|
Our Side of the Story
Colleen Hanabusa
|
Act 44 best weapon
against ice problemHawaii needs help, and the 2004 Legislature responded with a measure that, for the first time, provides a comprehensive package of laws to deal with the ice epidemic. Act 44, also called the "Omnibus Ice Bill" is the product of nearly a year of hard work by a Joint House-Senate task force that spent nearly 80 hours meeting with people all over the state. The people of Hawaii got what they so asked for: a concrete, balanced plan to fight the ice epidemic.
Now Lt. Gov. James R. "Duke" Aiona Jr. calls Act 44 a product of "petty politics" and "grossly flawed" (Gathering Place, May 6). The lieutenant governor's accusations would have more credibility had he offered a plan of his own, but he did not. He did host a drug summit last September. The result, titled "A New Beginning," consists of 11 recommendations and a 10-step action plan that begins with "clarify the vision," and ends with "draft an action plan." In other words, the lieutenant governor's efforts produced nothing more than a plan to do more planning.
Instead of offering a plan, Aiona decided to take shots at four aspects of Act 44. None of his criticisms justify the governor's veto, and not surprisingly, there's more to the story than he lets on.
Harsh penalties
The new "meth trafficking" laws get tough with ice dealers. We created this law because people complained about drug dealing in their neighborhoods.Under this new law, ice dealers face much harsher penalties. For example, under the old law, dealers faced prison terms of as little as one year and as much as 10 years, at the discretion of the court. The new law puts an ice dealer who sells more than an eighth of an ounce of ice away for a minimum of five years. If the dealer hurts someone in the process, he serves 10 years. If the dealer has a prior felony drug conviction, he gets a life sentence with 15 years' minimum.
Similar penalties apply to ice manufacturers. While the old law imposes a 10-year prison sentence, the new law sets graduated prison terms. An ice manufacturer, for example, will serve no less than three years in prison for making less than an eighth of an ounce, but a repeat offender who makes more than that faces a potential life sentence with a minimum term of 15 years in prison. This graduated sentencing scheme is a greater deterrent to repeat behavior than the "nothing-to-lose" sentencing of the old law.
Nonviolent offenders
Act 161, passed in 2002, mandated offenders be diverted to drug treatment rather than prison. Act 161 was not intended to automatically exclude repeat offenders from treatment diversion. In fact, two types of repeat offenders are eligible under that law for drug treatment diversion: the offender on parole and the offender on probation. Unfortunately, the statute was not clear as to the third type, the first-time, nonviolent drug offender, and this led to confusion in sentencing by the courts. The Supreme Court consequently ruled that this type of offender was not eligible for treatment diversion. The bill passed this session restores the original legislative intent.But the most important change in the law is that it replaces mandatory diversion to drug treatment with language that allows the courts to determine whether a person should be sent to drug court, drug treatment or prison after a thorough review of the offender's criminal history and addiction. After weighing the divergent views on this issue, the Legislature decided the courts are in the best position to decide the proper placement of drug offenders.
Residential facilities
Act 44 permits residential drug rehabilitation homes, also called therapeutic transitional living or clean and sober homes, that are licensed facilities with a capacity limit of no more than 10 persons. This part of the law was in response to requests from communities for more residential facilities to help drug addicts recover in a supportive environment. The Department of Health must license these facilities and conduct public hearings before they are established.Nothing in this law usurps the authority of the counties to regulate these types of homes as they do other licensed facilities. As noted in the report by the Senate Committees on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs and Health, "the intent of this provision is to supersede the counties' restrictions for 'use' of the property. However, it is not the intent of your committees that this measure supersede any county building codes or structural requirements."
Real help for students
Act 44 amends the student disciplinary "zero tolerance" policy to require students be assessed and referred to drug treatment, rather than being suspended for nearly a year, if they are caught with drugs. Families and communities complained that the zero tolerance policy puts kids on the streets, but does nothing to help them with their drug abuse. Even the DOE testified that, "Substance abuse counseling is basic to winning the war on drugs."Adolescent treatment and prevention is our highest legislative priority. That's why we allocated $3 million for school-based treatment programs. Suspending student drug abusers without treatment does nothing to stop adolescent drug use. It merely creates another problem, the school drop-out.
An important first step
Act 44 provides a comprehensive plan of attack on the ice epidemic -- through prevention, treatment and punishment. It includes: a procedure for civil commitment that will allow people to intervene when a family member is addicted to ice but won't seek treatment; a requirement that health insurers treat substance abuse like a physical illness; longer prison sentences for those who manufacture ice in the presence of children or use minors to sell drugs; and special protection for citizens who fight back against drug houses in their neighborhoods.People in our communities want help now. Like all problem-solving approaches, we'll need to monitor how Act 44 works, and we fully expect there will be some fine-tuning required. However, it is a solid piece of legislation. It is unthinkable that anyone would want to throw it out and maintain the status quo, which is so obviously not working. What is required is action, not political posturing. We look forward to working on the lieutenant governor's plan in the 2005 session.
Rep. Eric G. Hamakawa (D, Hilo-Glenwood) is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Sen. Colleen Hanabusa (D, Nanakuli-Makua) is chairwoman of the Senate Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee.