TREATMENT HAS ITS UPSIDE

Massachusetts is losing the war on drugs, and we cannot win it without new,
smarter and more balanced approaches.

Residents of all communities in the commonwealth know all too well that
drugs are not a problem confined to the inner cities. Drugs are pervasive in
Massachusetts and indeed some experts believe the economic boom, while
lowering all other crime rates, actually is contributing to increased drug
use.

By voting yes on Question 8, the Fair Treatment Initiative, voters have the
chance to make a meaningful change in drug policy. The initiative -
supported by U.S. Rep. Bill Delahunt, former Attorneys General Scott
Harshbarger, Jim Shannon and Frank Bellotti, and a broad coalition of
medical, social service, treatment, legal and civic groups - is based on
three simple principles:

Drug treatment works, and we need to increase funding for treating youthful
first- and second-time offenders.

Money and assets seized from drug dealers ought to pay for treating their
victims.

Addiction and dependency are medical problems that require medical
intervention.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported in September that
Massachusetts not only has the worst record in the nation on illicit
substance use in all age brackets, but the highest percentage of young
people aged 12 to 25 addicted to a wide variety of drugs. Our kids are in
trouble.

Worse, despite years of "supply side" anti-drug interdiction, drugs on the
street are getting cheaper and purer.

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health's 2000 annual report on
substance abuse treatment programs in Massachusetts points policy-makers in
a different, more hopeful direction by underscoring what treatment can
accomplish:

Nine out of 10 clients of treatment programs were arrest-free in 1999, and
for those in treatment for 12 or more months, that success rate rose to 96
percent.

Emergency detox admissions were down. Hospital admissions were reduced.
Neonatal care costs for pregnant drug-dependent women were cut.

Employment rates were 400 percent higher at the end of treatment than at the
start.

Moreover, prison time is seven times more costly than treatment, according
to the RAND Corp.

Substance abuse is a medical problem that requires treatment-based
solutions.

Question 8 creates a Drug Treatment Trust Fund under the administration of
the Department of Public Health and provides that money seized from drug
dealers will go to it. This will increase the pool of state funds available
for treatment programs by at least 10 percent.

The Fair Treatment Initiative also makes first- and second-time drug
offenders who are themselves addicted subject to court-ordered and
court-supervised treatment - but only if they can convince the court that
they would benefit from drug treatment. Defendants who don't meet the terms
of treatment would be sent to jail.

This follows the lines of unanimous recommendations of the 1996
Massachusetts Sentencing Commission, which said that alternative sentencing
of low-level offenders would unclog the prison system and ensure that
violent, hardened criminals serve heavy sentences.

Sadly, the district attorneys and police - who now receive the funds seized
from dealers - claim that Question 8 would somehow help drug kingpins. In
fact, first- and second-time offenders almost always are young people. A
survey found that 83 percent of judges never see kingpins in their courts
and 94 percent said they instead send away addicts, small-time dealers and
couriers. If anyone is responsible for revolving door drug justice, it is
the district attorneys whose plea bargains have targeted the wrong
criminals.

The district attorneys and the police are not experts on addiction. We will
not make headway against illicit drugs and the crime that inevitably goes
along with them until we take the comprehensive, balanced approach
represented by Question 8.