Pubdate: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA) Copyright: 2000 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. Contact: PO Box 120191, San Diego, CA, 92112-0191 Fax: (619) 293-1440 Website: http://www.uniontrib.com/ Forum: http://www.uniontrib.com/cgi-bin/WebX Author: Bill Ainsworth, Staff Writer CALIFORNIA HAS STAKE IN ARIZONA PLAN PHOENIX -- For Beverly Waddle, Arizona's landmark drug-diversion measure is nothing short of a lifesaver. The law has expanded treatment programs that have helped the 42-year-old former crack-cocaine addict quit drugs and get a job. Now she hopes she can be reunited with her children. For Maricopa County prosecutor Jerry Landau, the law is an obstacle that takes away one of the best ways to pressure addicted criminals into quitting: threatening them with jail. These views illustrate the clash over Arizona's new strategy for fighting the war on drugs. Besides diverting those guilty of first-and second-time drug possession from jail and prison to treatment, a California ballot initiative also would redirect nonviolent parole violators -- those whose violation is a drug offense -- from prison to treatment. The initiative would increase the state's treatment budget by $120 million a year. Arizona, a conservative, Republican-dominated state with tough drug laws, would seem an unlikely place for a truce in the national war on drugs. But Norman Helber, chief probation officer for Maricopa County in Phoenix, said the ballot measure passed partly because of dissatisfaction with the state's strict drug laws. The measure, Helber said, appealed to voters' practical instincts -- and to their pocketbooks. "The fiscally conservative community understands that a kid doing a joint at a concert isn't an ax murderer," he said. "He's probably their child or grandchild." Searching for solutions Like the California initiative, Arizona's Proposition 200 was funded by three wealthy businessmen who want to promote new ways of fighting drug addiction. One of them, John Sperling, is an Arizona resident and founder of the University of Phoenix. The others are New York billionaire financier George Soros and Cleveland insurance titan Peter Lewis. The three funded California's Proposition 215, an initiative to legalize medical marijuana, in 1996. Arizona's Proposition 200 also supported legalization of medical marijuana. Arizona's law mandates treatment for anyone convicted of drug possession for the first or second time, except those with previous convictions for violent crimes. To pay for the expanded programs, the measure earmarks half the money from the state's alcohol and liquor tax for treatment, and the other half for prevention programs aimed mainly at schoolchildren. Since it was passed, the initiative has provided enough money to triple the state's budget for drug treatment to $6 million a year. "This was the first real money we got for treatment," said Helber. "The amount of money we got before was negligible." The extra money has added 6,000 new drug-treatment slots, mostly for outpatient counseling programs; beefed up probation supervision of drug offenders; helped fund drug courts throughout the state; and paid the costs of transporting addicts to counseling sessions. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Susan Bolton, who founded Phoenix's drug courts, called the mandate for drug treatment "fabulous." "It's one of the most sensible things I've ever heard of," she said. Long-term savings The Arizona Supreme Court, which administers the program, estimated that it saved $2.5 million during its first year because it diverted about 551 defendants from prison. Court officials say there also are long-term savings. "These people are now getting treated and being supervised," said Colleen McNally, a Maricopa County drug court commissioner. "If they stop using, you're not just reducing the number of drug cases, you're also reducing the number of burglaries and thefts." California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office predicts an even greater savings from the California initiative. The office estimates the measure would divert up to 37,000 nonviolent offenders, including parolees, from jails and prisons each year. The state would save about $175 million a year in prison and jail operating costs and save $500 million in prison construction costs, the office concluded in its preliminary report on the measure. In Arizona, however, judges and administrators say they are frustrated that the measure prevents judges from ordering first-time drug offenders who violate probation to go to jail. "Why should we have probation that can't be revoked?" Bolton asked. "That doesn't make any sense." Second-time offenders can be sent to jail in Arizona. California drug court judges have a similar complaint about the measure on the November ballot. The California initiative would allow first-time offenders to be sent to jail for 30 days, but only after they have failed in treatment or repeatedly violated probation. Some judges object Many judges argue that this takes away one of the best tools for forcing addicts to quit. "You are depriving the court of the one thing that has made treatment effective," said San Diego County Superior Court Judge James Milliken, a leader in the drug court movement. "People are not likely to recover unless there are consequences for using." Landau, the special assistant county attorney for Maricopa County, said the Arizona law "undercuts drug courts and drug treatment" because it amounts to a get-out-of-jail-free card. "A person can just blow off treatment. There's no reason to take it seriously because sanctions aren't there," he said. Landau and other prosecutors concede that the measure has helped to expand drug-treatment programs in Arizona, which Landau said has had "some positive influences." Since first-time offenders can't be thrown in jail, officials in the Phoenix criminal-justice system are experimenting with a separate drug court for first-timers that rewards them when they complete treatment. "It's difficult for us in the criminal-justice system based on punishment to reorient ourselves toward a rewards-based system," Bolton said. The new drug court, which has been in operation for about three months, offers zoo tickets, science center tickets and discounts at local restaurants to defendants who successfully complete their assignments. "We've been encouraging our staff to be creative about what motivates addicts to change," said Zachary Dal Pra, chief deputy probation officer for Maricopa County. 'Tired of the drugs' Several addicts at a June drug counseling session in Phoenix said they have powerful motivations besides avoiding jail. Some wanted to complete their treatment so they could knock felony convictions down to misdemeanors, while others were hoping they could be reunited with their families. "I'm tired of the drugs. I'm tired of the life. I'm tired of the cravings," said Waddle, the former crack-cocaine addict, who said she resorted to prostitution to fund her habit. Six years ago, she served 18 months in an Arizona prison for attempted robbery, but didn't receive any treatment until she was arrested for possession six months ago. Now, she's attending outpatient counseling sessions, living in a halfway house and working at a dry cleaner. She hopes to convince social workers that she is stable enough to be reunited with her children, who are now 13 and 9 years old. Waddle, like all probationers under Proposition 200, has to pay $20 per week to help defray the costs of counseling. Another defendant, Tommie Jones, 44, has managed to hold down jobs in day care and as an employee of Northwest Airlines during most of his 13 years of addiction to cocaine. But he said he wants to change so he can be a better father to his four children. "I always thought that I'm doing the cocaine just for myself and I'm not hurting anyone," he said. "But I've also been victimizing my family. They're not asking to be part of your madness." - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D