EDITORIAL
2002 session showed political decisiveness

State lawmakers may have surprised even themselves as the 2002 session came to a close, with a flurry of legislation that will mark this year as one of decisive action and considerable achievement.

Several of the measures passed by the Legislature are controversial and not without their critics. The plan to put some kind of cap on gasoline prices and the decision to give the insurance commissioner oversight over health insurance rate-setting are prime examples.

These will be described by some as antibusiness government meddling that will end up hurting the consumers they are supposed to help.

But lawmakers aren't there to make decisions on the basis of speculative, potential outcomes. Their job is to deal with issues in real time and come up with solutions they deem appropriate.

In both the gas price and health insurance debates, that's precisely what they did.

Prescription drugs

The same analysis can be applied to legislative action on prescription drugs. Aware that the high cost of drugs is a core cost-of-living issue, particularly for the elderly, lawmakers took two steps.

First they set up a scheme by which lower-income consumers could get prescription drug discounts similar to those available to Medicaid patients. And they set up a "Hawai'i Rx" program that allows the state to negotiate with manufacturers for bulk drug discounts.

Does this mean the drug manufacturers will see sales profits go down in the Islands? Perhaps, if precisely the same amount of drugs are sold, but at lower prices.

But it is equally as likely that more needed prescription drugs will be sold. And society will benefit, since the illnesses that these drugs can cure or alleviate will go on in any event.

Wiggle room

It's been noted that several of the most controversial issues made it through only because lawmakers bought themselves time to backtrack or amend if they discover they made the wrong decision this year. The gas price regulation does not take effect until 2004, the same year the prescription drug plan takes effect.

And a so-called "bottle bill" to stimulate recycling by requiring a five-cent deposit won't take effect until 2005.

That gives lawmakers time to make sure details are right. It also makes room to undo good work once the elections have come and gone.

Next year's session should not simply sit back and wait for the effective date to come. If it appears that any of these ideas are good to go, the effective date should be moved up.

Another progressive piece of legislation that made it out of the Legislature this year is one that would push first-time nonviolent drug offenders into treatment rather than prison. This is smart thinking. It saves taxpayer dollars, it offers hope for individuals in the early stages of drug addiction and it avoids putting these unfortunate souls into the corrosive environment of incarceration.

But if the state is going to require treatment for drug offenders, it must use its authority to ensure appropriate treatment programs are available.

Resisted pressure

In at least two cases, a decision to kill legislation deserves commendation. Lawmakers successfully resisted the pressure to legalize gambling as a possible cure for our economic problems.

And they didn't bite on an appealing, but poorly thought out, plan to "blow up" our current statewide school system by creating a system of local school boards. The problem here wasn't the urge to reform; rather, it was the lack of thinking on the details of such a radical change to our statewide system of governance.

Finally, there is the matter of assisted suicide, or Death with Dignity. Many hoped — as did we — that Hawai'i this year would join Oregon in setting up a plan in which the terminally, painfully ill could obtain the medication needed to take their own lives.

This is an issue that crosses partisan lines and cuts deep into the moral and ethical stance of each individual legislator.

At first it appeared that the plan would fail simply because one senator refused to give it a hearing. That changed, and the full state Senate was given a chance to debate the idea in public and with each other.

Credit to both sides

The high tone of that debate, the seriousness with with each side took the other and the quality of the decision-making was a credit to both sides.

It shows that — if they will just give themselves the opportunity — lawmakers are able to take on even the toughest topics with seriousness and resolve.

That's about all a constituent could ask.