Pubdate: Fri, 13 Oct 2000
Source: Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)
Copyright: 2000 Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Contact:  P.O. Box 15012, Worcester, MA 01615-0012
Fax: (508) 793-9313
Website: http://www.telegram.com/
Author: James Dempsey, Telegram & Gazette Columnist, ADDICTION TREATMENT 'TURF' ISSUE

The argument over whether drug addicts should be treated merely as criminals
or as what they are, people needing help, has been going on a long time.
Ballot Question 8 is bound to polarize even further those on both sides of
this already divisive issue.

The question would give judges the option of putting first- and second-time
drug offenders into addiction treatment rather than prison, and would divert
forfeited drug money away from police departments and district attorneys and
into treatment programs.

Sounds simple enough. But behind the arguments and the statistics -- and in
this controversy there are plenty of both from the two sides -- is a
struggle for power and money between those whose job is law enforcement and
those who believe the drug problem will never be solved by imprisonment
alone.

There's no doubt that the state's district attorneys are worried about the
proposition. All 11 have come out against it. Middlesex DA Martha Coakley
painted an alarmist scenario in which "drug dealers are going to take up
shop on every street corner in every community throughout the commonwealth."

Worcester DA John J. Conte, who as far as I can remember had previously
agreed to be interviewed by this columnist just once in 20 years -- and that
for a feature story about a friend of his -- returned my call within half an
hour and eagerly offered his criticisms of the initiative. Even Sheriff John
M. Flynn, noted for his support of substance-abuse treatment, has come out
against it.

Of course, DAs and sheriffs are in the business of enforcement. It's their
livelihood, their power base. Getting a lot of convictions and filling our
already crowded jails is how they prove their success.

Just about the first words out of Mr. Conte's mouth were that the
proposition was a "Trojan horse," and he went on to say that the real aim of
proponents was to decriminalize drugs. He pointed out that one of the
question's wealthy out-of-state supporters was George Soros, a hugely rich
philanthropist whose "avowed purpose is to decriminalize drugs."

But Dr. David Gastfriend, a proponent and associate professor of psychiatry
at Harvard Medical School, said that the initiative was written in
Massachusetts before Mr. Soros and others were approached for funding. (Mr.
Soros is on record as saying he is not for legalizing hard drugs.)

The DAs' real fear, said Dr. Gastfriend, is losing the money and proceeds
that are forfeited under current drug laws, and which are used by district
attorneys and police departments.

DAs tend to belittle the importance of this money. Mr. Conte says that the
amount forfeited statewide is only about $4 million a year, and that last
year his office received $275,000. This, he pointed out, is a fraction of
his annual budget of $7 million.

But even if it is a small amount -- and to many people $4 million isn't
chump change -- there are some who don't believe it should be going to DAs
and police departments.

"I think it's a conflict of interest if they get the money," said retired
District Court Judge Milton Raphaelson. "I don't think they should be
getting prize money. It should go into a general fund."

There's another issue here, says Mr. Raphaelson -- the loss of power.

"The whole issue is who's in charge," he said. "Say a kid is charged with
possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a
school. Right now the judge has to give two years. Who has the discretion?
The DA. He can drop it and just say possession. But why should he have the
discretion? Minimum mandatory sentences give control to DAs, and that's why
they're against this."

Mr. Conte maintains that tough mandatory sentencing is what has lowered the
crime rate. This form of sentencing came about in the 1980s, he said,
because of what had happened in the late 1960s and 1970s.

Drug dealing and crime were at their height during those periods, he said.

"It was so much worse than it is now that you can't imagine," he said. "This
bill would turn us back in that
direction, which is pretty sad."

But Mr. Raphaelson isn't impressed.

"Just having a bunch of blacks and Puerto Ricans in jail is not my idea of
justice," he said. "Because that's who's in jail, not rich people."

Dr. Gastfriend, who specializes in addiction, sees the difference between
jail and treatment as crucial.

"For me as a doctor, when I take care of somebody who comes in after a
prison sentence, they are bitter, angry, they have not gotten treatment and
they emerge helpless to protect themselves from relapse," he said."But when
I get somebody before imprisonment who says, 'I need treatment or the judge
will put me away,' I'm in a position to help."

The "drug war" has been fought for about a generation now, and if we are to
measure our success in it by the number of people we have stuffed into our
bulging prisons, I guess we've won.

But there are other ways of losing.

In 1998, according to a national survey by the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, 13.6 million Americans were current users of
illicit drugs, a number large enough to place a drug user into many of our
families.

Mr. Raphaelson and others have been voices in the wilderness on this issue
for years, arguing for treatment over incarceration when the facts
warranted. Question 8, even if it doesn't pass, is raising a debate that
goes a long way toward validating these people and their belief that not
only can a good number of drug users be saved, but also that they should be.

And maybe they're right. Maybe it's time for a new approach.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk