DRUG TREATMENT LAW HOTLY DEBATED

A co-sponsor of an initiative that would shift drug offenders from prison
to treatment failed Wednesday to convince a roomful of Sonoma County drug
treatment professionals that it would work.

"It's a bad law," said Michael Cohen, a psychologist at the Rohnert Park
Center for Psychotherapy. "There are no teeth whatsoever."

The initiative will appear on the November ballot as Proposition 36. It is
backed by many of the same people who drafted Proposition 215, which
legalized marijuana for medical uses.

Cohen and several others, including high-level county drug treatment
officials, said they were ready to be convinced that Proposition 36 would
work. But they expressed reservations about the initiative after hearing
presentations for and against it.

The initiative calls for keeping some 25,000 drug offenders out of jail,
sending them instead into treatment programs. Proponents say it would save
the state millions of dollars.

Robert Harris, an HMO lobbyist and former truck driver who helped write the
measure, called it a sane way to treat the disease of drug addiction.

He said that the $120 million annually in state money that would pay for
treatment programs would go a long way toward better treating the problem.

Sonoma County District Attorney Mike Mullins spoke against the initiative,
calling it a sham.

"It is flawed and its ambiguous language would hamper a real treatment
effort," Mullins said.

His arguments appeared to sway many who attended the session at the monthly
meeting of the Sonoma County Advisory Board on Alcohol and Other Drug Problems.

"I'm all for treatment. But not for bad treatment," said John Abrahams, a
public defender who works in the Sonoma County's new drug court. "This has
a lot of flaws and it will have to be litigated for the next 10 years while
we figure out what it means."

Professionals in the audience expressed concerns about how the money would
get to Sonoma County and how much would come should voters approve the
initiative.

Harris said the actual formula for dividing the money would be determined
in detail after the initiative was passed.

One complaint from Mullins and other critics is that none of the $120
million set aside for treatment could be spent on drug testing, which
prosecutors say is necessary to help hold people accountable.

Harris countered that there is grant money available or other state money
for testing.

The initiative would prohibit criminal prosecution for the first two
nonviolent offenses unless authorities can prove in court that the
defendant is a danger to the community.

"How did you expect us to prove they're a danger?" Mullins asked Harris.
"We'll never get there."

All five members of the advisory board had strong reservations about
Proposition 36 despite their support for more widespread treatment programs.

"I like the idea of more money for treatment and getting offenders out of
the judicial system," said member Michael Falk. "But it is so ambiguous and
problematic."

Mullins and his professional adversary, Abrahams, agreed that it would
require more staff from several agencies to administer the law, which could
nibble away at the money available for drug treatment.

Michael Spielman, executive director of the Drug Abuse Alternative Center,
said he mistakenly gave his agency's endorsement to the initiative before
reading it.

Four of his board members heard the presentation Wednesday night and after
a straw poll, Spielman predicted they will soon vote to pull the endorsement.

"What bothers us is in the treatment field is that it wasn't put together
with the consultation of people in the treatment field," he said.