DRUG PROPOSAL IS WRONG REFORM

Two major points were made in the June 15 letters "Put sense into drug
laws," which were written in reaction to the June 3 op-ed column written by
Judge Brian MacKenzie and me ("Beware lenient drug plan"):

It was alleged that MacKenzie and I oppose any reform, are satisfied with
the status quo, and in some undefined way have personal animus toward drug
addicts.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We do not oppose reform; we oppose
this reform. MacKenzie is one of the pioneers of drug rehabilitation courts
in this state. He is one of the founders of the Sobriety Court operating out
of the 52-1 District Court. I am part of a team receiving substantive
training toward adopting such a court in the 46th District Court.

The California approach is antithetical to the drug rehabilitation court
approach, which uses both positive and negative reinforcement. The drug
court approach is far more workable than an approach that removes all
discretion from all three branches of government and places it in the hands
of a commission totally removed from the people.

The drug rehabilitation court is not the status quo.

It was argued that we support mandatory minimum sentencing.

It is difficult to find many judges who favor broad legislative sentencing
over individualized judicial sentencing. I sit on the Michigan District
Judges Association Legislative Committee, which makes recommendations
relative to pending legislation that will affect Michigan's jurisprudence.
The committee routinely opposes all mandatory sentencing laws. I support
that opposition.

Bryan H. Levy, Chief Judge, 46th District Court

Southfield

DANGEROUS PROPOSAL

In a June 3 op-ed column, Judge Bryan Levy and I suggested that the people
circulating petitions for a proposal to reform Michigan drug laws were not
accurately describing its contents when they claimed the proposition would
put major drug dealers in prison and get treatment for addicts. Rather, we
think the proposal would make it nearly impossible to prosecute major drug
traffickers and create a new generation of drug addicts.

The column drew several letters in reply. Not one of those who responded
challenged our factual statements. The proposed amendment would give those
charged with possessing illegal drugs, like heroin and crack, the right to
have their case dismissed. All a criminal defendant would have to do is
claim the new constitutional right to treatment, and the case is over.

The proposal would create an unelected fourth branch of government to set
drug policy in this state. This new branch of government would never be
answerable to voters. The net-profit section of this proposal would thwart
prosecutors from convicting major drug traffickers. No prosecutor would ever
be able to prove a drug dealer earned a $500,000 net profit, because it is
nearly impossible to show the costs for such deductible items as guns,
bullets and hit men.

I believe disagreement with our viewpoint stems from the desire to
decriminalize drug use. Proponents support this proposed constitutional
amendment because they believe it will eliminate penalties for illegal
drugs.

The wealthy individuals funding this petition drive may believe no one
should go to prison for selling heroin to kids, and that any teenager should
be free to decide whether to use crack. They may be willing to gamble with
our children's future. I am not.

Brian W. MacKenzie, District Judge

Novi

MISSING FACTS

The June 15 letters played fast and loose with the truth. Each writer
criticized Michigan's scheme for mandatory incarceration of drug users,
conveniently ignoring the fact that in Michigan, the penalty for drug use or
simple possession is not and never has been mandatory incarceration. That
penalty is reserved for convicted drug dealers.

Likewise, not one letter mentioned the fact that the initiative would put an
abrupt end to the highly effective drug treatment courts now in use across
the state, replacing them with a system the judges say would create new
addicts instead of helping treat current ones.

That logic may work in California, but it won't sell in Michigan.

James J. Halushka, Deputy Prosecutor Warrants and Investigations, Oakland
County

Pontiac