TREAT, DON'T JAIL, ILLEGAL DRUG USERS?

Group wants measure on ballot

Another high-intensity debate is shaping up in California over a ballot
initiative that would require treatment instead of incarceration for
nonviolent drug users caught with their illegal substances. A $1 million
signature-gathering campaign financed by billionaire George Soros and others
has obtained 713,849 names on petitions that have since been turned into
county election offices. Some 419,260 valid signatures are needed to qualify
the measure for the November ballot.

If it qualifies and passes, anybody with no history of serious or violent
crime who gets picked up by police for simple possession of any controlled
substance -- including hard drugs such as heroin, methamphetamine and
cocaine -- would no longer face a state prison term, no matter how many
times they are arrested.

Right now, there are about 20,000 inmates in the state prison system doing
time for simple possession. The state Legislative Analyst's Office said
passage of the measure would save taxpayers a net of $100 million to $150
million in annual prison operation costs and another $475 million to $575
million in prison construction costs. Counties would save another $50
million annually in reduced jail costs, according to the legislative
analyst.

"I think ultimately, we've got to make some decisions in this country as to
whether or not we're going to treat drug abuse as a crime or a health
problem," said Assemblyman Rod Wright, D-Los Angeles, who has endorsed the
initiative. "I don't think criminalizing drug abuse makes the most sense. We
want to rid society of drug abuse, but what we're doing is putting more
people in jail and not dealing with the drug abuse."

Although the initiative hasn't officially qualified yet through the
Secretary of State's Office, it already is generating heated opposition from
the law enforcement community. Lobbyists for the state peace officers and
police chiefs associations, as well as for the prison guards' union, are
already criticizing the measure as a threat to public safety.

"We think it's a dangerous initiative that will undermine legitimate drug
treatment programs and weaken the state's anti-drug laws against hard drugs
such as cocaine and heroin," said Larry Brown, executive director of the
California District Attorneys Association. "There's a broad consensus that
more needs to be done in the area of treatment for drug addicts, but this
initiative takes a step backward. This is a back-door approach to
decriminalizing drugs."

Billed as "The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000," the
initiative is being funded and organized by the same group that successfully
campaigned for Proposition 215, the 1996 medical marijuana measure. Voters
approved the measure by a 56 percent to 44 percent margin.

Soros, the New York financier who funded the medical marijuana initiative as
well as other drug decriminalization measures around the country, is putting
up a good chunk of the money backing the new California initiative. Also
assisting in the financing of the measure are John Sperling of Phoenix, the
chairman of the University of Phoenix adult education company, and Cleveland
insurance executive Peter Lewis, who was once arrested in New Zealand for
possession of hashish.

Their measure would force anybody arrested for drug possession into a
treatment program, including the thousands of parolees who are sent back to
prison every year when they are caught with illegal substances or test
positive for using them. It would appropriate up to $120 million annually to
pay for treatment programs that would range from Narcotics Anonymous-type
meetings to residential therapeutic settings to methadone maintenance.

Excluded from the initiative would be anyone with a serious or violent
felony conviction, unless the offender remained crime free for five years
upon his or her most recent release from custody. That provision of the
initiative would allow a drug possession case to trigger a "three strikes"
prosecution for the bulk of the criminals who currently qualify for the
tough sentencing measure, according to proponents.

The initiative also would not apply to anybody convicted of a misdemeanor
that involved threat or physical injury such as in spousal abuse cases,
anybody using a firearm while holding or under the influence of drugs and
anybody who refuses drug treatment.

Anybody caught with drugs after two treatment diversions could only be
jailed for 30 days.

Initiative spokesman Dave Fratello said the initiative was sculpted
following a "Herculean research project" designed to find out where voters
think state law is more punitive than the crime threat posed by drug
offenders. Fratello acknowledged that drug users pose major crime threats by
robbing and stealing to support their habits, but he said that treatment
provides a greater potential than incarceration for dealing with the
underlying addiction that drives the offenses.

"There is only a limited amount of time you can incapacitate (in prison),
maybe a year, a year and a half," Fratello said. "If you deal with the
addiction, you're talking about eliminating the criminality for a lifetime.
Drug treatment is tough on crime since it deals with the core problem."

Opponents, however, blast a provision of the initiative that prohibits
spending any of the treatment money on drug testing -- a critical component
of the diversion programs now under way in drug courts throughout
California. They fear the law will lead to further abuse of gamma
hydryoxybutyric acid, the so-called "date rape" drug. They say it will
handcuff parole agents from sending some potentially violent offenders back
to prison after they are found in possession of drugs or if they test
positive.

"So we have to have a new victim before we can bring these guys back in?"
said Jeff Thompson, the lobbyist for the California Correctional Peace
Officers Association. "That is horrible, as far as preventing crime. And you
can't have just treatment only, with no consequences. It completely absolves
drug felons of any accountability for their behavior."

Arizona voters passed a similar measure two years ago, but it did not apply
to parolees. An Arizona Supreme Court study found that in the first year
after the law went into effect, 61 percent of the 932 participants
successfully completed their treatment programs.

In a prepared statement, the court's administrative office said the Arizona
law's record in its first year "suggests that drug treatment is preferable
to incarceration for certain offenders."

If the California measure passes, "its impact will be revolutionary," said
UC Berkeley law professor Franklin Zimring, an expert on incarceration
policies who has done some advisory work for one of George Soros'
foundations.

"This is not sort of an incremental step," Zimring said. "As a policy
experiment, if you consider medical marijuana to be a one on the Richter
scale, this is a 10."