T
The420Guy
Guest
Washington, DC -- Voters will be asked to decide whether the city's drug
laws should be changed to remove the threat of sanctions against some
users seeking treatment. The referendum question asks voters whether they
want to elect the city's top prosecutor.
Called Initiative 62, the drug issue would allow some nonviolent users of
certain types of illegal drugs to move into treatment instead of jail. If
it passes, the D.C. Department of Health would oversee the treatment
program.
The proposal differs from the existing D.C. Drug Court program, which
offers treatment for offenders, in how it would handle individuals who
falter on the road to recovery.
Similar to the drug court, which has been operating for nine years, the
initiative would allow offenders to enter treatment programs. Just as in
drug court, charges would be dropped against those who successfully
complete treatment.
The initiative would dramatically change the way that courts treat drug
offenders who relapse or get into trouble. The existing drug court
implements sanctions when a user returns to drugs or misses a treatment
session. Sanctions include two days in the drug court jury box for the
first violation and three days in the D.C. Jail for each additional one.
Drug court is built on the philosophy of rewarding good behavior and
punishing missteps with swift sanctions. Advocates of the current system
say the judge's repeated prodding and the prospect of jail are critical
and proven parts of the drug court.
Proponents of Initiative 62 say drug addiction should be treated like a
disease. Relapses, they say, are part of the recovery process, not an
occasion for punishment. Proponents also say that fewer people in jail
will mean fewer foster children because individuals constantly in jail are
sometimes forced to place their children in foster care.
Supporters also say that, of 60,000 drug-addicted people in the District,
only 10,000 are receiving treatment. Whatever measures are in place to
deal with drug abusers are not working, and a new approach is needed, they
contend.
Unlike drug court, treatment offered under Initiative 62 would not be
available to offenders who possess Schedule I drugs, which include
marijuana, heroin, LSD and ecstasy. Under the initiative, only people with
Schedule II drugs, such as morphine, PCP, cocaine, methadone and
methamphetamine, would be admitted.
If the initiative is approved, proponents say, funding would come from
Congress and private donations, though they say they do not know exactly
what it would cost. Congress would have to be lobbied for funding.
A "no" vote opposes the initiative, and a "yes" approves of it.
The referendum, known as "Advisory Referendum A," asks whether voters
should elect a district attorney as do their counterparts in many
jurisdictions nationwide.
Major crimes in the District are currently prosecuted by the U.S.
Attorney's Office, whose top officer is appointed by the president. The
Office of the Corporation Counsel, a city agency, enforces minor
misdemeanors and city regulations.
The U.S. Attorney's Office, a $60-million-a-year agency, is one piece of
the city's federally funded criminal justice system. Congress also pays
for the public defender's office, which represents indigents, the
probation and supervised release programs and for judges and magistrates
of Superior Court.
No state has such a federally funded judiciary, and no other citizens have
less input on who is their chief law enforcement officer.
Home rule advocates have said for years that city residents should be able
to choose a prosecutor for local crimes, while leaving federal offenses to
a U.S. attorney. In 1980, a proposal to elect the city's district attorney
went before Congress but has never come to a vote.
D.C. Council member David A. Catania (R-At Large) has worked to revive the
idea since taking office five years ago. He helped to lead the council in
a unanimous vote in July that finally put the question on the ballot. He
and former council member William Lightfoot have co-chaired a group,
Citizens for D.C. Justice, to campaign for the issue.
If the referendum passes, it will serve as a measure of community support
for the idea but cannot become law. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), a
supporter of the idea, has promised to take the plan to congressional
leaders, who must approve it.
Author: Arthur Santana, and Neely Tucker, Washington Post Staff Writers
Source: Washington Post
Website: Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis
Pubdate: Thursday, October 31, 2002
laws should be changed to remove the threat of sanctions against some
users seeking treatment. The referendum question asks voters whether they
want to elect the city's top prosecutor.
Called Initiative 62, the drug issue would allow some nonviolent users of
certain types of illegal drugs to move into treatment instead of jail. If
it passes, the D.C. Department of Health would oversee the treatment
program.
The proposal differs from the existing D.C. Drug Court program, which
offers treatment for offenders, in how it would handle individuals who
falter on the road to recovery.
Similar to the drug court, which has been operating for nine years, the
initiative would allow offenders to enter treatment programs. Just as in
drug court, charges would be dropped against those who successfully
complete treatment.
The initiative would dramatically change the way that courts treat drug
offenders who relapse or get into trouble. The existing drug court
implements sanctions when a user returns to drugs or misses a treatment
session. Sanctions include two days in the drug court jury box for the
first violation and three days in the D.C. Jail for each additional one.
Drug court is built on the philosophy of rewarding good behavior and
punishing missteps with swift sanctions. Advocates of the current system
say the judge's repeated prodding and the prospect of jail are critical
and proven parts of the drug court.
Proponents of Initiative 62 say drug addiction should be treated like a
disease. Relapses, they say, are part of the recovery process, not an
occasion for punishment. Proponents also say that fewer people in jail
will mean fewer foster children because individuals constantly in jail are
sometimes forced to place their children in foster care.
Supporters also say that, of 60,000 drug-addicted people in the District,
only 10,000 are receiving treatment. Whatever measures are in place to
deal with drug abusers are not working, and a new approach is needed, they
contend.
Unlike drug court, treatment offered under Initiative 62 would not be
available to offenders who possess Schedule I drugs, which include
marijuana, heroin, LSD and ecstasy. Under the initiative, only people with
Schedule II drugs, such as morphine, PCP, cocaine, methadone and
methamphetamine, would be admitted.
If the initiative is approved, proponents say, funding would come from
Congress and private donations, though they say they do not know exactly
what it would cost. Congress would have to be lobbied for funding.
A "no" vote opposes the initiative, and a "yes" approves of it.
The referendum, known as "Advisory Referendum A," asks whether voters
should elect a district attorney as do their counterparts in many
jurisdictions nationwide.
Major crimes in the District are currently prosecuted by the U.S.
Attorney's Office, whose top officer is appointed by the president. The
Office of the Corporation Counsel, a city agency, enforces minor
misdemeanors and city regulations.
The U.S. Attorney's Office, a $60-million-a-year agency, is one piece of
the city's federally funded criminal justice system. Congress also pays
for the public defender's office, which represents indigents, the
probation and supervised release programs and for judges and magistrates
of Superior Court.
No state has such a federally funded judiciary, and no other citizens have
less input on who is their chief law enforcement officer.
Home rule advocates have said for years that city residents should be able
to choose a prosecutor for local crimes, while leaving federal offenses to
a U.S. attorney. In 1980, a proposal to elect the city's district attorney
went before Congress but has never come to a vote.
D.C. Council member David A. Catania (R-At Large) has worked to revive the
idea since taking office five years ago. He helped to lead the council in
a unanimous vote in July that finally put the question on the ballot. He
and former council member William Lightfoot have co-chaired a group,
Citizens for D.C. Justice, to campaign for the issue.
If the referendum passes, it will serve as a measure of community support
for the idea but cannot become law. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), a
supporter of the idea, has promised to take the plan to congressional
leaders, who must approve it.
Author: Arthur Santana, and Neely Tucker, Washington Post Staff Writers
Source: Washington Post
Website: Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis
Pubdate: Thursday, October 31, 2002