MISGUIDED EFFORT ON DRUGS

The expansion of reliable treatment for drug addicts is a goal that few
people would fault. But the ballot initiative to create a drug treatment
trust fund from fines and forfeitures under the state's criminal drug laws
is clumsy at best and could undermine legitimate law enforcement efforts.
The Globe recommends a No vote on Question 8.

No On Question 8

Currently, police and district attorneys claim an estimated $4 million
annually in forfeited drug assets. They use the funds for protective
custody, undercover vehicles, wiretap equipment, prevention programs in
schools, and the like.

But proponents of ballot Question 8, led by out-of-state philanthropists,
want to strip law enforcement of those assets. They say the money would be
better used for medical intervention to address addiction. They cite a
recent federal survey that found unusually high rates of drug abuse in
Massachusetts. The war against drugs, they argue, is a washout.

Much more needs to be done to improve drug treatment in Massachusetts,
including an expansion of public health programs in the state prisons. But
this ballot initiative invites trouble, not solutions, by assuming that
drug dealers are often helpless addicts.

The petition specifically allows second offenders charged with dealing up
to 28 grams of cocaine (street value $2,800) with the opportunity to avoid
sentencing by being categorized as "a person who is at risk of becoming
drug dependent." What a field day for dealers who could parcel out their
drugs to runners at weights that maximize "treatment" options, if
apprehended, instead of incarceration.

"It creates a gaping hole in terms of prosecuting drug dealers," warns
Attorney General Thomas Reilly, who opposes the ballot initiative. The
state's district attorneys, who are unanimous in their opposition to
Question 8, accurately call it a "Trojan horse" for supporters of drug
decriminalization.

The drug asset forfeiture process is imperfect. Some police departments
view the funds as a budget supplement, not a precision tool to fight drug
dealers. Some prosecutors have filed lesser charges for dealers who
relinquish assets. The attorney general should tighten oversight of the
entire process. But it is not necessary to diminish forfeiture procedures,
as Question 8 also proposes.

The benefits of Question 8 are far outweighed by its drawbacks, chief among
them the discharging of dealers into neighborhoods just beginning to feel
more secure. Voters should reject it.