Pubdate: Sun, 29 Oct 2000
Source: Santa Barbara News-Press (CA)
Copyright: 2000 Santa Barbara News-Press
Contact:  P.O. Box 1359, Santa Barbara, CA 93102
Website: http://www.newspress.com/
Author: John Lankford
Note: John Lankford is editorial page editor of the News-Press. Write to him
at P.O. Box 1359, Santa Barbara, Ca.; phone: 564-5161;  For Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act items:
http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm

BETTER THAN DOING TIME

Just about every pot smoker in America has heard but may not remember the
story about a guy arrested in Texas who, after police found marijuana seeds
in his jacket pocket, went to prison for 25 years.

I have no idea if the story is true, but it surely had an impact on dopers
with travel plans through Texas, which if you drive takes about two weeks.

The threat of prison is a powerful motivator, especially when it comes to
making decisions about whether or not to break the law. At least you'd think
that would be true.

But the compulsion to abuse narcotics -- and alcohol, tobacco and caffeine,
for that matter -- also can be powerful. Even if drug use were made a
capital offense -- the kind you go to the electric chair or gas chamber for
- -- a lot of people still would use drugs.

But should they go to prison for using drugs?

California voters have an opportunity to answer that question -- at least a
major component of it -- in the Nov. 7 election. Proposition 36 would divert
many drug users to treatment programs rather than sending them to prison.
The state plans to put up $120 million to support the treatment process.

Arizona took the treatment-over-prison step a couple of years ago. Its
voters approved a ballot initiative similar to Prop. 36, that provides for
people caught using drugs -- but guilty of no other crime -- to be diverted
to treatment programs.

Many are surprised that Arizonans would have such an enlightened view of the
drug abuse issue. Arizona is, after all, a state full of Republicans and
angry militia types, all of them tough on crime.

Having lived in Arizona for a significant portion of my life, I can attest
to the rightward leanings of its residents. But I also know that a large
number of Arizonans are marijuana smokers, as are a large number of
Californians and residents of just about every other state. I neither
condemn nor condone that; it simply is true. Most of them don't consider
themselves criminals.

So, maybe it's not surprising that Arizona voters would be the first in the
nation to acknowledge the waste and expense of the war on drugs, and to make
a statement that there may be a better way to deal with substance abuse than
putting users in prison.

The News-Press recently recommended a "yes" vote on Prop. 36. Although the
initiative is far from perfect, we think it is a good start in a direction
this state and nation need to go.

I received phone calls and e-mail from local law enforcement and court
officials who are not pleased that the News-Press has taken a pro-Prop. 36
position. They say it would tie the hands of prosecutors and judges,
preventing them from dealing with drug addiction in a more direct way --
which frequently involves packing them off to prison.

I appreciate their perspective. Law enforcement and justice system
officials, by nature and inclination, would not want to cede authority in
criminal matters. Elsewhere on this page you will find two well-written
arguments against Prop. 36. They make some very good points.

But sticking with a policy that accomplishes so little is not in society's
best interests. Nor does it make fiscal sense to sentence a drug user to
prison -- at a cost of $25,000 or more a year to taxpayers -- when what that
person really needs is someone talking him or her out of using drugs, which
is being accomplished in Arizona for about $4,000 a year.

Arizona's diversion program is too new to have concrete results, but
preliminary findings are encouraging. After the first full year of sending
users to treatment centers instead of prison, nearly two-thirds of those who
complete the treatment program stayed clean and had no subsequent arrests.

Prop. 36 diverts drug users who are not violent and who have not committed
other crimes away from prison and to treatment as a term of probation. You
can argue that drug use is a crime, punishable by jail or prison time. You
can also argue that sending drug users to prison is a waste of tax money.

Many drug users tend to commit other crimes. Prop. 36 will not divert them.
If an addict burglarizes a house, and is convicted, he or she should and
probably will go to prison.

This really is a debate about making a distinction between levels of
criminal behavior. Murder, rape and other mayhem are serious crimes. Is
smoking marijuana a serious crime? You decide. Is a person who uses heroin
but doesn't commit crimes to pay for the habit a serious criminal? Again,
you decide.

This is a personal matter for me. I frequently wonder if our son -- a heroin
addict who has been clean for more than three years -- would have been
better off in prison or in a treatment program. I'm fairly certain I know
the answer to that one, and I think you do, too.

I do not see Prop. 36 as an attempt to legalize drugs. Under its provisions,
a person who repeatedly thumbs his or her nose at the treatment option and
the terms of probation can end up in prison.

Prop. 36 represents a small element of sanity in the drug abuse debate. It's
one of the easier measures to understand on the Nov. 7 ballot.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Andrew