Compromise Passed on Drug CrimeDriver License Link
By CARL INGRAM, Times Staff Writer

ACRAMENTOThe Legislature on Thursday approved an
unusual compromise plan that for now would suspend the
licenses of drivers convicted of any drug offense, thereby averting
the threatened loss of $92 million in federal highway funds.
On lopsided votes, the twobill "smoke a joint, lose your license"
legislation sailed from the Senate and the Assembly to Gov. Pete
Wilson, who aides said will sign the package next week.
The first bill, which will take effect as soon as Wilson signs it,
will require a sixmonth suspension of the driver's license of anyone
found guilty of a drug violation, even if the offense does not involve
a vehicle.
That bill (AB 74) by Assemblyman Larry Bowler (RElk Grove)
will expire June 30, 1999. At that point, the second bill in the
compromise package will become the operative law.
The second measure (SB 131), by Sen. Quentin Kopp (ISan
Francisco), goes in the opposite direction, declaring that California
opposes suspending driver's licenses for drug crimes unrelated to
operation of a motor vehicle.
Legislative approval of the two conflicting statements of policy
represented an unusual political compromise brought about by a
1991 federal antidrug law. In that measure, Congress required
states either to enact laws that required license suspensions for drug
convictions or to go on record as opposing that idea. If states failed
to make that choice, Congress declared, federal highway
construction and maintenance funds$92 million in California's
casewould be frozen.
Opponents of suspending driver's licenses for any drug crime,
such as smoking marijuana, argued that the penalty fell unfairly on
motorists convicted of crimes that did not involve driving. California
long has suspended and revoked licenses for driving under the
influence of drugs or alcohol, they noted.
But supporters of license suspensions countered that the penalty
was part of a national antidrug strategy. They said it served as a
deterrent to the use of illegal substances anywhere.
Voting on bills that could be perceived as relaxing penalties for
drug use always puts electionconscious lawmakers in a painful
political spot. But being able to vote both ways for the twobill
compromise dulled the pain.
By voting for the conflicting mix of temporary and permanent
changes, opponents and supporters could tell constituents they
backed license suspension for drug users and rebuffed federal
interference in California affairs.
"Everybody seems to be very, very happy," Kopp crowed.
Starting last fall, Clinton administration officials have warned that
unless California complied with federal law, it would lose the funds
this year. Wilson and legislative leaders had promised compliance
by April 7, but missed their deadline by one week.
Nationwide, 18 states have embraced the license revocation and
31 have refused to do so. Until March 1, California achieved
compliance by suspending licenses for drug offenses.
The California statute, which had been in effect only six months,
cost the licenses of almost 10,000 motorists. An earlier shortterm
law was enacted in 1994 but expired.
Although both bills provoked controversy earlier this year, there
was no debate Friday on the compromise. The Assembly sent the
Bowler bill to Wilson on a 720 vote, while the Senate voted 28 to
7 on the Kopp measure.

Copyright Los Angeles Times
letters@latimes.com
fax: 2132374712