A RAY OF HOPE

Drug Abusers, Like Alcoholics, Don't Belong In Jail

How do you get a reputedly conservative political culture such as
Colorado's to re-examine the war on drugs? Show it the bottom line - all
the tax dollars the state has been spending and the prison space it has
been expanding over the years to incarcerate those who are a threat to no
one but themselves.

Though plenty of imprisoned drug offenders are, as police point out, partly
doing time for other, violent crimes or have have violent criminal records,
many of those behind bars on illegal drug charges are serving sentences
based on drug sales or even mere use. In other words, they're taking up
space that should be reserved for those who so richly deserve it: the thugs
who rob, rape and kill their fellow man.

It's a predicament that can bring together Colorado lawmakers as different
as Rep. Lynn Hefley, R-Colorado Springs, and Sen. Ken Gordon, D-Denver, who
are co-sponsoring a measure requiring nonviolent offenders involved with
small amounts of drugs to enter rehabilitation rather than prison.

Senate Bill 39, already approved by the legislature's upper chamber, picked
up a 9-1 endorsement from the House Criminal Justice Committee this past
week. The measure now faces the full House.

The committee concluded that cutting back on jail time for offenders would
save the state about $2.2 million by 2004, which would be funneled to
treatment programs.

SB 39 at first blush might not seem particularly ambitious: Among its
provisions, it also would make possession of 1 gram or less of controlled
substances such as heroin or cocaine a Class 6 felony, which carries one
year to 18 months in prison. Currently, heroin possession is a Class 3
felony punishable by four to 12 years in prison.

But of such tinkering around the edges can come a much bolder agenda in the
long run. That's what we'd like to see and, if we dare, it's what we predict.

Realizing the sheer cost of incarceration for such victimless crimes - a
concern for policy makers of just about every political stripe - may
represent the first ray of hope that they are at least a little nearer to
taking a fresh look at drug prohibition in general.

Certainly neither Gordon nor Hefley might see it that way. Not right now,
at least. They're simply trying to apply a little fiscal pragmatism to an
overburdened justice system. That's laudable in its own right. And by
attempting this different approach on nonviolent offenders only, they can
rest assured they're not jeopardizing the public's safety.

But we read into this endeavor a more fundamental potential premise, too:
that it just doesn't make sense to lock up a drug abuser any more than it
does to lock up an alcoholic. Said Hefley, "I think this is a move in the
right direction. Treatment is the key."

In principle, we're not crazy about the state appointing itself society's
drug rehabilitator at public expense. Then again, the state has been forced
into that role anyway by dint of imprisoning so many drug offenders and
trying to get them to go straight, typically through jailhouse rehab programs.

In any event, diverting drug offenders away from jails and prisons and
toward treatment programs is an important first step toward acknowledgment
that those hooked on any substance, legal or illegal, aren't really
committing any crime. They just need help.