Ashcroft, whose confirmation hearings continue Wednesday, may have made these remarks years ago, but renewed scrutiny of the statements has led to concerns that he would divert much-needed funds away from drug courts.

"For a critical person to come on the scene and throw a bucket of ice water on the value of treatment is a terrible message to send to courts ... that are trying to find better ways of dealing with the horrendous problems that we have in this country," says J. Michael Kavanaugh, a drug court judge in Albuquerque, N.M. "I think it speaks of a future where we take many, many steps backward instead of continuing the good work and the progressive movement that drug courts have provided in this country." Albuquerque's program started in 1997 and has been very successful, Kavanaugh says, in helping to rehabilitate those addicted to alcohol or drugs. Those who go through the program have only a 10 percent recidivism rate, compared with 30 to 40 percent for those not enrolled.

Kavanaugh's state is a leader in the drug policy reform movement. A blue-ribbon panel commissioned by New Mexico's Republican governor, Gary Johnson, recently called on the governor and the Legislature to shift the state's drug policy from one of interdiction to one that decriminalizes marijuana and emphasizes treatment over penal measures. The panel also recommended the diversion of many cases to drug courts.

Drug courts are different from regular courts in that they advocate treatment as an alternative to incarceration. They're administered on a local level, with varying policies from county to county. Most require that the person plead guilty to the offense for which he has been charged and then submit to regular drug testing after treatment. Initially, only those who committed minor drug offenses qualified for the program, but drug courts have recently expanded to include drug users facing charges not related to drug use.

Despite their local administration, drug court programs rely on federal funding to operate. The role of the attorney general is central, say many drug court advocates, not only in maintaining the bipartisan support needed to continue the programs but also in determining how many federal dollars will be allocated to them. Although the specific amount of funding is ultimately Congress' decision, the attorney general's influence in the matter is crucial. For example, the federal budget for drug court programs in 2001 was increased by $10 million, to $50 million -- the exact amount that Attorney General Janet Reno's Department of Justice requested, according to a DOJ spokesman.

Reno's support for drug courts is believed to have been an important factor in their growth. In fact, she helped start the first drug court in the United States in 1989, when she was a prosecutor in Dade County, Fla. There are now more than 600 across the country.

"The growth of drug treatment courts has been aided by the attorney general's personal involvement in the creation of such courts in Dade County," says Eric Sterling, president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. "It was always clear that this initiative had her strong personal blessing."