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