Pubdate: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 Source: New York Times (NY) Edition: New Jersey Copyright: 2007 The New York Times Company Contact: http://www.nytimes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?159 (Drug Courts) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/rehab.htm (Treatment) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion) DITCH THESE DRUG LAWS New Jersey is missing out on an excellent (if necessarily incomplete) remedy for its fiscal crisis. Sadly, the only reason is that the state's elected officials have been too scared to touch it. The remedy is to change the state's misguided drug laws. They were designed years ago to reduce illegal drug use by forcing judges to imprison just about every nonviolent offender who came before them. Not only have the laws not solved the drug problem, they have been counterproductive and terribly unfair. Thousands of young drug users have been put in prison, reducing their chances for treatment at an age when it could turn their lives around. During the past decade, the judiciary has improved the situation somewhat by establishing special drug courts. Selected nonviolent drug offenders are placed on probation, monitored closely and treated for drug dependency. But over all, the state's harsh drug laws continue to fill its prisons beyond capacity and cost it hundreds of millions each year. The most egregious of these laws is one imposing a mandatory prison term, usually three years, on anyone selling drugs within 1,000 feet of a school, even if youngsters are not involved. There is hope that Trenton may do something. The state attorney general, Anne Milgram, is working out details of a broad new plan to fight crime. And Gov. Jon Corzine, who appointed her, says he wants the plan to emphasize new ways, short of prison, for dealing with nonviolent drug violators. Mr. Corzine has long been an advocate of expanded drug treatment. Whether the Legislature will go along with this is a big question, however. Up to now, a majority of lawmakers have been afraid to act, fearful they will be accused of being soft on crime. But many other states with fiscal problems -- including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Mississippi and Texas -- are seizing on this way of saving money, and Mississippi and Texas are hardly known for being soft on crime. Neither are New Jersey's prosecutors. Several of them, however, support treatment for low-level drug offenders, rather than mandatory imprisonment. Many prosecutors will tell you that the emphasis on putting drug offenders in prison distracts them from dealing with serious crime. In Newark and the rest of Essex County, prosecutors presented more than 8,600 cases to grand juries last year; more than 40 percent of them involved nonviolent drug offenses. Drug treatment does not guarantee a good outcome for offenders. But as the drug courts have shown, it is far more effective in preventing recidivism among nonviolent offenders than prison. And it costs far less to treat a drug offender than the estimated $34,000 a year it costs to imprison one. The worst course is what exists now: thousands of young drug offenders getting released from prison, where they received no effective treatment. That only increases the chances that these once-nonviolent offenders will go on to commit more serious crimes. The more sensible course would be to stop imprisoning these low-level offenders, divert some of the savings for treatment, and use the millions of dollars left over to reduce the fiscal deficit. It is time that Trenton learned this lesson. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake