveland,
head of Progressive Corp., the nation's fifth-largest auto insurer.

On the other side, San Diego Chargers owner Alex Spanos has already kicked
in $100,000 to fight the proposition.

Liberal politicians supporting the initiative say it would save taxpayers
more than $125 million in annual prison costs and another $475 million in
prison construction. They base those estimates on the current 20,000
nonviolent state prison inmates now doing time for simple possession.

"We should treat drug abuses as health problems, not law enforcement
problems," said Mr. Burton, who admits to past use of cocaine. "This frees
up law enforcement to deal with serious crimes, reduces overcrowding in
prisons and frees up prison cells for serious and violent criminals who need
to be separated from society."

But opponents argue that courts should be left free to decide who can
benefit from treatment and who can't.

"Sometimes people are not good candidates for treatment," said Robert
Elsberg, spokesman for the California Police Officers Association. "We know
successful treatment works when there are consequences. This offers
treatment but no consequences for failure. That's why it's a threat to
public safety."