Pubdate: Sun, 26 Nov 2000
Source: South Bend Tribune (IN)
Copyright: 2000 South Bend Tribune
Contact:  219-236-1765
Website: http://www.sbtinfo.com/
Author: Arrianna Huffington, Los Angeles Times News Service

IT'S THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE: DECLARE 'CEASE FIRE' IN WAR ON DRUGS

The "will of the people" is all the rage these days. If it were a movie, 
they'd be lining up the Oscars. If it were a stock, it would be soaring. If 
it were a toy, it would be this year's Furby. It's getting even better buzz 
than "the rule of law." "This is a time to honor the true will of the 
people," said Al Gore last week, after earlier claiming that all that 
mattered was "making sure that the will of the American people is expressed 
and accurately received."

I'm glad everyone is now singing the praises of the innate and infinite 
wisdom of the American voter. But while the people's choice for president 
may come down to a smudged postmark on a rejected absentee ballot, there's 
at least one issue on which the American people provided a crystal clear 
indication of what their will is: the war on drugs. They want a cease-fire.

Two weeks ago, voters in five states overwhelmingly passed drug policy 
reform initiatives, including Prop. 36 in California, which will shift the 
criminal justice system's focus from incarceration to treatment. The 
measure garnered more than 60 percent of the popular vote, 7 percent more 
than Al Gore received in the state, and 18 percent more than George W. 
Bush. Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is a mandate.

In fact, since 1996, 17 of the 19 drug policy reform initiatives have 
passed. But despite this rather unambiguous expression of the popular will, 
politicians have repeatedly failed to honor it. When the people of 
California, for example, voted in 1996 to allow the medical use of 
marijuana, then-Gov. Pete Wilson called it "a mistake" that "effectively 
legalizes the sale of marijuana," while the federal government went to 
court to overturn the wishes of the electorate.

But perhaps this year, with the margins of victory growing enviably higher, 
politicians are beginning to see the writing--smudges, dimpled, hanging and 
otherwise--on the voting booth wall. When Prop. 36 passed despite being 
solidly opposed by the California political establishment, the response of 
Gov. Gray Davis, who had campaigned against it, was: "The people have spoken."

And thank God, because it's in Davis' state that their voices will have the 
greatest impact since a third of California's inmates are behind bars on 
drug charges. Under Prop. 36, up to 36,000 nonviolent drug offenders and 
parole violators are expected to be put into treatment programs instead. 
The initiative earmarks $120 million annually to fund these programs, as 
well as family counseling and job and literacy training.

With its shift from high-cost imprisonment to low-cost, high-common-sense 
treatment, Prop. 36 is estimated to save taxpayers more than $200 million a 
year--and an additional half a billion dollars by eliminating the need for 
new prisons. As UC Berkeley professor Ruth Wilson Gilmore pointed out, 
"California has spent more than $5 billion building and expanding more than 
23 prisons in the past 20 years, while only one new university has been 
built from the ground up."

At the same time, voters in Utah and Oregon passed by enormous margins--69 
and 66 percent, respectively--initiatives designed to make it harder for 
police to seize the property of suspected drug offenders. Just as 
significantly, all proceeds from forfeited assets will now be used to fund 
drug treatment or public education programs instead of to fill the coffers 
of law enforcement agencies. Both measures were backed by people from 
across the ideological spectrum concerned with property rights, civil 
rights and racial justice.

And in Nevada and Colorado, voters passed initiatives making marijuana 
legal for medical use--joining Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Maine, 
Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia.

Meanwhile, post-election editorials in papers across the country reflected 
the public's radical rethinking of the drug war. Newsweek even devoted its 
election week cover story to "America's Prison Generation," about the 14 
million mostly black or Latino Americans who will spend part of their lives 
behind bars--the huge increase being largely the result of drug war policies.

"The future of drug policy reform," said Ethan Nadelmann, who heads The 
Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation, "will be at the state and local 
levels, where people are searching for pragmatic solutions to local drug 
problems. The White House and the new Congress should stay tuned."

In a further indication of a shift in the political wind, a prominent 
member of Congress, Benjamin A. Gilman, R-N.Y., the chairman of the House 
International Relations Committee, last week suddenly withdrew his support 
of our $1.3 billion drug war aid package to Colombia, citing military 
abuses there as evidence that the U.S. is embarking on a "major mistake."

As for our two presidents-in-waiting, they have said remarkably little 
about the drug war--other than that they plan to get tougher on it. But if 
either candidate enjoyed the support that drug reform did, he'd be packing 
boxes now. The resounding success of drug policy reform initiatives makes 
it clear that whoever ends up occupying the Oval Office had better change 
his tune if he intends to do more than pay lip service to honoring the will 
of the people.

Arianna Huffington's e-mail address is  ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D