DRUG REFORM SHIFTS FOCUS TO TREATMENT, NOT JAIL

PONTIAC - When Aaron Crank wants a signature on a petition to change
Michigan drug laws, his pitch is quick and simple.

"I'm trying to give nonviolent drug offenders a chance at treatment instead
of jail," said the 19-year-old art student from Bloomfield Hills. Crank
said he supports the proposal on principle but circulates petitions for the
$1.50 he earns for each signature.

Supporters and opponents of the proposal, known as the Michigan Drug Reform
Initiative, also are motivated, and they agree there is nothing quick or
simple about it.

The proposal would: * Eliminate mandatory minimum sentences in drug crimes,
except for people convicted of making a net profit of $500,000 selling
drugs. * Establish an independent commission to set sentencing guidelines
for users and low-level dealers. * Allow resentencing for convicts serving
mandatory sentences. * Require drug treatment for anyone caught with drugs
for personal use. * Require the state to spend at least $18 million per
year on drug treatment. (Michigan currently spends about $150 million per
year on treatment, according to state drug czar Craig Yaldoo.)

"We definitely think it will overhaul the drug laws in Michigan," said Dave
Fratello, spokesman for the Campaign for New Drug Policies, a
California-based advocacy group that is backing the proposal. "They are
long overdue for an overhaul. We're trying to cure the bigger sickness of
politicization of the drug war."

Opponents agree the initiative would be a huge change for Michigan, but
they argue it's a change for the worse.

"This is de facto legalization of drugs in Michigan," said Craig Yaldoo,
the state's drug czar. "If this thing passes, the drug dealers will be
dancing in the streets. They will have free reign."

With such opposite views of the same proposal, the two sides are preparing
to battle for the hearts and minds of voters who rate drug use by young
people one of their most pressing concerns.

Earlier this year, the Skillman Foundation polled Oakland County residents
about a variety of issues facing young people. Asked to rank the importance
of the drug problem on a scale of 0 to 10, 72 percent of residents ranked
it eight or higher.

The initiative, which has generated little publicity thus far, got a
political boost last week when Michigan's Legislative Black Caucus voted
unanimously to endorse it.

"We believe the Michigan Drug Reform Ballot Initiative is a significant
step toward a more sensible drug policy for our state than incarceration,"
said State Rep. Artina Tinsley Hardman, D-Detroit. "Dollar for dollar, drug
treatment is eight to nine times more cost-effective than long mandatory
sentences in reducing drug use, sales and drug-related crime."

Constitutional Amendment

The Michigan Drug Reform Initiative would amend the state constitution. At
4,394 words, the proposal is six words shorter than the entire U.S.
Constitution. Much of it is legal language.

"We don't expect a lot of voters will read the whole thing," Fratello said.
"We think people who do will find it internally consistent. If people
understand the essence, the basic direction, they'll agree with it."

Fratello said that the proposal, in a nutshell, would shift the focus of
law enforcement away from incarceration and toward drug treatment. By
mandating drug treatment, the proposal will cut prison costs and give
addicts a shot at productive lives, Fratello said.

But opponents argue that the language in the amendment, and the sales pitch
surrounding it, are a "Trojan Horse" designed to slip a radical proposal
past unsuspecting voters.

James Halushka is the director of warrants and investigations for the
Oakland County Prosecutor's Office. He spends two nights a week speaking to
community groups in opposition to proposal.

His office on the fifth-floor of the courthouse annex offers a personal
perspective on the battle. When Halushka looks over his left shoulder, he
sees pictures of his 6-year-old daughter, complete with a love note from
her written in crayon.

When he turns to his right and raises his head a few inches, Halushka can
see young people collecting signatures for the proposal on the sidewalk
outside the courthouse.

"I'm a dad, and I'm concerned about the kind of environment she's going to
grow up in," Halushka said. "When it's fully explained, people are
outraged. We are winning the war on drugs. Now is not the time to send
mixed signals to our kids."

Halushka said the proposal would gut the penalties attached to drug crimes,
leaving users and dealers free to roam. He said backers of the proposal lie
in their sales pitch.

One teen collecting signatures tells signers that the proposal would end
mandatory jail time for first-time, nonviolent offenders.

"There is no mandatory prison time for first-time drug offenders," Halushka
said. "They set up a straw man so they can knock it down. The fact that
they have to lie about it speaks volumes about the proposal."

Halushka said Michigan already offers drug treatment to offenders who
qualify, most notably through drug courts.

Drug Courts

Every Thursday morning, Troy district Judge Dennis Drury and his staff
gather at 7:30 a.m. to go over the caseload in that city's drug court. From
8 a.m. until 9 a.m. a parade of young drug offenders comes in to see him.

Candidates for Drury's and other drug courts in the county are typically
people between the ages of 17 and 28 who have been caught with drugs. They
often have previous offenses such as drunken driving or minor in possession
of alcohol.

Psychological examinations have determined they have substance abuse
problems. Candidates stay in the drug court at least a year and up to two
years. As part of the deal, the offenders agree to a drug treatment
program. They submit to "frequent and random" drug tests to make sure they
are clean. Each week, they must meet with either the judge or a probation
officer to discuss their progress.

