BEWARE DRUG LENIENCY

Proposal Would Create Addicts, Not Treat Them

A group known as the Campaign for New Drug Policies is circulating petitions
to amend Michigan's Constitution to effect a radical change in our laws
regarding illegal drugs.

Three very rich men from California fund the group. Neither they nor the
group that fronts for them has any significant connection to Michigan. The
people paid to circulate their petition, which aims to put the proposal on
Michigan's November ballot, claim that this amendment is designed to stop
major drug traffickers, eliminate mandatory penalties for people selling or
using such drugs as marijuana, and to provide treatment for drug addicts. In
reality, this radical amendment would virtually eliminate incarceration for
using or selling hard drugs such as heroin and crack.

The so-called "treatment section" of the Californians' proposal would grant
criminal defendants charged with illegal drug possession the unilateral
right to dismissal of all charges against them. Upon entry and subsequent
completion of a treatment program, the judge must dismiss the case, despite
the objection of the prosecutor. Even a subsequent arrest for the same crime
would fail to result in appropriate punishment. If the defendant re-enters
treatment, the case must be dismissed again. In other words, there would be
no meaningful penalty in Michigan for using illegal drugs.

There is a message there, and our children would be the ones who receive it.
Currently, a 17-year-old who possesses tobacco can be sentenced to 90 days
in jail. In spite of that, a large number of adolescents smoke. One recent
study found 62 percent of high school students have smoked tobacco. Worse,
more then half of those who start become addicted to tobacco.

What will happen if we tell these same kids that there is no punishment for
using crack and heroin? It is inevitable that a larger number of our
children would try these hard drugs and more of them would become addicted.
The Californians would like to frame this debate as one between treatment
and jail, but it is really a question of children and addiction.

So what do the Californians propose to do to those who sell drugs to our
kids? They would create a new crime of being a "major drug trafficker." It's
attractive sound does not impress Michigan's prosecutors. They will tell you
no one will ever be charged with this new crime. Why? Because it is nearly
impossible to prove.

A prosecutor would have to show that the so-called major drug trafficker: 1)
distributed illegal drugs; 2) managed at least five people in selling these
drugs; 3) earned or attempted to earn a net profit of $500,000; or 4) earned
or attempted to earn a net profit of $250,000, plus one of the three
following conditions: a) have been convicted of distributing illegal drugs
or another violent felony on two or more occasions, b) utilized one or more
minors in disturbing these drugs, c) mixed or directed the mixing of
adulterant to the illegal drug that was reasonably likely to cause
significant bodily injury.

Confused? Think of the poor jury.

The slickest part of this proposal may have just gotten by you: net profit.

The prosecutors must prove how much these major drug traffickers netted
after "business deductions" for guns, bullets and hit men, along with all
the other costs of selling illegal drugs. Just to make sure the prosecutors
would never be able to prove this crime, the Californians have tied these
net profits to the consumer price index. Selling illegal drugs would be
inflation proof.

To obstruct even further the enforcement of Michigan's drug laws, the
proposal would create a new branch of government. This unelected fourth
branch of government would be called the Drug Sentencing Commission.

This commission would decide the penalty for any person who commits a drug
crime that is not already eliminated by this proposed amendment. If this
commission decides against prison for a drug crime, the governor would not
be able to veto its decision. In fact, the governor could not veto any
action by the commission. It would take a two-thirds vote of the
Legislature, both the House and the Senate, to reject a decision made by as
few as seven members of this commission. The commission would not be subject
to any other laws passed by the Legislature. The Legislature could not even
control the commission's purse strings. It would get 750,000 of your tax
dollars every year for the next six years, no matter what.

Additionally, the courts may not overturn anything the commission does.
Instead, the courts must follow the commission's so-called guidelines when
sentencing individuals for drug crimes. Remember that you would have no
voice about who is on this commission. When it comes to drug crimes, the
commission would have more power than the governor, the Legislature and the
courts.

Ask yourself if you believe this proposal is going to make your kids safer.
Ask what the true motives of the Californians are. Finally, ask yourself if,
by signing the petition, you would be helping drug addicts or creating them.