Forfeiture dollars to pay for treatment.

Byline: DIANE DIETZ The Register-Guard

The Eugene City Council voted 7-1 Monday to earmark drug forfeiture proceeds for drug treatment, but delayed deciding whether to increase the total amount the city spends helping drug addicts until the budget process next spring.

"Time will tell," said Lane County Circuit Judge Darryl Larson, who pushed the council for more treatment dollars. "Whether there will really be an increase is still an open question."

The council was forced to decide how to spend the money because of a statewide initiative passed in November 2000, which outlawed spending the proceeds on law enforcement.

The city had used the money - roughly $200,000 to $400,000 a year - to help pay for operation of the countywide Interagency Narcotics Enforcement Team.

The new law specified that civil forfeiture money be used "exclusively for drug treatment, unless another disposition is specifically provided by law."

Some interpret that to mean that the money must pay for drug treatment; others say it means the council can pass an ordinance deciding where the money goes.

A half dozen people, including Larson, urged the council to increase spending on drug treatment.

The council must continue paying for drug enforcement, Larson said. But it should use the money taken from drug dealers to help the people whose lives have been destroyed by the drugs that dealers peddle, he said.

Hillary Wylie, executive director of Willamette Family Treatment, said drug abuse extracts a huge toll on Eugene, filling jails and emergency wards and fueling child abuse and family violence.

"The only way we're going to reduce the demand for drugs is through treatment," she said. "It made sense to voters to fund drug treatment with drug money."

Tom Hoffman, a self-employed Eugene resident, said not one penny should be spent on law enforcement - because it's an ineffective way to attack drug abuse.

He said his acquaintances don't stop using just because they're in hot water with the law.

"They go to jail for two or three years, and then they come out and start using drugs again," he said.

Councilors said they were hesitant to put more money for drug treatment into the countywide Human Resources Commission, because the city already pays more than its share of commission programs.

Eugene pays eight times more than Springfield and 2 1/2 times more than Lane County, Councilor Nancy Nathanson said. "It can't just be increasing and increasing," she said.

Councilor Scott Meisner agreed. "We can't carry the world," he said.

Councilors Bonny Bettman and David Kelly, however, pushed for a promise to increase spending on drug treatment.

"This is a voter mandate," Bettman said. "The voters have asked us to supercede our own process."

Kelly agreed: "At some point we've got to step up and say this is going to save money and lives in the long run."

Councilor Betty Taylor was the lone dissenter in Monday's vote. She said she wants the council to make a commitment to drug treatment irrespective of the forfeiture law.

Mayor Jim Torrey, in an earlier interview, said the budget committee would make the best decision "after they listen to all the budget discussion this coming year."

Most jurisdictions around the state stopped using the civil forfeiture laws last year, when the forfeiture initiative took effect.

Officials were worried about another of the initiative's clauses awarding damages - three times the size of the forfeiture - if the proceeds are improperly used.

They successfully lobbied the Legislature for a new means of doing forfeitures, this time by means of a criminal proceeding.

Lawmakers decided the proceeds gained in a criminal forfeiture would be shared - 40 percent for drug treatment, 40 percent for law enforcement and 20 percent for state programs.

But Lane County District Attorney Doug Harcleroad advised local governments to stick with civil forfeiture because the change would be costly - and local governments could put the money into their general funds and reallocate the proceeds as they see fit.

That approach appears lawful, Nathanson said prior to the council discussion. "But the court of public opinion is not always exactly the same as the court of law," she said.

But Bettman doesn't buy Harcleroad's approach. "Maybe the lawyers can pick (the law) apart and find a loophole, but the voters' intent was to use the forfeiture funds for drug treatment," she said.

The council's decision Monday also leaves open the question of how the city will pay its share of drug enforcement team operations.

Torrey said the drug team is too important to cut. "From a priority standpoint, I would want INET to be kept whole," he said.