If they follow the rules and complete the program, their criminal record is
wiped clean. If they drop out or relapse, they can go to jail on their
original offenses. "It's a carrot and stick approach," Drury said. "But
without the stick, the carrot doesn't do you much good."

Drury said he's read the ballot proposal and doesn't like it.

"It scares the hell out of me," Drury said. "We have a good system."

Fratello agrees that the drug courts are a good way to treat addicts. He
said the ballot proposal would not only allow drug courts, but require them.

"They get to choose who qualifies for (drug courts)," Fratello said.
"That's a lot of power to give them. We would make them universal."

Fratello said the ballot initiative would expand the benefits of drug court.

"It's important to keep the jail option over someone while they are in
treatment," Fratello said.

The penalty for violating the treatment program would not be determined by
the judge, but by a commission established by the proposal.

Drug commission T he proposal calls for the creation of the special
commission to draw up sentencing guidelines for people convicted of drug
crimes. Anyone caught with drugs for personal use must be offered drug
treatment instead of incarceration. If a person uses drugs during
treatment, they must receive a second chance.

"Such guidelines shall ensure that probation or parole is not revoked for a
substance abuse violation alone until a reasonable opportunity for
treatment is offered and the person has elected not to receive treatment or
has failed to comply with the conditions of such treatment," the proposal
reads.

Halushka said that provision amounts to a get out of jail free card for
drug offenders.

"For the first time, the criminal would get the choice on whether to be
prosecuted or not," Halushka said.

That provision worries the Rev. Kent Clark, chief executive officer of the
Grace Centers of Hope in Pontiac. The center offers drug treatment to about
150 adults, most of whom are crack cocaine addicts.

Clark said his program stresses staying off drugs. Addicts who relapse are
out of the program and can't return for a year.

"I'm against anything that removes responsibility," Clark said. "You can't
have a drug rehabilitation program that doesn't have consequences. I don't
believe that the prison system is entirely the answer, but I wouldn't want
to eliminate that from the equation. There are people who rehabilitation
isn't going to touch. They are hardened criminals, and the only answer is
to lock them up."

Fratello said the proposal stresses treatment but allows for jail time for
people who refuse to cooperate.

"If you commit a crime while you're in (treatment) or don't show up, after
two screw-ups, you can be removed and placed in jail," he said.

Fratello said the current system ends up snaring low-level offenders while
higher ups in the drug organization often get off easy.

"The people who are most involved have information to trade, so they get
the minimum," he said. "The lowest-level people get the harshest penalties."

Halushka counters that the proposal would ensure that almost no one would
be prosecuted for drug crimes. People who earn a net profit of $500,000 or
a profit of $250,000 and commit violent crimes while drug dealing would
face 20 years in prison.

"Drug dealers don't keep audited financial statements," he said. "It's
impossible to prove his income."

Halushka said it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine a drug dealer claiming
business expense deductions to drop him under the $500,000 profit threshold.

Fratello said prosecutors prove financial gains all the time in
embezzlement and other cases.

"That strikes me as just lazy," he said.

Voters Decide

The initiative needs more than 302,000 signatures to get on the November
ballot, and Fratello said his group has collected about 200,000, so far.
The group hopes to collect at least 500,000 signatures to have some excess
if some are later disqualified.

"I feel very confident," he said. "We're working with a group that has
never failed us."

Progressive Campaigns recruits young people to circulate petitions in
public places. Crank earns $1.50 for each signature.

Three wealthy businessmen are paying for the campaign. Investor George
Soros, University of Phoenix founder John Sperling and insurance executive
Peter Lewis are the money behind it.

The group expects to spend between $2 million and $3 million to get the
issue on the ballot and to promote it. Fratello said opponents like to
focus on the three funders, but preliminary polling shows broad support, as
high as 75 percent, depending on how the question is asked, he said.

The Michigan Legislative Black Caucus endorsed the plan. State Rep.
Clarence Phillips, D-Pontiac, said he approves of the proposal. He said it
does not legalize drugs.

"I'm not for legalizing anything that would hurt anyone," Phillips said.
"But we need to look at some other options. We can't do any worse, at this
point. I think it's worth a try."

Phillips said it costs about $34,000 per year to house a prisoner in the
state. Drug treatment programs cost a fraction of that, he said. "I think
we'll come out better in the long run," he said.

Opponents of the measure disagree and say that having drug users out on the
streets would drive up drug-related crime and cost more in the long run.

Yaldoo, the state drug czar, has been busy fighting the effort. He said a
bipartisan coalition is forming to oppose it. The opposition lacks big
money contributors, but he said the grass-roots effort can overcome the
expected advertising campaign this fall.

The opposition recently started the Committee to Protect our Kids, a
political action committee to fight the proposal.

Yaldoo also has a Web site planned and is working on getting leaders from
the business, art and sports communities to oppose it.

"These guys have a large checkbook to try to confuse the issue," Yaldoo
said. "They feel they can use a slick ad campaign to somehow soften the
public's view against illegal drug use. We're assembling a coalition of law
enforcement, the treatment community, soccer moms and dads, medical people.
Michigan voters are smart."