DRUG LAW CHANGES ARE ON 2 BALLOTS

Are harsh sentences for all drug offenders wise? Voters in at least
two states will decide that this fall, even as Congress and many state
legislatures debate the issue.

Billionaire philanthropist George Soros, who bankrolled successful
ballot drives for legalizing medical marijuana, is financing the
latest initiatives.

In California and Massachusetts, voters are being asked to create new
laws that would require the option of treatment alternatives, not
mandatory sentences. Massachusetts also would place stricter controls
on law enforcement's ability to seize cash and property during drug
arrests.

"What we're trying to do is restore a measure of the kind of
discretion and judgment that judges used to have ... to render a just
result, not just a harsh result," said Carl Valvo, a Massachusetts
attorney who drafted that state's initiative.

If voters agree, and advocates claim polls show they will, more
alternatives for drug offenders will spread across the country, said
Ethan Nadelmann, a policy adviser to Soros. "The public is ahead of
the politicians when it comes to drug policy issues."

The question of easing tough sentences has already come before
lawmakers, with support for reform not just from liberals but moderate
Republicans, such as Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson and New York Gov.
George Pataki. Pataki unsuccessfully sought changes in New York's
two-decade-old Rockefeller laws, the first of the nation's sweeping
anti-drug laws.

Despite such talk, few laws have been changed. But now, voters will
weigh in. That worries some law enforcement officials, who say drug
policy is too complex to leave to billboards and TV ads.

Prosecutors, like Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, acknowledge that
initiative supporters have a sympathetic argument. "People want
rehabilitation," said Coakley, Middlesex County district attorney. But
"it will really give a free pass, a get-out-of-jail-free card, for
people in the business of selling drugs."

Coakley paints a picture of drug dealers who, if the initiative
passes, could repeatedly avoid conviction. They might claim to be
drug-dependent and go to treatment, even if caught selling 28 grams of
cocaine. Now, that brings a mandatory five-year sentence.

In California, White House drug czar Barry McCaffrey fretted that
removing the threat of prison time would undermine rehabilitation efforts.

"If you think you can treat drug addicts without holding them
accountable, you obviously don't understand the nature of the
addiction," McCaffrey told state judges on Friday.

Supporters in Massachusetts and California disputed those
characterizations. In Massachusetts, judges could still send
first-time offenders to prison, Valvo said. The California
organization said the law would enhance the state's drug court
program, not damage it.

Nationally, several studies found that 25 percent of the nation's
prison and jail inmates -- now nearly 2 million 97 are behind bars for
drug convictions. However, 3 percent of all prisoners were imprisoned
on just drug possession charges, according to the National Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.

A California government study estimated that, if the initiative
passed, as many as 37,000 inmates could avoid prison or jail terms.
California does not have mandatory sentences, but its
three-strikes-you're-out law can mean mandatory time for a drug crime
if it follows earlier convictions.

This year's initiatives are not the nation's first. In 1996, Arizona
voters agreed to a law that sentences nonviolent, first- and
second-time drug offenders to treatment rather than prison. It allows
doctors to prescribe marijuana and some other drugs for the severely
ill.

A state Supreme Court study found Arizona's drug offender program
saved taxpayers more than $2.56 million, and that 78 percent of the
participants later tested drug-free. Some prosecutors criticized the
study for including first-time offenders who would never have been
imprisoned.

Arizonans may be voting on another initiative concerning medical
marijuana, if enough valid signatures are submitted to the state by
July 6.

The measure is designed to implement the 1996 voter-approved
initiative to allow doctors to prescribe otherwise illegal drugs to
seriously and terminally ill patients. No doctor has done that in
Arizona yet, with federal officials threatening to remove the
prescription writing privileges of any physician who does.

This year's version was written to get around that problem by allowing
doctors to "recommend'' marijuana to patients. It also set up a
statewide system of marijuana distribution to be operated by Attorney
General Janet Napolitano.

It also would reduce the penalty for possession of up to 2 ounces of
marijuana to no more than a $500 fine.

Soros is joined in his support for the initiatives by Ohio insurance
executive Peter Lewis and John Sperling, founder of the University of
Phoenix, a for-profit college program in 30 states.

Together, they are expected to spend up to $6 million on these and
related drug policy efforts, Soros adviser Nadelmann said. In recent
years, they've been successful on ballot initiatives legalizing
marijuana for medical purposes. Twelve states approved.

In Oregon and Utah, Soros-funded efforts are seeking to put just the
forfeiture question before voters. The money creates too much
incentive to focus on drug busts at the expense of other prosecutions,
supporters say. Congress recently reformed federal forfeiture law.

California's alternative-sentencing initiative was certified last
week. Massachusetts' initiative gathered enough signatures for the
ballot but has yet to win final certification. An unrelated ballot
measure in Oregon would overturn the state's 1994 mandatory-minimum
law, but that would not affect drug offenses.