Pubdate: Thu, 09 Nov 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
Bookmark: For Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act items:
http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm

VOTERS TAKE A NEW TACK IN WAR ON DRUGS

SACRAMENTO -- California voters spoke loudly in Tuesday's election in favor 
of a new approach toward fighting the war on drugs that emphasizes 
rehabilitating users rather than locking them up.

Now the sponsors of Proposition 36, which diverts nonviolent drug users 
from incarceration to treatment, plan to use their victory to try to 
persuade other states, including Ohio, Michigan and New York, to change 
their drug laws.

Supporters point out that Tuesday's vote represents a significant departure 
from the tough-on-crime policies generally favored by California voters and 
politicians.

During the past three decades, voters have routinely approved measures to 
expand the death penalty, impose lengthy sentences on repeat offenders and 
treat juvenile offenders more harshly.

By contrast, Proposition 36 would keep between 25,000 and 37,000 nonviolent 
drug users, including parole violators, out of jail and prison each year 
and send them to treatment centers.

Backers say the initiative is an attempt to treat addiction like a sickness 
rather than a crime.

"What it's saying is what everybody knows -- there's a hell of a lot of 
people in jail whose only crime is being chemically dependent," said Senate 
President Pro Tempore John Burton, D-San Francisco.

The initiative applies to nonviolent first-and second-time drug users and 
parole violators. It allocates $120 million a year to expand drug treatment 
programs, which are in short supply.

Voters -- ignoring the opposition of law-enforcement leaders, drug court 
judges and many political leaders, including Gov. Gray Davis and Sen. 
Dianne Feinstein -- approved the measure 61 percent to 39 percent.

Ironically, the one politician who made support for the measure a key part 
of his campaign, Republican Senate nominee Tom Campbell, lost in a 
landslide to the better-known and better-funded Feinstein.

Proposition 36 was one of five successful measures on Tuesday's ballots in 
several states sponsored by a trio of wealthy businessmen. Others legalized 
medical marijuana in Colorado and Nevada and tightened asset forfeiture 
laws in Oregon and Utah.

So far, the three businessmen, led by New York financier George Soros, have 
passed 17 of the 19 drug-related measures they have bankrolled, including a 
1996 California initiative legalizing medical marijuana.

Soros' drug policy adviser, Ethan Nadelmann, called California's 
Proposition 36 "one of the most significant sentencing laws in the last 
century."

"It's going to provide a powerful example to other states," he said. "The 
fact that it was approved by such a large margin enhances the power of our 
message."

Nadelmann said his organization, the Lindesmith Center, plans to build on 
the California experience to try similar ballot measures in states like 
Michigan, Ohio and Florida.

He said he also plans to highlight the vote in his efforts to persuade 
lawmakers in New York to change that state's Rockefeller laws, which impose 
lengthy sentences on low-level drug offenders.

Nadelmann, however, acknowledged that there was still much work to do to 
implement Proposition 36, including licensing new treatment centers and 
expanding county probation departments. The measure doesn't take effect 
until July 1, 2001.

Opponents reject the idea of voter dissatisfaction with the drug war. They 
argue that they lost because they were outspent by more than 10 to 1.

"We didn't have the resources to educate voters as to what was contained in 
Proposition 36," said Larry Brown, executive director of the California 
District Attorneys Association. "Voters were misled."

Brown believes the initiative might harm the state's successful drug courts 
because it takes away a judge's ability to put a relapsed offender in jail 
for a couple of days.

Proponents predict, however, that drug courts will adjust, possibly by 
focusing on a different group of offenders than those who qualify under 
Proposition 36.

Prison guards union president Don Novey, whose organization opposed 
Proposition 36, said the measure may lead to more crime because it applies 
to those convicted of using hard drugs.

"I'm worried about the heroin and cocaine crowd," he said.

University of California Berkeley political scientist Bruce Cain said he 
believes the measure passed because the state Legislative Analyst estimated 
that it will save about $190 million a year in prison operating costs.

"A lot of it is dollars and cents," he said. "I don't think there's a lot 
of compassion for drug users."

Still, he believes the result may lead to a more open discussion of the 
effectiveness of the war on drugs by politicians -- many of whom fear that 
advocating treatment will tar them with a reputation as soft on crime.

"They may come out of the shadows," he said. "But I don't think they're 
going to leap out."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D