Reaction split on ice proposals

By Will Hoover
Advertiser Staff Writer

Testimony at joint legislative committee hearings on two omnibus bills aimed at curbing Hawai'i's ice epidemic split into two camps yesterday, and the debate centered on whether the crisis is a public-health issue or a law-enforcement problem.

At odds were those who favor the Republican administration's idea of drug prevention and those who side with the Democratic Legislature's emphasis on treatment.

At one point, weeping Niu Valley resident Jeannine Johnson related how her neighborhood had been terrorized by ice house drug dealers, and implored the committee to support legislation aimed at putting drug users behind bars.

But Debbie Odo of Kalihi also wept when she told the panel her family's lives had been changed dramatically for the better after her addicted husband received substance-abuse treatment.

"You are faced with a stark contrast in philosophies," state Attorney General Mark Bennett told the panel.

Bennett left no doubt where he stood on the proposed recommendations in the identical House and Senate bills, calling them "a step backwards."

The committee recommended that Act 161, a 2002 law to divert first-time non-violent drug offenders from prison into substance-abuse treatment, be amended to clear up ambiguities in the language. Lt. Gov. James Aiona Jr. was one of several people who called for repealing the law.

Aiona said he supported expanding Drug Court, an intensive, expensive drug treatment program initiated in the 1990s that operates under judicial supervision.

"The administration recommends that because Act 161 does not provide for stringent judicial monitoring of treatment programs, the act is too reliant on the addict's ability to self-administer the program," according to a statement Aiona read to the panel.

As he has in the past, Honolulu City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle argued forcefully in favor of incarcerating drug offenders and giving authorities the tools necessary to apprehend and prosecute criminals.

"In my mind, we have always, always focused on rehabilitation — both legislatively, criminally and financially," he said. "Very little has been done in the arena, in my opinion, of pure prevention — which is to keep the problem from ever happening in the first place."

Carlisle asked the committee exactly how many times a person should be given treatment for taking illegal drugs.

"Is over and over and over again, relapse after relapse after relapse acceptable?" he said. "You have to answer the question: Do you think that incarceration is inherently ineffective and inhumane? Or do you believe that it is far easier to incapacitate and drive crime rates than it is to cure addiction?"

Kat Brady, coordinator of the Community Alliance on Prisons, was just as forceful in her condemnation of mandatory minimum sentences, which are also among the committee's recommendations. Brady said mandatory sentences are costly, ineffective and opposed even by many conservative Republicans.

Brady strongly supported Act 161 and praised the joint committee for its work, calling the effort "amazingly comprehensive."

"Treatment is the best and most effective way to deal with nonviolent drug offenders," she said.

Richard Miller, former dean of the University of Hawai'i Law School, seconded Brady's conclusions, describing the committee's mandatory minimum recommendations as an effort to appear tough in an election year.

He urged the committee to educate the public to the "real facts," and cautioned against allowing what he called the "law-enforcement coalition" to impose draconian proposals that could threaten constitutional protections.

"Right now we have a reasonably free society and a big drug problem," said Miller. "What I fear most ... is that we will end up with a police state, and still have a big drug problem."

Reach Will Hoover at 525-8038 or at whoover@honoluluadvertiser.com.