Tracknum: override Pubdate: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 Source: Naples Daily News (FL) Copyright: 2002 Naples Daily News. Contact: http://www.naplesnews.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/284 Note: Note: Publisher prints several newspapers - please indicate which newspaper in LTEs. Author: Jackie Hallifax, Associated Press 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."