DRIVE BEGINS TO EASE DRUG PENALTY LAWS

SACRAMENTO -- Launching what is sure to be one of the hottest debates
of the November election, a liberal coalition Wednesday kicked off a
campaign to pass a statewide initiative requiring treatment rather
than prison for nonviolent drug offenders.

Immediately attacking the wide-ranging proposal as a threat to public
safety was a newly formed group primarily representing law enforcement
and crime victim organizations.

The wealthy philanthropists, drug reformers and medicinal marijuana
advocates behind the proposal obtained enough voter signatures to
qualify the initiative Wednesday for the ballot.

If approved, it would require that people convicted of nonviolent
offenses of drug possession -- including nonviolent prison parolees --
be sent to drug treatment centers instead of county jail or state
prison no matter how many times they are arrested.

Their offense would be wiped from their record if they successfully
complete drug treatment. If they fail, a judge could incarcerate them
for up to 16 months.

Excluded from the initiative would be dealers or people caught with
large amounts of drugs, as well as offenders who commit another crime
along with drug possession and those with serious or violent prior
convictions.

Currently, tens of thousands of the state's prison and jail inmates
are there for simple drug possession.

The Legislature's nonpartisan analyst reported the initiative would
divert about 37,000 people each year from expensive incarceration to
much less costly drug treatment programs.

The proposal, the analyst said, would yield taxpayers hundreds of
millions of dollars in net savings -- up to $150 million in annual
prison operation bills alone and perhaps $500 million in one-time
state prison construction costs. Counties would save another $50
million yearly in reduced jail expenses.

The proposal would provide $120 million in taxpayer funds to expand
community drug treatment programs, ranging from residential
therapeutic settings to methadone maintenance.

"The initiative represents a commitment to treating drug abuse as a
health problem, not a criminal justice problem," said Dave Fratello of
the Campaign for New Drug Policies, a group formed by supporters.

"Drug treatment is effective not only at reducing drug abuse and
addiction but in cutting criminal activity by users. ... It (this
initiative) is tough on crime because, unlike our failed war on drugs,
it deals with the core problems of drug abuse and addiction with
effective, health-based solutions."

In particular, the measure would assist minorities, who are more
likely to be convicted on drug-related charges even though drug use
levels are relatively consistent across racial lines, according to
supporters.

The $1 million signature-gathering campaign to qualify the initiative
was conducted by the group that launched California's medicinal
marijuana initiative, Proposition 215, approved by voters in 1996.
That proposition is still being argued over at the state and federal
levels.

The effort has been largely financed by wealthy drug reformers --
George Soros, a New York financier; Peter Lewis, a Cleveland insurance
executive; and John Sperling of Phoenix, founder of the University of
Phoenix business college.

Supporters count among their backers state Senate President Pro Tem
John Burton, D-San Francisco, and Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland.
Supporters say the measure also has been endorsed by the Oakland and
Berkeley city councils; the supervisors, mayor and sheriff of San
Francisco; and San Mateo County Supervisor Michael Nevin.

But the initiative faces vigorous opposition from the law enforcement
sector and virtually certain opposition from Gov. Gray Davis, who is
conservative on crime issues.

"This dangerous and misleading initiative undermines California's
legitimate drug treatment programs and seriously weakens anti-drug
laws by giving drug felons a 'get out of jail free' card," according
to a statement by Californians United Against Drug Abuse, formed by
initiative foes.

"The initiative threatens public safety, sends the wrong message to
our children and will cost taxpayers millions in added public safety,
court and drug abuse costs."

Fueling opposition is the initiative's effect on California's tough
1994 anti-crime measure, the "three strikes" sentencing law. It
requires a person with one felony conviction to have his sentence
doubled if convicted of another felony. Anyone with two felony
convictions is sent to prison for 25 years to life on a third
conviction, no matter what the crime.

Under the proposal, convicted felons who remained free of trouble for
at least five years would not be sentenced under the "three strikes"
law for committing a nonviolent drug offense. Rather, they would be
sent to drug treatment.

Central among foes' arguments is their criticism of a provision that
bars spending any treatment money on drug testing.

The aspect of the measure would prevent parole agents from sending
potentially violent offenders back to prison after they are found in
possession of drugs or if they test positive.

Further, opponents say, the measure could endanger businesses that
hire people for sensitive jobs because drug offenses would be erased
from the books.

Foes also say that since the initiative requires drug treatment, not
jail time, for first and second drug offenses, it could prompt defense
attorneys to demand jury trials that would clog the courts.
Proceedings could result in an innocent verdict, according to foes,
while a conviction would hold no jail time.