Pubdate: Fri, 29 Dec 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/ Forum: http://forums.bayarea.com/webx/cgi-bin/WebX Author: Nita Lelyveld Note: originally printed in Philadelphia Inquirer- http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1926/a08.html CALIFORNIA'S DRUG ADDICTS NOW FINDING KINDER, GENTLER PUNISHMENT LOS ANGELES -- When actor Robert Downey Jr. was arrested last month in a Palm Springs spa, news reports cataloged the woes of the troubled actor, allegedly found once again with illegal drugs after a year in state prison and numerous bouts of drug treatment. Downey's latest arrest may land him in prison again. It happened too early for him to benefit from a new California law that requires community-based drug treatment -- not jail time -- for most nonviolent drug offenders, even those already on probation or parole. Still, some who work with drug offenders argue that Downey's bad timing may, in fact, be fortunate. While treatment is the key, they say serious consequences -- specifically, jail time -- often are the only things that force addicts to straighten out. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Stephen A. Marcus, who runs Los Angeles' first and largest drug court, said his method of shepherding addicts through treatment and into recovery involves not just the carrot of encouragement but the stick of stiff penalties for failure. ``Certainly, the mixture of sanctions and incentives that we use, we believe that creates a good outcome,'' he said. ``We give them a slap on the back, we praise them in court, we clap for them, we might give them little awards for their progress through the program. ``On the other hand, if someone relapses, doesn't go to meetings or maybe misses a court date, there are consequences. There's accountability. They can end up going to jail for up to 30 days or for a four-day weekend.'' Last month's passage of Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, has left many in the law enforcement and drug treatment communities conflicted -- happy about the new attention to, and money for, drug treatment, but concerned about the lack of accountability for drug users. That is because the ballot initiative, when it goes into effect in July, will all but end the threat of jail for those convicted of nonviolent drug-possession and drug-use charges. The measure, whose sponsors argue that drug use should be seen as a public health, not a criminal problem, wipes convictions off offenders' records if they successfully complete licensed drug-treatment programs. The campaign was funded by three businessmen -- New York financier George Soros; Peter Lewis, CEO of Progressive Insurance in Cleveland; and John Sperling, founder and CEO of the University of Phoenix, a network of private adult education institutions. It was run by the same team that brought California the medical-marijuana initiative in 1996 -- and has since helped pass similar initiatives around the country. The group's central argument for medical marijuana and Proposition 36 is that America's drug war has failed. The nation, the group says, needs to find new ways to deal with its drug problem. Sixty-one percent of California voters backed the initiative, which argues that drug use should be tackled as a public health problem. Dave Fratello, campaign manager for Proposition 36, said voters' overwhelming support for the proposition indicated that they agreed. ``We're sort of going through a societal learning process, realizing that drug users are not some other, outside category. They're not a collective group that everyone agrees is our enemy,'' he said. ``A drug user is likely to be you or me or your neighbors -- and we want the best for these people. At the same time as we can be very, very tough on crime, we can be very, very compassionate about drug users.'' California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office estimated that the measure each year would move 24,000 drug offenders from prison, and an additional 12,000 from jails, into community-based drug programs. The office said the decrease in prisoners would save the state about $100 million to $150 million each year, as well as an additional $500 million overall if it helped the state avoid building more prisons. Counties also would likely save about $40 million, the analysis said. For those who deal with drug offenders, the new money that Proposition 36 makes available for treatment is cause for celebration. The law requires the state to contribute $60 million to a Substance Abuse Trust Fund in the first fiscal year, and $120 million each year for the next five years. The money will be distributed to counties to spend on drug-treatment programs and related programs for drug offenders, including family counseling. Many experts raise concerns about the program details. For example, the state already has a waiting list of 5,000 for drug treatment without the huge influx of Proposition 36 candidates. Also, the measure is vague about what drug-treatment programs will have to include. Finally, there is the requirement that none of the new funding be used for drug testing services. Some say they know from experience that chronic users often respond only to treatment programs that include serious consequences for failure. ``Many people that come to treatment come here because of the threat of jail, and when treatment gets hard, they stay in because of the threat of jail,'' said Chris Canter, director of the Walden House Foundation, which raises money to support programs at Walden House, a 31-year-old substance-abuse treatment center based in San Francisco that treats about 10,000 people statewide. He should know. Canter used to be addicted to amphetamines, or speed. ``I arrived at Walden House homeless with a drug problem, and the courts said you're either going to go to jail or you're going to get treatment. I said, `OK, well you made this decision easy.' I attribute the threat of jail to coming to treatment. It was certainly a huge motivational factor,'' Canter said. ``I remember wanting to leave the program. But then I'd think of the judge saying, `Give me one opportunity and you're gone.' I should thank that judge. It was the best thing that ever happened to me.'' In Marcus' drug court, offenders receive more than a year of close supervision as they go through treatment, which includes frequent drug tests and the threat of jail if they slip up. Marcus, who holds a graduation ceremony for those who complete the program, said graduates often mentioned jail in their graduation speeches. ``They often say that one of the turning points was the fact that they were thrown in jail and began to think about their lives,'' Marcus said. Marcus opposed Proposition 36 for taking away the option of jail time in most cases, unless it can be proved that an offender is a danger to others or completely unamenable to treatment. ``I had two cases today in which I put people into custody,'' he said. ``That was to shake them up because they weren't very motivated.'' Drug courts in California see only a small fraction of drug offenders, mostly because of lack of funding. But by all accounts, they have high success rates. In its seven years, Marcus' drug court has graduated about 500 people, he said. Most have their cases thrown out after treatment. The program is tough, he said. Only about 53 percent of those who enter his program graduate. But of those who do, only about 20 percent are rearrested for any reason. Marcus attributes the high success rate to his ability to get tough, to toss offenders in jail if they start to slide. That is an option he may well lose under Proposition 36. ``The point is that you have to do things to really, really get the addicts' attention,'' Marcus said. ``These are people who are consumed by drugs. It's extremely, extremely difficult to get off them. ``Downey's a prime example. Look at how talented he is. Look at what he's giving up. He needs real help, real, tough help -- and I'm not sure under Prop 36, he would get it.'' - --- MAP posted-by: Don Beck