Bookmark: MAP's shortcut to Proposition 36 items: http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm

INITIATIVE WOULD SHIFT DRUG LAWS

Measure Mandates Treatment; Some In S.F.  Welcome Change

Law enforcement officials, from prison guards to the nation's drug czar, have overwhelmingly panned a ballot measure that would require drug treatment instead of prison time for most non-violent drug offenders. 

Except Terence Hallinan.  Once again, the San Francisco district attorney -- who supports medicinal marijuana and prostitutes' rights -- finds himself the lone voice of dissent. 

``It's a great idea,'' said Hallinan, the only one of California's 58 district attorneys to publicly support the drug initiative.  ``I'm not knocking drug courts, but they're kind of drops in the bucket.''

The measure, Proposition 36, would send as many as 37,000 Californians a year into drug treatment programs rather than jail.  Roughly 2,500 of those would be in the San Francisco area, backers say. 

More than 60 percent of the cases Hallinan's office handles each year are drug-related, the vast majority of them simple possession cases. 

Hallinan suggested his colleagues from around the state may find it hard to shift attitudes after so many years focusing on prison as punishment.  He also wonders whether some DAs may fear the drop in convictions that could accompany an reduction in drug caseloads. 

``I know San Francisco is kind of a unique place, but I get depressed,'' he said.  ``We're all elected officials.  .  .  .  Isn't there anyone else who'll look at what's happening here and say, `Shouldn't we try something new?' ''

Hallinan's position is not the only thing that gives San Francisco a personal tie to the measure.  The city is also home to the bill's authors, attorneys Cliff Gardner and Dan Abrahamson. 

``Drug addiction and drug abuse is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem, and should be treated as such,'' said Gardner, a defense attorney who said he primarily handles death-penalty and other non-drug cases.  ``This initiative makes sure there's a range of treatments available, and you don't get it only if you happen to be able to afford the Betty Ford Clinic.''

That San Francisco has such a large presence in the push isn't surprising, said Dave Fratello, spokesman for the measure's sponsor, the Campaign for New Drug Policies. 

``Something has clicked for voters in the Bay Area,'' Fratello said, citing focus group research.  ``They have seen enough of the war on drugs and have been talking a lot about alternatives.''

But while everyone may agree they're a vital thread in the social fabric, few people want a drug and alcohol recovery house in their neighborhood.  And if the measure passes in November, the number of such facilities needed to treat offenders throughout the state would have to dramatically increase. 

That prospect is unsettling in areas with relatively low property values, where treatment home operators could find affordable property.  The measure also troubles prosecutors and judges who fear they could lose the stick -- jail -- in a proven carrot-and-stick approach to curbing drug abuse and crime. 

The proposition's backers claim it will mesh seamlessly with California's drug treatment courts.  Not everyone is so sure. 

California has one of the most comprehensive drug-court systems in the country -- a system that already provides treatment, and one that judges and prosecutors say would change radically if treatment were mandated rather than an option.  The measure effectively would decriminalize drug and alcohol crimes by taking away the ability of judges to sentence offenders to jail time. 

``What we have learned is that treatment only works where there is strict accountability on the part of the individual,'' said Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Stephen V.  Manley. 

Participation in drug court involves immediate sanctions, mandatory drug testing, frequent appearances before the same judge and close supervision over that person's activities, Manley pointed out.  The initiative, he said, does not follow the drug court model. 

But there is a growing sentiment even among prosecutors that jail or prison alone is not the answer. 

``People have to be afforded treatment.  Even if the initiative doesn't pass, this is what people want,'' said Karyn Sinunu, an assistant district attorney in Santa Clara County.  ``We're going to have to increase treatment, and all of us are going to be living near treatment facilities.''

While most prosecutors aren't yet endorsing this particular initiative, they are recognizing the potential that treatment has to interrupt the destructive cycle of drug use, crime, jail, prison and back to drug use. 

In the vanguard of this potentially seismic societal shift, Santa Clara County has blazed a trail in the rehab business with a program that could become a model for the state and the nation. 

Three years ago, Santa Clara County District Attorney George Kennedy set up a certification program for neighborhood recovery homes -- the first in the nation.  The county sees it as a way to provide a safe environment for the community and the valley's rising population of addicts, even as it encourages sobriety. 

But that program has certified only 71 homes in Santa Clara County, a much smaller scale than the state will need if the initiative passes.  Law enforcement believes the ballot measure will put incredible pressure on local communities to accept new treatment and recovery homes. 

How Many?

``It would be a hell of a lot, I can tell you that,'' said David Byers, who investigates these places for Santa Clara County's certification program.  ``I don't think we'd be able to fill the need.''

The onus of providing these houses also will fall disproportionately on those few cities that already bear the biggest burden, particularly in the Bay Area, where cost of housing has mushroomed.  The operator of one group of homes said the average rent he pays for a four-bedroom house has ballooned from $1,700 a month to $2,700 a month over the past few years. 

But growth of the drug culture also has spurred demand for jail and prison cells. 

``We're spending on the order of $350 million a year on prisons.'' said Fratello.  ``It's remarkable when you look at these numbers.''

Proposition 36 is bankrolled by three wealthy philanthropists, who have also supported medicinal marijuana propositions in the past.  They are George Soros, the multibillionaire financier from New York City, John Sperling of Phoenix, chairman of the University of Phoenix, and Peter Lewis of Cleveland, chairman of Progressive Insurance. 

The initiative would appropriate $120 million a year from California's general fund to pay for the treatment programs, but houses and programs would remain subject to local zoning and other regulations. 

The measure generally would require that judges put non-violent, first- and second-time drug offenders in treatment instead of jail or prison -- but not if they committed another crime, such as use of a firearm, at the same time as the drug offense. 

Diversion would also apply to parolees who test positive for drugs or who are arrested on a simple drug charge that doesn't involve supplying drugs to minors.  Two-thirds of all parolees are sent back to prison for drug offenses, Fratello said.  But this doesn't take into account, as one California official pointed out, that in many cases these addicts were arrested first for serious felonies and were on parole when they committed the drug offense. 

Under the proposition, if abusers complete treatment, they could ask a judge to have a felony drug offense cleared from their record.  That's the carrot to keep them clean, he said.