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