The need for a new State prison is obvious, yet it goes unmet for lack of political consensus and the absence of a receptive community. Meanwhile, our prisons are bulging. In order to sidestep another federal court mandate, we are forced to continue sending prisoners to the Mainland -- a temporary solution that begins to look more permanent with each passing Legislative Session.

But within reach is an out-of-the-box idea that addresses the root cause of our overcrowding problem without endangering public safety -- mandatory substance abuse treatment for non-violent offenders convicted of simple possession.

Senate Bill 1188 would amend the current policy of mandatory prison time for all drug offenders. The bill proposes to divert possession-only offenders into mandatory substance abuse treatment, provided that the amount of crystal methamphetamine, or ice, involved is no more than one-eighth of an ounce. Ice appears to be the drug of choice for the vast majority of drug offenders doing time.

It's also important to point out that diversion would not apply in cases where trafficking or distribution is involved, or when other criminal charges are pending.

It is to the Governor's credit for submitting this legislation. The bill focuses a debate that has been simmering at the Capitol for several years.

Critics say the bill is "soft on crime." But they are mired in the theory that the threat of incarceration is the best and only way to ensure that an addict proceeds through substance abuse treatment. They ignore that fact that our current policy is costly and unproductive.

I argue that the House's position is getting "smart on crime." The current policy of mandatory imprisonment for ice possession is expensive but ineffective in treating the majority of underlying substance abuse problems. It only contributes to recidivism and more incarceration. As it stands, we are solving neither drug abuse nor prison overcrowding.

Furthermore, incarceration may be the worst option if the goal is to help people break their addiction. Limited substance abuse treatment is available to some inmates, but effective treatment programs within a correctional facility face serious challenges.

Living conditions inside a prison can be highly stressful, with extended periods of boredom. And the latent potential for violence is never far from the surface. These obstacles can stymie even the best available treatment regimes.

Opponents also argue the bill would compromise the highly effective Drug Court program. That kind of inside-the-box thinking is what keeps so many worthy ideas from being implemented. This is not a situation with a winner and a loser. Drug Court would remain a valuable option for offenders that do not meet the narrow eligibility criteria of S. B. 1188. I see Drug Court being supplemented, not supplanted.

The demand for substance abuse treatment programs far outstrips the supply. I feel confident that the kind of intensive substance abuse treatment and proper case management envisioned by this bill can be effective in assisting those with addiction.

If the agreed goal is to provide more effective treatment to those who have substance abuse problems, then the House position to include the large population of substance abusers who abuse the most popular drug, ice, only makes sense. It's more humane, rational, and cost-effective.

Unfortunately, the House and Senate are not in complete accord on the specifics of S. B. 1188. But in the days remaining before the Session adjourns, I hope to persuade the Senate to keep an open mind and realize that the old ways are not working and we need to take a fresh approach.

-end-