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