Pubdate: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA) Copyright: 2000 San Jose Mercury News Contact: 750 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA 95190 Fax: (408) 271-3792 Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/ Author: Ed Pope, Mercury News Bookmarks: For Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act items http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm For state and local initiative items: AK: http://www.mapinc.org/props/ak/ CA: http://www.mapinc.org/props/ca/ CO: http://www.mapinc.org/props/co/ MA: http://www.mapinc.org/props/ma/ OR: http://www.mapinc.org/props/or/ UT: http://www.mapinc.org/props/ut/ NV: http://www.mapinc.org/props/nv/ VOTERS SHOW OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE TO JAILING OFFENDERS Officials Look To Future Of Drug Law Under Measure's Treatment Plan Astounded by the breadth of support that California voters showed for treating drug offenders instead of jailing them, backers of Proposition 36 said Wednesday that they now face ``a challenge of enormous proportions to make this work.'' Nearly 61 percent of voters supported the measure, which represents a revolution in the way the nation's largest state will deal with alcohol and drug addiction, problems that have sent its prison and jail populations skyrocketing and resulted in a near-boomtown mentality toward building prisons. The measure mandates drug treatment instead of jail for first- and second-time offenders arrested for simple possession of illegal drugs, and appropriates $120 million a year for treatment programs. As many as 37,000 people a year could be diverted into treatment. But the measure provides no money for drug testing or for supervising probationers. The vote ``is a measure of how strong the desire is for something different,'' said Dave Fratello, director of the Yes on 36 campaign. ``People around the country and the world are going to look at the kind of results we generate.'' Proposition 36 was financed by billionaire investor George Soros and two other wealthy businessmen, and Fratello said similar propositions may be pursued in a few other states. But, he said, ``we're really hoping that the message California voters sent will be powerful enough to generate legislation without any involvement from our campaign.'' ``This is a historic victory,'' said Fratello, who noted even proponents were astonished at the fact the proposition drew nearly 2 million more votes in favor than against. Challenge Unlikely Those who opposed Proposition 36 seemed accepting of the fact that it is now the law and is something they must work with. There was no talk of lawsuits, only of how to best make it work. ``It is unlikely there will be a court challenge,'' said Larry Brown, executive director of the California District Attorneys Association and a former prosecutor. ``Prosecutors respect the fact that voters have spoken. Our responsibility now is to implement the new law.'' The same sentiment was expressed by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Stephen V. Manley, who became a leader of the opposition during the campaign. ``In my view, judges will continue to be in a leadership position and will do everything possible to make this initiative work,'' said the jurist, who is one of the leading advocates in the state for drug treatment courts. ``Our goal is to have addicts stop using drugs and to stop re-arrests.'' But, he said, ``There are tools we need that are not covered by the initiative, and we will ask the governor and the Legislature to provide them.'' Among the tools cited was drug testing, without which, he said, judges ``cannot tell if people are doing well or continuing to use.'' The state will also need funds for probation supervision and for licensing and certifying the hundreds of treatment programs expected to handle the deluge of drug diversions. The measure's reception was also a clear indication that the electorate is tired of the seemingly ineffective war on drugs. Those who were interviewed as they left polling places almost universally felt it was time to try a new approach. Whether the California vote will be replicated in other states was not clear Wednesday, but there were signs that voters elsewhere are becoming disenchanted with criminal-justice solutions to drug crimes. A measure similar to the one approved here was narrowly defeated in Massachusetts, and a proposal to legalize the use of marijuana in Alaska also lost, but several other drug-related ballot issues passed. The Massachusetts effort was more liberal in that it would also have allowed some minor drug dealers to avoid jail, and Alaskan voters rejected a measure to legalize use of marijuana for people 18 and older. In Nevada and Colorado, however, voters approved initiatives legalizing the medicinal use of marijuana, bringing the total of states with such laws to eight. Utah and Oregon both passed measures requiring convictions before authorities could seize property used in drug crimes and specifying that proceeds from seizures go to drug treatment or education. Although the vote was mostly symbolic because it does not overrule state or federal laws, Mendocino County approved a measure that would allow cultivation of up to 25 marijuana plants and directed sheriffs to make the arrest of small-scale growers their lowest priority. Expanding Treatment One challenge for Proposition 36 will be to find enough drug treatment programs for all offenders. ``We have programs in all counties, but our biggest challenge will be to expand their capacity to help the added number of clients, and nobody knows for sure how many that will be,'' said Tom Renfry, executive director of the County Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators Association of California. ``We're already making overtures to district attorneys, sheriffs and probation people to sit down and make this work,'' he said. ``I trust once the dust has settled and everyone realizes the people of California want a new drug policy, we'll be able to say, `How do we work together to make it happen?' '' - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake