Pubdate: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA) Copyright: 2002 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. Contact: http://www.uniontrib.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/386 Author: Gordon Smith TRENDS IN DRUG BATTLE INIDICATE SOME SUCCESS For a half-century, California has been a drug battleground. Almost certainly, it will continue to be one. Here is what our shadowy and sometimes conflicted near-future probably will look like: Marijuana will remain illegal because residents are sharply divided over its dangers to young people. Heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines and psychedelics still will be illegal because of general agreement they can be addictive or de-stabilizing to adults, as well as teens. Law enforcement agencies will continue to root out marijuana farms and methamphetamine labs, both primarily controlled by Mexican drug cartels. However, the authorities will be restrained from seizing drug dealers' property and selling it to finance drug-interdiction efforts. The money instead will go to drug treatment programs. At the same time, there will be growing agreement that smoking marijuana somehow helps control nausea among cancer patients. More and more individuals will grow their own pot, using the state's loosened laws on medical marijuana and possession of the drug as a justification - or a cover. Ecstasy use, once soaring among young adults, will decline as more people become aware that it may cause brain damage or even death. Police and sheriffs will adopt a strategy of forcing promoters of rave parties to closely supervise their events or risk being shut down. Crack use - long primarily an inner-city problem - will decline; so will the use of methamphetamines. Fewer people will be imprisoned on drug charges because of Proposition 36, which mandates drug treatment over incarceration for certain nonviolent offenders. There will be broad agreement - even among law enforcement officials and anti-drug activists - that education and treatment are key to reducing the demand for drugs of all types. If that future sounds much like the present, that is because most of these trends already are under way. California long has been a place where illegal drugs are not only produced but exported to other states. Cutting-edge anti-drug strategies have been honed in the Golden State, and the growing public backlash to the government's costly war on drugs had its roots here. All that makes California a better place than most in the United States to get a bead on where drug use and the fight against it are headed. A drug culture Some trends surely will undergo shifts as the next decade unfolds. One thing not likely to change much is the rate of overall drug use. Drugs are firmly rooted in California culture, particularly its youth culture, in a way that has remained stable during the past decade. About 8 percent of all Californians 12 or older used an illegal drug regularly in 1999. Figures for previous years aren't available, but drug use nationally held steady throughout the 1990s. Among the state's 11th-graders, 26 percent used an illegal drug regularly in 2000. That figure was down 6 percent from a decade earlier, but consider another statistic: Nearly 50 percent of the 11th-graders said they had used an illegal drug within the past six months. That percentage has remained stubbornly constant for 10 years. The figures suggest to some experts that it is unlikely Californians or anyone else ever will stamp out drug use completely. After all, nearly every cultural group on the planet has made use of consciousness-altering substances of one sort or another, from peyote to alcohol. "It seems likely that there will always be some portion of the population making use of hallucinogens," said Peter Smith, a political scientist at UC San Diego and an expert on drug policy. But it is impossible to say exactly what the "permanent" population of drug users might be, Smith said. The pot debate In contemporary California, marijuana is by far the most common drug of choice among teens and adults, and it almost certainly will remain so. It has special status in another sense: People are more conflicted about it than any other drug. Even those who rail against the government's dubious drug war don't advocate legalizing heroin, cocaine or methamphetamines. Some reformers argue that psychedelics - including so-called club drugs such as Ecstasy - are less dangerous, yet stop short of calling for the hallucinogens to be legalized. The legalization of marijuana inspires passionate debate. Dale Gieringer, California coordinator for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, insists pot should be available "for adult personal use," adding, "alcohol and tobacco are as good a model as any." Gieringer and other advocates are convinced marijuana legalization is inevitable, and cite national polls showing a growing segment of the public - - currently 33 percent - supports it. Initiatives permitting the medical use of marijuana have been passed by eight states - after first winning the approval of California voters in 1996 - - making more and more people "comfortable" with the notion of marijuana being available for legal consumption, Gieringer said. At the other end of the spectrum, the Bush administration's official drug policy maintains marijuana is a "gateway" drug that often leads to the use of harder drugs. Patrol officers say they are all too familiar with the distorted sense of time, and the diminished capacity to perform multiple tasks that drivers under the influence of marijuana often exhibit - signs of significant impairment. Legalization? Howard Simon of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America just says no. "If someone uses marijuana once, they are more likely, statistically, to use it again," said Simon, whose group has developed powerful anti-drug media messages, including some for the federal government. "And very few people try other drugs without trying marijuana first." The contrasting attitudes help explain why, at the same time the fine for possessing less than an ounce of marijuana in California is less than the fine for running a red light, and the drug can be legally grown and used by cancer patients, the eradication of marijuana fields statewide by well-financed law enforcement agencies continues at a record pace. It also explains why legalization of marijuana in California isn't likely any time soon. A primary reason for the attitude split is the baby boomer generation, whose members experimented broadly with drugs in the 1960s and 1970s and tend to view drug use with compassion, if not outright tolerance. That stance helped buoy the success of California's Proposition 36, which mandates treatment instead of incarceration for nonviolent drug crimes. It also is creating ripples in the workplace. Pusher state The percentage of companies requiring drug testing has declined steadily to 67 percent in 2001, down from a high of 81 percent five years earlier, according to an annual survey by the American Management Association. Meldron Young, an association consultant, said that as boomers increasingly become CEOs and other top executives, they are bringing with them the attitude that drug use "is almost accepted as long as it doesn't destroy your performance." For law enforcement agents on the front lines of the drug war, it is mostly business as usual. Among the trends almost certain to endure for the foreseeable future, state officials say, are these: the domination of marijuana and methamphetamine production by Mexican cartels, and the cartels' preference for growing and mixing more of the drugs in California. There is evidence California has become an exporter of meth to other states as federal agents have clamped down on smuggling across the border. The number of illegal meth labs busted in California has declined in recent years, yet the use of meth across the West has climbed steadily. "I hate to say it, but we're pushing it all across the United States," said Robert Hussey, executive director of the California Narcotic Officers' Association. On another front, a new tactic is gaining favor in the battle against Ecstasy, a kind of psychedelic stimulant whose use climbed steadily in recent years. Authorities are alarmed even though the latest statistics show Ecstasy is the drug of choice among less than 5 percent of regular 11th-grade drug users in California. In the future, police agencies will target the producers of the raves - dance parties attended by hundreds - where Ecstasy use is rampant, said Lt. Stephen Johnson of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department's narcotics bureau. Some studies show the rapid rise in Ecstasy use already is leveling off as concern grows over its potential to cause lasting brain damage and, occasionally, death. The mounting number of serious incidents underlines the need for more widespread drug education and the companion strategy for reducing demand: drug treatment. On this subject, everyone from drug-policy reformers to staunch drug opponents agrees. And that is one of the most promising trends pointing to the future. "It's better for society to treat the addict than simply warehouse him and forget about him," said Simon, of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. "And it's cheaper for you as a citizen to treat that person and get him clean than to put him a prison." Saying no When the state's voters passed Proposition 36 two years ago, they did it with the expectation it would save $1.5 billion in incarceration costs over five years. Experts on all sides say it is too soon to assess the results of the law - which went into effect July 1, 2001 - but the number of people in state prisons on drug possession charges has declined by 16.8 percent since then. The overall population of female inmates also has declined by 10 percent during the past year, a change state prison officials attribute largely to Proposition 36. Saving money is only one of the goals of steering people to treatment sessions rather than prison cells. Another goal is to salvage lives that have spun out of control under the influence of drugs - and to prevent those people from committing crimes or returning to prison. "My gut feeling is that it's a good strategy," said Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ana Maria Luna, who chairs her county's Proposition 36 implementation task force. The California law, and a similar one in Arizona, have sparked interest around the country, in part because they seem to be one way to provide residential drug treatment for about 3 million addicts who thus far have been unable to get it. A Proposition 36-style drug diversion initiative won the overwhelming support of voters in the District of Columbia this month, but still needs congressional approval to take effect. Ohio voters rejected a similar proposal, and measures in Michigan and Florida to provide drug treatment for certain offenders failed to make the ballot. Whether diversion programs become an integral part of government policy, they are clearly here to stay. Our biggest legacy in the realm of drugs could turn out to be the telltale signs of our struggles to control how we use them: the myriad treatment centers, educational programs and media ad blitzes intended to persuade people to avoid or renounce mind-altering substances. Anti-drug programs have become ubiquitous, from the Boy Scouts to the Elks Club. One well-known treatment program - Hazelden - employs 1,200 people at its facilities in four states. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy is wrapping up a five-year, $2 billion anti-drug media campaign. Inevitably, the anti-drug efforts have created a backlash: a network of nonprofit groups focused on repealing or softening drug laws and reallocating the billions of dollars spent annually on the drug war. Some run Web sites that target the young and curious, offering competing versions of "straight talk" about drugs and their effects. A few are like the Drug Policy Alliance, a highly organized group that, from its offices in New York, San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland, Albuquerque and Washington, D.C., lobbies for and tracks drug-policy reform legislation. None of these organizations is liable to disappear anytime soon, given the nation's unfinished dialogue on drugs and, perhaps above all, the federal government's burgeoning anti-drug budget. The latter grew from $1.5 billion in 1981 to $18.8 billion in 2002, with two-thirds of the money designated for interdiction and law enforcement, and one-third for treatment and education. "Where there's a budget, there will be agencies and programs vying for the money," said Smith, the UCSD political scientist. "And it is clear that there are many deeply entrenched interests in the anti-drug war." Yesterday: California pays a heavy price in the campaign against illegal drugs. The story is available online at SignOnSanDiego, the Union-Tribune's Web site, at www.uniontrib.com. - --- MAP posted-by: Josh