Pubdate: Sun, 05 Nov 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: Jose Luis Jimenez, News-Press Staff Writer, For Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act items: http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm PROP. 36 CONTROVERSY: HOW TO HANDLE DRUG CASES Depending on whom you ask, Proposition 36 will lead to the decriminalization of drugs in California or begin to eliminate them by curing addicts. Those are the extreme positions in the debate over the controversial measure on Tuesday's ballot. Prop. 36 mandates probation and treatment for most people (violent felons are excluded, for example) convicted of using, possessing, transporting or being under the influence of drugs -- provided the amount is small enough for only personal use. Proponents, composed mostly of substance-abuse treatment professionals, argue the war on drugs has failed and a new strategy is needed. They estimate it would save the state $40 million by diverting thousands of addicts from prison stays. It would also pump $120 million of state money into local counties for treatment; an estimated $1.3 million would go to Santa Barbara. Opponents, mainly from the criminal justice system, counter that eliminating prison sentences removes a key incentive for addicts to kick the habit. They also criticize the lack of funds for testing drug users to monitor their progress. Further, that eliminating the prospect of punishment invites more drug use. The position of local officials mirrors the statewide debate. Santa Barbara County Superior Court Presiding Judge Frank Ochoa, District Attorney Thomas Sneddon Jr. and Sheriff Jim Thomas oppose the ballot measure. "They don't allow any money for drug testing and no money for in-custody treatment," said Thomas. "(The supporters') agenda is a free society. You can do anything you want as long as you don't hurt anyone." Ochoa presides over Santa Barbara's Drug Court, which diverts select addicts into court supervised treatment with drug testing. He argues that the prospect of prison serves as a powerful motivator. Upsetting the status quo, which is on its way to reform, is not the solution. "What you really do is create a revolving door for drug addicts," the judge argued. "We are doing a lot better things in drug treatment without Prop. 36." John Van Aken, member of the board of directors for the Santa Barbara Mental Health Association, disagrees. "It puts an emphasis on treatment, not incarceration," said Van Aken, a retired attorney. "The prospect of jail is not taken away. All that happens is that it's postponed." Another wrinkle in the proposition would eliminate drug convictions from the individual's record upon successful completion of the treatment program. Also, addicts would have three chances at treatment before facing significant jail time. Prop. 36 allows voters to decide which philosophy the state should employ in the war on drugs. A "no" vote preserves the status-quo, keeping criminal justice resources in enforcing the law. A "yes" vote radically changes the system to concentrate on treatment. Polls show a majority of the voters support the measure, which mirrors similar efforts enacted in Arizona and New York within the past year. - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D