LOCK-'EM-UP DRUG POLICY NEEDS TO CHANGE

A proposal to require drug treatment rather than incarceration isn't just
about saving money -- though it would do that. It's also about changing
behaviors in order to prevent future crimes and reclaim lives.

But will state lawmakers support this needed change?

The Kansas Sentencing Commission is calling for mandatory treatment for
nonviolent and small-possession drug offenders. Financially, it makes a lot
of sense.

Prisons cost more than $20,000 per year per inmate. But the cost of drug
treatment ranges from a few hundred dollars to more than $2,500. Plus,
offenders can often work and pay taxes while receiving treatment.

Treatment also would ease overcrowding of prisons and help the state avoid
building new prison space -- which could save millions in construction
costs. The commission estimates that the change could free up 383 beds by
the end of next year and 571 beds eventually.

But treatment also makes public-safety sense in the long term.

As the commission noted, the current system of locking up drug offenders
isn't very effective; it mostly recycles the same offenders through the
court and prison systems. Treatment has a better record of rehabilitating
offenders.

To make this new policy work, there would need to be more treatment
facilities and better supervision of drug offenders. As President Bush
noted in his State of the Union address last week, "too many Americans in
search of treatment cannot get it." And there is a legitimate concern that,
once established, lawmakers might not properly fund the program.

But just getting lawmakers to approve the plan would be an accomplishment.
Most of them want to appear tough on crime and prefer passing tougher and
tougher penalties, regardless of whether they make sense. That's why, for
example, it is possible for someone convicted of a third possession of a
small amount of cocaine to serve almost as much time as someone convicted
three times for rape.

But lawmakers also don't want to raise taxes. And there aren't many policy
changes that benefit both the bottom line and public safety. This is one.

For the board, Phillip Brownlee