BALLOT QUESTION POSES CHOICE FOR DIRECTION OF 'WAR ON DRUGS'

The "war on drugs" is coming to the Massachusetts referendum ballot in
November, and Tuesday's show of solidarity by the state's district attorneys
shows us where a critical line is being drawn in the argument over treatment
versus punishment. The DAs held a Boston press conference to denounce a
ballot initiative sponsored by those who, when we get to the bottom of it,
view the war on drugs as a failure. The ballot question basically would do
two things:

ONE, it would pry from the hands of the district attorneys and local police
all the drug forfeiture money collected from accused drug offenders. That
money is now divided between law enforcement agencies, which have wide
discretion about how they may spend it -- and not a lot of oversight or
accountability, as a Standard-Times special report detailed in August of
1999.

The referendum would take that money and divert it into drug treatment,
which is where an ever-growing array of law enforcement, health, and civic
leaders are convinced it will do more good than jail in stopping crime and
salvaging lives.

TWO, the ballot question would curb the forfeiture of assets -- today more
accurately described as confiscation -- by putting the burden on the
government to show based on a "preponderance of evidence" that the assets
were used in committing a crime, and weren't just "incidental."

So the changes would probably cut down on the value of the forfeited assets,
and redirect them away from the agencies collecting that money and put it
into drug treatment.

As with many things, these changes are driven by an assortment of abuses and
neglect -- along with the inherent conflict of interest in allowing law
enforcement agencies to spend the money they seize from accused offenders.

The forfeiture laws have been so harsh and so often unfair -- many times
taking the assets of people who are ultimately not convicted -- that they
have been the target of reforms by some of the most conservative members of
Congress on the grounds that such measures are simply un-American. Without
reforms, the forfeiture laws often amount to punishment before -- or even
without -- conviction.

The added twist in Massachusetts is that drug treatment has been routinely
shortchanged by a power structure, guarded by law enforcement, that prefers
incarceration to drug treatment. The sponsors of the ballot question are
betting that the voters are ready to dramatically change the approach, and
give drug treatment more than the lip service it usually receives.

The district attorneys counter that this referendum is being financed by
wealthy out-of-state sponsors, and what they really want to do is
decriminalize drugs. That is true as far as it goes, but the district
attorneys conveniently omit the fact that this ballot question has the
support of the last three former attorneys general of Massachusetts: Scott
Harshbarger, James Shannon and Frank Bellotti, not to mention a host of
other health and civic leaders. One has to stretch to believe that they all
want to coddle drug offenders and undermine law enforcement.

Attorney General Thomas Reilly has refrained from offering his personal
opinion on this question, but he has emphatically defended his decision to
allow it on the ballot. This week he said he would continue to do so as the
district attorneys fight him in court.

We believe Mr. Reilly is right, and that this question should rightly be put
to the voters. The forfeiture laws truly are excessive, and drug treatment
has been shortchanged to the detriment of our communities.

But the district attorneys do have a point about needing the money to do
their jobs; it is just that rather than getting the money from what they
hate hearing described as a "slush fund," they should obtain it through
appropriations -- the way the drug treatment money would be appropriated
under these changes. This is really about the money, easy money -- too easy,
even in the eyes of congressional Republicans -- and about accountability,
both for the spending and for the results.