DRUG LAW IS TARGETED

Effort To Soften Drug Law Criticized

A ballot initiative that would require treatment instead of jail for
low-level drug users and also make it more difficult for authorities
to seize property from drug offenders has drawn fire from prosecutors
and citizen anti-crime groups.

But a key organizer said the measure would be the first step toward
ending a failed war on drugs that has "taken too many innocent lives
and too many assets in ways that seem un-American."

"A generation of young people have been treated as if they are the
enemy," said Thomas R. Kiley, a Boston criminal defense lawyer who led
last summer's successful initiative petition drive.

"A lot of lawyers have watched the system not work for too long," Mr.
Kiley said. "We're convinced there's a better way."

Opponents, including Worcester and Bristol district attorneys John J.
Conte and Paul F. Walsh Jr., believe the proposed law would allow drug
dealers to escape prosecution and force cutbacks in enforcement of
drug laws.

"By allowing drug traffickers loopholes to avoid criminal punishment
and lose the profits of their illicit enterprises, our ability to
protect our communities will be compromised," Mr. Conte wrote in a
letter to Worcester anti-crime activist William T. Breault.

If the initiative became law, first- and second-time drug offenders
and those deemed at risk of addiction would be eligible for
court-monitored treatment instead of incarceration.

Successful completion of a treatment program would result in dismissal
of criminal charges.

Seizing money and property from drug offenders would be more difficult
under the law. Land and buildings could not be taken if deemed only
incidental to the drug crime.

Rob Stewart, the initiative campaign's communications director, said
the proposal would not stop the state from seizing so-called
ill-gotten gains -- "all those Porsches and vacation houses" -- only
civil assets.

"Now the law puts the burden on the property owner to prove his
property is innocent," Mr. Stewart said. "It's the only example I know
of when someone's guilty until proven innocent."

Allowing the agency making the seizure to keep the property, Mr.
Stewart said, "encourages seizing instead of policing."

Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed similar forfeiture
reform, as the measure is known, by a 375-48 margin. Mr. Stewart said
the bill was supported by conservative U.S. Reps. Henry J. Hyde,
R-Ill., and Robert L. Barr Jr., R-Ga., as well as liberals Barney
Frank, D-Mass., and John Conyers Jr., D.-Mich.

A key to the proposed law is the creation of a treatment trust fund,
financed in part with money and property forfeited in drug cases --
money that is now divided among district attorneys and police
departments for drug enforcement, prosecution and community programs
such as victims' aid.

According to Mr. Kiley, that money -- estimated to be as much as $3
million annually -- is now unregulated and unaccounted for.

"We can't find out what happens to this money," Mr. Kiley said.
"Nobody can. There's no oversight."

Under Initiative P, as it is labeled, seized drug money would be
administered by the Legislature and treatment monitored by the courts.

Money is also an issue with critics of the ballot initiative, also
called House Bill 4976, specifically the large contributions from
outside the state by heavy hitters in medicinal marijuana legalization
campaigns around the country, including California.

As of a Jan. 20 filing with the state, $367,000 had been raised by the
initiative's supporters.

New York financier George Soros, Phoenix businessman John Sperling and
Cleveland insurance executive Peter B. Lewis each made contributions
of $122,500.

Last month, a New Zealand judge cleared Mr. Lewis of charges he
brought two ounces of hashish and nearly that much marijuana into New
Zealand on a visit to watch the challenge rounds of the America's Cup
yacht race.

Under terms of the judge's ruling, Mr. Lewis, chief executive officer
of Progressive Corp., the country's fourth-largest auto insurer,
agreed to pay an unspecified amount to a drug rehabilitation program
in Auckland.

The trios' involvement led Mr. Breault, chairman of the Main South
Alliance for Public Safety, to conclude that the initiative is a
"Trojan horse" and its adoption would be the first step toward drug
decriminalization.

Mr. Breault calls Mr. Soros "the king of kings" in efforts to legalize
marijuana and a major player in what U.S. drug czar Gen. Barry
McCaffrey called "the carefully camouflaged, exorbitantly funded,
well-heeled elitist group whose ultimate goal is to legalize drugs in
America."

Mr. Kiley said his group sought money from Mr. Soros, Mr. Lewis and
Mr. Sperling despite the fact the initiative has nothing to do with
medicinal marijuana.

"In our pitch to the Soros crew, we emphasized the need for a broader
drug perspective and a new national drug policy," Mr. Kiley said.
"This is a real campaign with real Massachusetts people involved. I
just wish other people were as generous as Mr. Soros and company."

Those who deal with drug addiction firsthand welcome any program that
offers more treatment.

Carlton A. Watson, executive director of the Henry Lee Willis
Neighborhood Center, which includes substance abuse treatment among
its services, said he was ambivalent about the measure.

While he liked the treatment aspect, Mr. Watson said he was concerned
about the loss of forfeited funds by police departments.

"That money does a lot of good in victim services, crime prevention
and other community things," Mr. Watson said. "But I like the
treatment idea. Almost 90 percent of the people incarcerated now have
drug or alcohol problems related to their offense. For many of them
treatment is a far better alternative than jail."

Judy Brown-Cahill, director of women's substance abuse services for
Community Health Link, said jailing addicts without treatment does
little more than keep them off the street.

"It may reduce whatever crime they might do as a result of the
addiction, but when they get out the addiction's still there," said
Ms. Cahill, who noted her views do not reflect those of Community
Health Link.

While treatment is available in jail on request, illegal drugs are
also available, Ms. Cahill noted.

Mr. Kiley said forfeiture reform has the support of former state
attorneys general Scott Harshbarger and Francis X. Bellotti.

"We've reached out to people with law enforcement backgrounds," Mr.
Kiley said, but with little success.

Mr. Walsh, the Bristol County district attorney, promised Mr. Breault
in a letter that he would "adamantly oppose" the proposal. Mr. Conte
called Initiative P "a well-financed campaign against sentencing
provisions that have demonstrably reduced crime.

"Rest assured that this initiative is opposed by all the district
attorneys," Mr. Conte said in a letter to Mr. Breault.

Mr. Stewart said the courts have had a treatment option on the books
since 1981, but it never has been funded by the Legislature.

He said that, if passed, the initiative would dovetail with drug
programs operated by state courts, such as one in Framingham that
offers a rigorous 48-week treatment program instead of jail.

Nearly all of the money contributed to the campaign so far -- $349,657
- -- has been paid to Progressive Campaigns Inc. of Santa Monica to
gather the 57,100 signatures needed to get the proposal before the
state Legislature.

Some 80,000 signatures were certified, ensuring the proposal would be
considered by the Legislature. Hearings before the Joint Health Care
Committee could get under way in April.

The Legislature has three choices, Mr. Stewart said. "They can enact
it, do nothing or pass a substitute bill that would also be on the
November ballot," he said.

If the Legislature does not enact the proposal, supporters would have
to collect about 9,500 additional signatures -- one half of 1 percent
of the turnout in the last governor's election -- to guarantee a place
on the November ballot.