Pubdate: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 Source: Bakersfield Californian (CA) Copyright: 2000, The Bakersfield Californian. Contact: PO Box 440, Bakersfield, CA 93302-0440 Website: http://www.bakersfield.com/ CONNECT CRIME, PUNISHMENT Suspending drivers' licenses for unrelated drug offenses - especially minor ones - is a practice that should not be revived in California. Gov. Gray Davis, with support from Assemblyman Dean Florez, D-Shafter, among others, is attempting to revive the decade-old practice that sunsetted last year, partly for lack of widespread support other than from the federal government. The proposal has no effect on existing laws relating to impaired driving. It would, instead, call for a six-month suspension of a driver's license for any substance abuse - or a year for those under age 21 - whether it involved driving or not. That is one of the problems with the concept: The punishment may not have a connection with the crime. Another problem is proportionality. The suspension is the same whether the offense is trivial - even plausibly legal under the medical marijuana law that is at least temporarily in effect in California - or for serious, even potentially deadly, illicit drug use. There also are practical problems created by the federally promoted proposal that are troublesome. A car is vital to both the rich and poor for most people in California. Is it right and sensible to imperil their ability to commute to work - or even treatment - because they behaved in a way that might be more amenable to treatment in a non-punitive way? There are no clear statistics from when the law was in effect and since it has lapsed that demonstrate the deterrent effect of the sanction. While not cheap, programs that have judicial flexibility have shown good results. These include Kern County Municipal Court Judge Frank Hoover's pioneering, innovative and much replicated "drug court." By both word and deed, Davis has made it clear that he is not going to be outflanked by anyone on crime. In many cases, that is commendable. And zero tolerance has a place in the scheme of things. But the goals of society sometimes are best served when the law is administered with a deft hand. This kind of sweeping and inflexible approach does not serve anyone well, which is why many experts in the field do not embrace it. - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D