I685's drug reforms: too much, too soon

The sponsors of Initiative 685 have a comprehensive vision of drug policy
reform for Washington state. The jampacked ballot question says it all:
"Shall penalties for drug possession and drugrelated violent crime be
revised, medical use of Schedule I controlled substances be permitted, and
a drug prevention commission established?"

This ambitious proposal does too much, too fast. Voter caution is advised:
The highlypublicized medicalization of marijuana is a very small part of
what this measure aims to accomplish.

It would permit seriously or terminally ill patients to use any socalled
Schedule I drug for pain relief with the recommendation of a licensed
physician. The doctor would be required to document supporting medical
research, get the written consent of the patient and the written
recommendation of a second physician.

There is nothing radical about wanting to relieve the pain of a relative
suffering from cancer, a friend with AIDS, or an elderly parent with
glaucoma. If I685 had focused on the single issue of medical use of drugs,
it might have been acceptable.

There is support in this state for responsible drug medicalization. A
limited controlledsubstance therapeutic program has been in statute since
1979; in the Legislature, state Sens. Jeanne Kohl and Bob McCaslin have led
a successful bipartisan effort to fund clinical research of marijuana's
medicinal value.

But the initiative overreaches in its attempt to shift from a punitive war
on drugs toward a more costeffective policy emphasizing treatment and
education.

The initiative would require that a felon serving time in prison for
possession or use of a controlled substance be eligible for release upon
approval of the measure. The courts could free these drug offenders as long
as they hadn't been convicted of violent crimes or sale or production of
illegal drugs and only on condition that they participate in appropriate
drug treatment or education programs.

I685 supporters are right about one thing. Study after study shows drug
treatment to be vastly more costeffective than jail. But drug policy
researchers at the Calif.based RAND Corporation, whose work is most often
cited by I685 supporters, also emphasize that "the shift toward treatment
should not be pushed too far. After all, it often takes enforcement to
provide willing clients for treatment."

The biggest problem with I685's provision to free nonviolent drug
offenders is that judges wouldn't be able to enforce the treatment. Under
this measure, nonviolent drug offenders who failed to comply with treatment
could not be jailed until their third offense for possession.

Making mandated drug treatment and related services a sentencing option, as
Seattle's nationally recognized drug court already does, is sensible.
Preventing the courts from enforcing the sentence is not.

Thoughtful people from all parts of the ideological spectrum are
recognizing the futility of the nation's current drugcontrol policy.
Although I685's sponsors have drafted a seriously flawed, overreaching
measure, they have spurred a healthy public debate about the need to view
drug abuse as a disease, not a war.

Vote no on I685. But encourage lawmakers, law enforcement, courts and the
medical community to examine revisions of antidrug strategies that are too
expensive, overpoliticized, uncompassionate and ineffective.