COURT CONSIDERS DRUG TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE TO JAIL

TALLAHASSEE - A campaign to let low-level drug offenders avoid jail time by
opting into treatment programs meets the criteria for getting on the
ballot, a lawyer told the Florida Supreme Court.

But another attorney argued Monday that the proposed amendment to the
Florida Constitution is far too sweeping and confusing to go before voters.

Florida's high court reviews all constitutional amendments proposed by
petition drive for scope and clarity. If the proposals fail either
requirement, they are kept off the ballot.

The measure debated Monday is called "Right to Treatment for Rehabilitation
for Non-Violent Drug Offenses." Its sponsors want to get the proposal on
the 2002 ballot.

If adopted, the measure would enable people charged or convicted of
possession or purchases of illegal drugs to go into a treatment program and
avoid trial or jail. The treatment option would be limited to a first or
second offense and people facing felony charges or serious misdemeanors
would not be eligible.

The idea is modeled after California's Proposition 36, approved by voters
last year. A Santa Monica organization called Campaign for New Drug
Policies is backing the Florida effort and has given $313,000 toward the
petition drive.

As well getting the green light from the state Supreme Court, sponsors have
to collect half a million signatures by next summer to make the ballot. So
far, elections supervisors throughout the state have reported verifying
nearly 61,000 signatures.

At Monday's oral arguments, a former justice of Florida's high court
represented the campaign.

Stephen Grimes told the current justices that the proposed constitutional
amendment meets both the single-subject and ballot-language requirements.

"Reading the opponents briefs, one would think the sky is falling," Grimes
said. "They say the amendment would abolish the drug courts and legalize
marijuana, and it does nothing of the kind."

But those issues, which involve the merits or flaws of the proposal, aren't
even before the court, Grimes was quick to add.

Justice Harry Lee Anstead said he had some concern about the scope of the
proposal and the lack of involvement of judges or the executive branch.

Grimes conceded the decision was left with the non-violent drug offenders
who were eligible. But he argued that the amendment was still similar to
probation, where a probation officer decides whether an offender has
satisfied the court's requirements to avoid time behind bars.

Justice Barbara Pariente also expressed concern that the roles of judges,
lawmakers and the executive branch would be undercut by the measure.

"Don't we have to be concerned with the way government traditionally deals
with criminal activities and this being an alteration in that approach?"
she asked.

Grimes, however, insisted the amendment would not substantially alter the
functions of the different branches of government.

An attorney for Gov. Jeb Bush spoke briefly against the measure but left
most of the time for opponents to Kenneth Sukhia, a former federal
prosecutor representing a group of opponents called Save Our Society From
Drugs.

Sukhia told the justices the amendment was not at all like probation, where
"at every step of the way ... the judge decides, the judge has discretion."

One of the biggest problems with the amendment is that it takes away the
essential role of judges in "removing someone from society, disrupting his
liberty interest."

Earlier Monday, Bush criticized the amendment to reporters.

"It's a false hope," he said. "The effort in the end is more motivated
toward legalization of drugs, not the treatment ... it would make it hard
for the continued efforts that we've made to reduce drug abuse be effective."