Given $20 Million for Drug Enforcement <i> or </i> Treatment, I’d Choose . . . : . . . to expend effort and money on both, to save future generations from this scourge. We can’t afford not to.

Recently The Times invited gubernatorial candidates Dianne Feinstein and Pete Wilson to participate in a number of issue discussions on this page. Today’s question is: You have $20 million in discretionary money, but you can only use it by spending all of it on more law enforcement, or all of it on new drug rehabilitation clinics. What is your choice and why? And, during the next administration or two can California develop, on a very large scale, effective alternatives to imprisoning so many people? What are the alternatives, and have they any real prospects of reducing criminality and the costs of crime, prosecution and punishment?

Topics to appear in the coming weeks will be the environment and education.

That’s an unfair question. I think it would be a terrible mistake to try to fight drugs only through more law enforcement, or only through increased drug treatment programs. We must do both, in a serious way, and the unfortunate truth is that here in California we have never really done either.

There are three ways you can try to deal with the drug problem. You can fight drugs on the supply side with increased interdiction and law enforcement; you can fight them on the demand side, through drug prevention, education and treatment; or you can legalize drugs.

I believe the worst thing we could do would be to legalize hard narcotics. We need to fight drugs, not accept them. As governor, I will veto any effort to legalize drugs in the state of California.

Over the past eight years, California has become the heroin capital, the cocaine capital, the PCP capital and the methamphetamine capital of America. State intelligence agents have identified 5,000 suspected Colombian cocaine traffickers in three California counties--Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento. Yet the number of law enforcement officers in California has actually decreased in recent years, while drug sales have increased beyond all expectations.

On Sept. 29, 1989, the largest drug seizure in the world took place in Los Angeles County. More than 20 tons of cocaine were recovered from a warehouse in Sylmar. The street value was $6.7 billion dollars. Records confiscated during that raid showed that approximately 60 tons of cocaine had been shipped through that same warehouse during the two preceding years--about $20 billion worth of cocaine.

Clearly, we can’t afford to continue trying to fight drugs with a war of words. Drug pushers don’t listen to the words of politicians, but to the sound of the jail doors closing behind them.

Here is part of my plan for a real war on drugs in the state of California:

Name a state coordinator to oversee local, state and federal anti-drug efforts. Drug czar William Bennett’s efforts on the federal level have shown significant success in reducing supply, and we ought to make the war on drugs a similar priority in California.

Put more police officers on the street. In this time of rising crime and gang activity, I support Proposition 133, the Safe Streets Act, which will provide $640 million a year distributed directly to local law-enforcement agencies to be used in the war on drugs. The funds would be used to:

-- Increase the police presence in communities plagued by drug trafficking or criminal gang activity.

-- Beef up special narcotics and anti-gang units.

-- Purchase equipment needed to combat drug or gang activity.

-- Support community and neighborhood groups dedicated to fighting drugs.

-- Increase the number of officers available to conduct narcotics or anti-gang investigations;

-- Hire more prosecutors and fund new judgeships to help ease the strain on our overcrowded court system.

Do a better job of interdicting drugs. I would allow for the use of trained and equipped National Guard troops to assist in the interdiction of drugs at highway weigh stations, ports and borders.

Increase penalties for the sale of drugs. I support a mandatory jail sentence for anyone convicted of selling narcotics. Drug pushers should know they’ll go to jail the first time they’re caught, not the third or fourth time.

Create a serious program of drug education in every school in this state. The Safe Streets Act will provide $672 million a year for anti-drug education, the first major effort at prevention we’ve had.

Expand drug treatment. Our top priority in this regard must be to provide same-day treatment for pregnant addicts. Today there are waiting lists months long for pregnant addicts who seek help. The Safe Streets Act will provide $128 million for drug treatment, with a priority on pregnant women, young mothers and their children. It makes little sense to talk tough about throwing these women in jail if we haven’t even got the facilities to treat those who voluntarily seek help.

Our goal must be to expand treatment facilities so that every addict who seeks help can find it. There are rehabilitation programs that work and don’t cost the taxpayers a thin dime. The Delancey Street program rehabilitates hundreds of ex-convicts and drug addicts, and could be replicated throughout California at no cost to taxpayers. I would like to see the Rev. Cecil Williams’ program, Facts on Crack, at San Francisco’s Glide Memorial Church, used as a model for churches throughout the state. Facts on Crack treats hard-core cocaine addicts and has a better than 90% success rate.

The second question concerns alternatives to imprisonment for criminals. While we should explore alternatives, frankly, the best crime deterrent is a swift trial and a long sentence. There is no question that this costs money, and that’s why any politician who talks tough on crime is under an obligation to say where he or she would get the money to back up that tough talk with actions. That’s why I am supporting the Safe Streets Act. The money that it provides for prisons, law enforcement, treatment and education will come from a four-year, half-cent increase in the state’s sales tax. It’s not easy for me to support any increase in the state’s sales tax. But the truth is, we’re locked in a battle for our lives in California. We have been literally overrun by the international drug trade.

We’re at risk of losing a generation to drugs in California. We can’t afford to lose a second one.