MAKING PROP. 36 PLAN WORK NOT A SIMPLE MATTER

Proposition 36, passed by the voters a little more than a year ago,
changed the focus of anti-drug efforts in the state. A change that
major often comes with teething troubles, which illustrate the dangers
of legislating by ballot measure and the need for San Bernardino
County to do a better job of putting it into practice.

The idea behind the measure - instead of repeatedly jailing drug
users, treat them and thus eliminate the problem - makes good sense as
social policy. Throwing addicts into jail only takes them off the
streets, it doesn't change the basic behavior of addiction. It's an
inefficient way to fight a war on drugs. Giving drug users treatment
and rehabilitation can return them to society as useful citizens and
cut down the demand for illegal drugs.

Mandating the procedure by initiative, however, creates problems.
First, if the law isn't working properly, it can't be tweaked by the
Legislature. Changes have to go before the state's voters, which makes
what should be easy adjustments painfully slow.

Funding also causes trouble for local governments. The initiative
specified an eventual $120 million a year in funding, but parceled out
to counties, that amount comes to far less than needed to run such
programs successfully. And the mandated spending expires in 2005-2006;
after that it's up to the Legislature to keep the program funded.

Nor, strangely enough, did the initiative contain any money for drug
testing - a vital component of any drug treatment program. Until it
finally received money from the state for the purpose, San Bernardino
County couldn't even test everyone in the judicial system under
Proposition 36. But how can anyone be sure drug users are clean if
they aren't tested regularly? Not doing so makes a mockery of the
whole process.

The county also needs to tighten up its procedures. In the West Valley
Superior Court - the county's second-largest - there's a time lag
between when defendants decide to plead guilty and accept treatment
and the time they first deal with probation officers. Thus they can be
out on the streets using drugs again before their program even begins.

That's ridiculous. The county needs to make sure that drug users go
directly from court into treatment programs, without giving them time
to backslide.

And such people need to be held strictly accountable for following the
law's mandates. Periodic reports won't do the trick; something
stronger is necessary.

The county actually has a good model to follow with its drug courts,
which have tallied up a fine record of success in the roughly seven
years they've been operating. They rely on strict accountability and
close monitoring by a whole team, including the judge. Such courts
don't just deal with legal problems but attempt to change lifestyles
and habits as well in a comprehensive approach to the problem.

The county didn't use that approach, arguing it didn't have the money
to do so - the funding problem, again. But without the kind of close
supervision drug courts use, it's unlikely that Proposition 36 will
ever work as intended.

The law has problems, certainly, but that's no excuse for not trying
to make its goals work in practice.