IN FINAL HOURS, DRUG LAW BALLOT REFORMERS BRING OUT POLITICAL BIG GUNS

STATE HOUSE - Standing against the tide of public officials opposing
drug law reforms, three former state attorneys general today urged
voters to address the demand side of drug use by adding more
treatment to the state's arsenal and injecting more due process into
the law.

Question 8 would divert drug-related asset seizures from law
enforcement coffers into a drug treatment fund to be used as an
alternative to jail for low-level nonviolent offenders, as well as
those deemed "at risk" of becoming addicted. The referendum also
imposes a higher burden of proof on asset forfeitures.

The state's political power structure has lined up in opposition,
including Gov. Paul Cellucci, Senate President Thomas Birmingham,
House Speaker Thomas Finneran, Attorney General Thomas Reilly, all 11
current district attorneys and the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police
Association. But with less than 24 hours to go until the polls open,
the question's supporters today brought out their big guns - former
attorneys general Scott Harshbarger, James Shannon and Francis
Bellotti, as well as US Rep. William Delahunt, the former Norfolk
County district attorney. Other supporters include the League of
Women Voters, the Mass. ACLU, and various public health and human
service officials.

Shannon said that during his time as attorney general, he thought he
could lick the drug problem if he only prosecuted aggressively
enough. Even after "hundreds" of successful cases, "ever more
punitive" law enforcement efforts, and a doubling of the percentage
of people in Bay State prisons for drug-related crimes, drugs are
more widely available and in purer form than ever before, he said.

"If it was not clear before, it is absolutely clear now that our
approach to dealing with the drug problem just isn't working,"
Shannon said. "The problem continued to grow because the demand for
drugs in Massachusetts is so great. We have to provide more treatment
and we have to do more to rehabilitate low-level, non-violent first-
and second-time offenders."

But opponents argue that drug dealers will exploit a section of the
proposed law that allows people deemed "significantly at-risk" of
becoming addicted to request judicial permission to enter treatment
instead of being sent to prison. Massachusetts Chiefs of Police
Association Executive Director Chief George DiBlasi said he's
"disappointed" in the former AGs and Delahunt for joining a
"surreptitious way to legalize drugs and get rid of mandatory minimum
sentencing."

"This is nothing but trickery," DiBlasi said. "Don't play games and
call it a treatment program. It is not a treatment program. We
endorse treatment of drug addicts. This is for drug dealers. This is
nothing but a wolf in sheep's clothing."

But Harshbarger, who is now the national president of Common Cause,
said treatment is the best way to prevent drug users from becoming
dealers as a way of supporting their habits. Citing a recent federal
report that found Massachusetts to have the worst drug abuse in the
nation, Harshbarger called for a "comprehensive" strategy that
includes both medical and criminal approaches.

"This does not give them a get-out-of-jail-free card under any
circumstances," Harshbarger said. "Question 8 does not change the
laws that apply to hardened or violent criminals. Major drug
traffickers that commit violent crimes that use weapons, that do all
of those things that terrorize a neighborhood, they will and they
should go to jail."

Noting that a similar law was enacted in 1981 but never well-funded,
Bellotti added that the initiative is "nothing so very
revolutionary." He said the question's reforms of the asset
forfeiture laws "cannot be overemphasized." The referendum imposes a
higher burden of proof on seizures, and requires that after
conviction, any confiscated assets be sold to fund treatment.
Currently, cops and prosecutors keep the assets. The law also creates
an exemption for property that's only "incidental" to a drug-related
crime.

"It eliminates one of the few places in our criminal law where the
presumption of innocence has been replaced by the presumption of
guilt," Bellotti said.

Opponents cried foul over the funding sources for the ballot
campaign. Concerned Citizens for Drug Prevention President Lea Cox
said three wealthy out-of-state philanthropists have funded similar
initiatives in seven other states. New York millionaire George Soros,
chairman of the Soros Foundation, has given $415,000 to the
Massachusetts ballot campaign since Sept. 8, according to Office of
Campaign and Political Finance records. Peter Lewis, CEO of the
Ohio-based Progressive Corporation, has given $440,000, and Apollo
Group CEO John Sperling has given $170,000. The three men's
contributions make up most of the campaign's funding.

"The big money backing this has ulterior motives and good people who
want to keep drugs out of their neighborhoods should never ever vote
yes on this question," Cox said. "It's not the goody-goody thing they
would want you to believe. It's a drug dealer's dream come true."

But Question 8 chairman Deena Whitfield said at least the campaign
reports its expenditures to OCPF. The bevy of politicians that's
fought the referendum all year hasn't even done that, she said. And
Question 8 author Thomas Kiley added that if the question passes, the
$1 million from the philanthropists would be well spent, as between
$10 million and $20 million a year will flow into treatment efforts.
"That strikes me as good economics as well as good public policy,"
Kiley said.