FUND DRUG COURTS: SAVE LIVES, MONEY

Among the worthy bills that went begging when the state Legislature
adjourned last May was one for a relatively small amount of money that
promised a hefty return in the seemingly unwinnable war against drugs.

The $2 million state appropriation for treatment services in drug courts,
which are cost-effective for taxpayers as well as humane for non-violent
offenders, is one of several catch-up measures that should be approved this
session, despite the Legislature's abbreviated and hectic 60-day schedule.

Drug court fits precisely into the category of crying needs that deserve not
be overlooked by legislators anxious to convince citizens they heard the
message of Initiative 695 loud and clear. As Gov. Gary Locke has rightly
warned, "It would be very tempting to just respond to I-695 and then to just
go home."

A legislative decision to supplement the hodgepodge (mostly federal) funding
of drug courts would embody the I-695 spirit that government be as
cost-effective as possible. Drug courts cost more to operate initially, but
they return the investment through reduced recidivism of offenders. For
every dollar spent on drug courts, taxpayers save $2.45.

Although the dozen drug courts around the state differ in some aspects, they
share these purposes: reducing drug use and the criminal behaviors related
to it; freeing up judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys for non-drug
prosecution; concentrating in one courtroom a wealth of expertise about
drugs, and helping defendants begin anew by treating them holistically.

Taxpayers take fewer risks on these defendants than the defendants do on
themselves. Eligibility is limited to those charged with drug possession,
not manufacturing or distribution. To be accepted, candidates must pose a
low risk to the community; they can't have any adult convictions for violent
or sex offenses.

One highly illogical objection to state funding of drug courts goes like
this: Uncle Sam initially funded them as pilot projects. After the money was
exhausted (on June 30, 1999, in King, Pierce, Spokane and Clallam counties),
why should the state backfill with its own precious resources?

Remember devolution. The federal gravy train has slowed to a crawl. This
state can't afford to turn its back on any successful drug control tactic,
considering the grip that heroin, cocaine and now methamphetamine have on
its citizens. (From 1992 to '97, the number of controlled substances cases
filed in adult and juvenile courts in Washington grew by 51 percent.)

Moreover, the dollars that drug courts save in fewer prison terms -- 24
percent of state prison beds in 1997 were occupied by drug offenders --
accrue to the state Department of Corrections.

If legislators turn their backs on this strategy, here's the prognosis for
drug courts in three counties on July 1:

- - King County would turn away 50 percent of those eligible and desirous of
treatment; eventually the number of active participants would be reduced
from 500 to 250.

- - Spokane County's 4-year-old program, serving 75 people annually, would
shut down.

- - In Pierce County the staff, and in turn the participants, would be reduced
by half. Ditto for Clallam County.

For all the misery properly traced to drug addiction, legislators have yet
to assume ownership of this proven strategy to overcome it. Does Washington
need to build a prison in every last county before elected officials become
convinced of the need to subsidize drug courts?