ENDORSEMENT: QUESTION 8

While new approaches are needed to deal with illegal drugs, this ballot
initiative invites trouble.

Few would argue that our nation's "war on drugs" has been a dismal failure.
Law enforcement officers will tell you that the amount of drug activity on
the streets hasn't changed in 20 years. Our prisons are full of drug
dealers, but incarceration does not cure the medical problem of drug
dependency.

Faced with these and other facts, proponents of Question 8 on the state
ballot argue that it is time to try something different.

The proposed law would loosen the eligibility requirements for drug
offenders to get treatment and would set up a treatment fund that would
collect forfeited drug assets that are now collected by prosecutors and
police. It also would tighten rules on seizing drug criminals' assets.

The trust fund administered by the state Department of Public Health is not
a bad idea, especially in light of troubling evidence that police and
prosecutors have not wisely spent drug forfeiture money.

But the drawbacks of Question 8 far outweigh its benefits.

Specifically, the proposed initiative would give judges the discretion to
decide whether first-or second-offense, low-level drug defendants (those
arrested for dealing up to 28 grams of cocaine with a street value of
$2,800) could benefit from drug treatment instead of incarceration.

If the defendant successfully completes the terms of the drug treatment
program, he would carry no criminal record.

The Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and every district attorney
in the commonwealth are against this approach because it basically means
that the third offense in drug dealing is the first offense.

Middlesex District Attorney Martha Coakley said the proposal would give
drug dealers a "get out of jail free pass."

Under the proposed initiative, it would take a lot longer to get drug
offenders off the streets.

In Bourne, for example, it would mean that an 18-month undercover drug
investigation that nabbed several first- and second-offenders would have
been a waste of time and resources. The defendants likely would have been
returned to the community.

Let's look at another dangerous scenario, one entirely possible under the
proposed initiative.

A dealer with 56 grams of cocaine now divides his stash in two. He sells 28
grams to a friend so that now both could be safe from incarceration under
the new law. Now, consider that each dealer sells a gram to 56 individuals.
All 56, if they are first-or second-offenders, could also be free of a
criminal record if the judge so rules.

Granted, several of the 58 individuals, if arrested, could benefit from the
drug treatment under the new initiative. But what about the others? Do we
allow them to continue spreading the scourge of drugs to another 58
individuals?

While it is true that we as a country must develop new approaches to
confronting illicit drug use in our society, Question 8 is not the way to
do it.

Vote no on Question 8.