Pubdate: Sun, 06 Aug 2000
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Copyright: 2000 San Jose Mercury News
Contact:  
Address: 750 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA 95190
Fax: (408) 271-3792
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
Author: Ed Pope, ARIZONA'S PROGRAM REMAINS CONTROVERSIAL

California To Vote On Similar Measure

Though it has a voter-mandated drug treatment program that keeps thousands
of drug offenders out of prison and has saved taxpayers millions of dollars,
Arizona continues to debate the controversial 1996 initiative that made it
all happen.

Nearly two-thirds of Arizona's voters approved Proposition 200, the Drug
Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act, which, among other things,
requires the courts to divert first- and second-time drug offenders to
treatment instead of prison.

``It was a `bait and switch' proposition, a subterfuge,'' argues Barnett
Lotstein, special assistant Maricopa County attorney. ``What these guys are
doing is slowly but surely moving toward legalization'' of drugs, he said of
the people who bankrolled the statewide initiative.

Lotstein bases that allegation on the premise that the proposition masked
its true intent -- to decriminalize drugs -- under a descriptive title that
said persons on drugs who committed a crime would have to serve their entire
sentence.

Sam Vagenas disputes that. He is consultant to The People Have Spoken, the
organization that drafted and promoted the measure, which got overwhelming
support from voters.

``I think basically people realized the war on drugs is a failure,'' he
said. ``They don't want to give up on fighting drugs, but they figure a new
battle plan is necessary and that plan is treatment.''

The Arizona experience is of interest to Californians because the same
wealthy trio that financed the drug diversion measure there have qualified a
similar proposition for the November ballot here.

At least to some extent, Vagenas has the Arizona Supreme Court, which
administers the program, and others in his corner. In a study of the impact
of the first year of the drug diversion initiative, the court found it saved
the state more than $2.5 million.

``As it turns out, the (law) is doing more to reduce drug use and crime than
any other state program -- and saving taxpayer dollars at the same time,''
according to a statement attributed to Judge Rudy Gerber of the Arizona
Court of Appeals in Tucson.

But Lotstein, whose office covers the metropolis of Phoenix and 23
neighboring cities, said the savings calculation was done with smoke and
mirrors.

``They created this imagery that the jails and prisons were full of
first-time drug offenders, and that it was necessary to open up these cells
for more serious offenders.

``We've had a drug diversion program in Arizona for 10 years,'' he
continued. ``Nobody goes to prison for a first-time drug offense.''

To prove it, he said, the county attorney did a survey of prisons in the
Phoenix area and found not one person there on a first-time offense for drug
possession.

By his reasoning, the savings for not imprisoning first-time drug offenders
were not there because the offenders would not have been imprisoned in the
first place.

But Vagenas sticks to his guns, insisting, ``We think this is the best way
of handling people in order to break the cycle of addiction. We've got to
reduce the demand, and the only way to do that is through treatment.''

Arizona has been hampered by a lack of treatment beds, he said, but that
won't be the case in California because the measure proposed here, known as
Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000,
appropriates $120 million a year to fund treatment programs. Under the
Arizona initiative, the only treatment money came from a luxury tax on
alcohol.

Supporters of the California initiative have contacted him, he said,
``because they want to capitalize on the successes in Arizona.''
Additionally, he is getting calls from legislators and others in other
states ``who want new solutions to fight drugs.''

What worries Lotstein more than Proposition 200 is another measure that the
same organization was circulating recently until it withdrew its support.

That proposition would exempt a patient from all drug laws as long as he or
she had a recommendation from a doctor -- ``even a podiatrist'' as Lotstein
put it -- that the otherwise illegal drug was needed for medication.
Proposition 200 legalizes all drugs if two doctors agree to issue a
prescription, he said. But that has not been a problem because ``no
legitimate physician is going to write a prescription for heroin or
cocaine,'' Lotstein added.

``All these supporters are drug legalizers; that's their ultimate
objective,'' the prosecutor said. ``Medicine is not to be decided at the
ballot box. It's to be decided by doctors.''
- ---
MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk