SJC ALLOWS BALLOT ITEM ON DRUG FUNDS

DAS HAD ARGUED PLAN WOULD PROTECT DEALERS FROM PUNISHMENT

A ballot initiative petition that would use money seized from drug dealers
to fund treatment programs rather than drug-related investigations will go
before voters next month, the state's highest court ruled yesterday.

The state's 11 district attorneys had sought to block the petition from the
November ballot, saying it would protect drug dealers from punishment and
deprive law enforcement of money needed to prosecute drug offenses.

"No one, least of all the DAs, is opposed to drug treatment for nonviolent
drug users," said Suffolk District Attorney Ralph C. Martin II. But the
petition, if approved, would "create loopholes for drug dealers and drug
traffickers, so that by declaring that they are at risk of becoming drug
dependent, they would be able to avoid conviction," Martin said.

Under current state law, money and property seized from drug dealers can be
used to fund a variety of law enforcement efforts, including
witness-protection programs and DNA testing.

The exact amount of money and property forfeited annually is in dispute, but
prosecutors estimate the total at $1 million to $2 million, while backers of
the ballot initiative say it could be more than $3 million.

The spokesman for Yes on 8: The Coalition for Fair Treatment, which is
backing the proposed law, said he was "delighted" by the Supreme Judicial
Court's ruling and accused the district attorneys of "frivolous" attempts to
keep the petition off the ballot.

"We've been saying all along that their position lacked legal weight," said
Al Gordon, the spokesman, "and the court agreed with us."

Besides diverting drug forfeiture money into a "drug treatment trust fund,"
the measure would allow judges to sentence first- and second-time drug
offenders to treatment programs rather than prison if the offenders can show
they are drug-addicted or at risk of becoming addicted.

It would also raise the standards under which police can seize money and
property in drug arrests.

"We feel that this question clears the way for a full-fledged debate on
Massachusetts drug policy," Gordon said. "Voters can now decide between the
failed policies of the past and a new, balanced and smart approach."

In light of their failed effort to keep the petition off the ballot,
opponents of the proposed law will advance to "plan B," which means using
the coming month to "communicate as much as possible and as directly as
possible to the voters why this is a bad law," Martin said.

"We don't have the money that the sponsors of this ballot initiative have,"
Martin added, an apparent reference to backing the petition has received
from three wealthy out-of-state residents, including billionaire
philanthropist George Soros.

"But we have some credibility, and we're going to put it on the line," he
said.