Pubdate: Thu, 12 Oct 2000
Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Copyright: 2000 The Sacramento Bee
Contact:  P.O.Box 15779, Sacramento CA 95852
Feedback: http://www.sacbee.com/about_us/sacbeemail.html
Website: http://www.sacbee.com/
Forum: http://www.sacbee.com/voices/voices_forum.html
Author: Mareva Brown, Bee Staff Writer
Cited: Justice Policy Institute: http://www.cjcj.org/
Bookmark: For Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act items:
http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm

DRUG CRACKDOWN FAILS TO CUT CRIME, STUDY SAYS

California counties that have aggressively pursued lower-level drug 
offenders have not seen resulting drops in crime, while those that focused 
on stopping major dealers have had significant decreases in crime rates, 
according to a study published today.

The study, a 12-page effort by the nonprofit Justice Policy Institute in 
San Francisco, tracked arrests in California's 12 largest counties between 
1980 and 1998 in order to see whether tough-on-drugs policies had any 
effect on the crime rate.

It compared counties like Los Angeles, which saw a 33 percent decrease in 
misdemeanor drug arrests between 1980 and 1998 and a 7 percent drop in 
violent crime, with counties like Sacramento, which topped the list with a 
123 percent increase in misdemeanor arrests over that time and a 12 percent 
increase in violent crime.

"The war on drugs has never been oriented toward producing practical 
results," said Mike Males, the study's primary author. "A practical person 
would say, 'Show us reductions in drug use and crime that result from 
spending millions and millions of dollars and incarcerating thousands of 
people.' "

But some of the state's top law enforcement officers questioned the logic 
in abandoning laws affecting drug use and the timing of the study's release 
- -- four weeks before voters decide on Proposition 36, which would mandate 
treatment instead of incarceration for anyone convicted of possession or 
use of drugs for personal use.

"The premise that vigorous enforcement leads to greater criminality defies 
common sense," said Larry Brown, executive director of the California 
District Attorney's Association. "It is better fiction than Harry Potter."

Brown said the counties that were singled out as having a disproportionate 
volume of low-level arrests -- Sacramento, Fresno, San Bernardino and 
Riverside -- are those hardest hit by California's epidemic of 
methamphetamine use.

"California has nothing to be ashamed of in its enforcement practices," he 
said. "The fact of the matter is we have enjoyed a 50 percent reduction in 
the crime rate since 1994, far outpacing the national average."

In Sacramento County, sheriff's spokesman Sgt. James Lewis said detectives 
have focused on high-level dealers but have not ignored the lower-level 
offenders.

"The reason for the increase in arrests in Sacramento County probably 
speaks to the fact that we have committed so many resources to the 
problem," said Lewis, pointing out that the Central Valley recently was 
designated a federal High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area because of its 
methamphetamine problem.

The spokesman for state Attorney General Bill Lockyer said most law 
enforcement officers around California are quick to acknowledge that while 
there are strong anti-drug efforts in place, there are too far few options 
for drug addicts.

"The question is whether there's enough space to get them into an effective 
treatment program," said Lockyer spokesman Nathan Barankin.

"It is a false choice to suggest that law enforcement ought not to 
prosecute serious drug users because it doesn't have an effect on the crime 
rate," he said. "The right choice is to blend in more prevention and 
intervention services to supplement law enforcement."

Sacramento's Lewis doubted the effectiveness of programs that take away the 
legal hammer for offenders who refuse to complete drug treatment, which 
Proposition 36 would do by eliminating potential jail time as a consequence 
for not finishing a rehabilitation program.

But Males, the study's author, said time has proven that imprisoning drug 
offenders is ineffective.

"The best solution is to admit what's going on here. After 15 years, 
California and the United States now have the worst drug-abuse problem in 
their history.

And the problem is centered in aging, baby boom addicts," he said.

"Imprisonment is not going to solve their problem," he said. "Very 
intensive treatment at least would help -- it would be the best shot."

Meanwhile, Brown at the District Attorney's Association questioned the 
motivation of the Justice Policy Institute, which is funded in part by at 
least one key backer of Proposition 36. The Institute's vice president, Dan 
Macallair, said that while a small proportion of the study's funding may 
have come from a Proposition 36 backer, it in no way influenced the choice 
to conduct the study or the study's outcome.

"This information is important for people to have," he said. "And as a 
public policy agency, I certainly hope it contributes to the debate." 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake