Pubdate: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 Source: Standard-Times (MA) Copyright: 2000 The Standard-Times Contact: 25 Elm Street, New Bedford, MA 02740 Website: http://www.s-t.com/ Forum: http://www.s-t.com/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi?actionintro BALLOT QUESTION POSES CHOICE FOR DIRECTION OF 'WAR ON DRUGS' The "war on drugs" is coming to the Massachusetts referendum ballot in November, and Tuesday's show of solidarity by the state's district attorneys shows us where a critical line is being drawn in the argument over treatment versus punishment. The DAs held a Boston press conference to denounce a ballot initiative sponsored by those who, when we get to the bottom of it, view the war on drugs as a failure. The ballot question basically would do two things: ONE, it would pry from the hands of the district attorneys and local police all the drug forfeiture money collected from accused drug offenders. That money is now divided between law enforcement agencies, which have wide discretion about how they may spend it -- and not a lot of oversight or accountability, as a Standard-Times special report detailed in August of 1999. The referendum would take that money and divert it into drug treatment, which is where an ever-growing array of law enforcement, health, and civic leaders are convinced it will do more good than jail in stopping crime and salvaging lives. TWO, the ballot question would curb the forfeiture of assets -- today more accurately described as confiscation -- by putting the burden on the government to show based on a "preponderance of evidence" that the assets were used in committing a crime, and weren't just "incidental." So the changes would probably cut down on the value of the forfeited assets, and redirect them away from the agencies collecting that money and put it into drug treatment. As with many things, these changes are driven by an assortment of abuses and neglect -- along with the inherent conflict of interest in allowing law enforcement agencies to spend the money they seize from accused offenders. The forfeiture laws have been so harsh and so often unfair -- many times taking the assets of people who are ultimately not convicted -- that they have been the target of reforms by some of the most conservative members of Congress on the grounds that such measures are simply un-American. Without reforms, the forfeiture laws often amount to punishment before -- or even without -- conviction. The added twist in Massachusetts is that drug treatment has been routinely shortchanged by a power structure, guarded by law enforcement, that prefers incarceration to drug treatment. The sponsors of the ballot question are betting that the voters are ready to dramatically change the approach, and give drug treatment more than the lip service it usually receives. The district attorneys counter that this referendum is being financed by wealthy out-of-state sponsors, and what they really want to do is decriminalize drugs. That is true as far as it goes, but the district attorneys conveniently omit the fact that this ballot question has the support of the last three former attorneys general of Massachusetts: Scott Harshbarger, James Shannon and Frank Bellotti, not to mention a host of other health and civic leaders. One has to stretch to believe that they all want to coddle drug offenders and undermine law enforcement. Attorney General Thomas Reilly has refrained from offering his personal opinion on this question, but he has emphatically defended his decision to allow it on the ballot. This week he said he would continue to do so as the district attorneys fight him in court. We believe Mr. Reilly is right, and that this question should rightly be put to the voters. The forfeiture laws truly are excessive, and drug treatment has been shortchanged to the detriment of our communities. But the district attorneys do have a point about needing the money to do their jobs; it is just that rather than getting the money from what they hate hearing described as a "slush fund," they should obtain it through appropriations -- the way the drug treatment money would be appropriated under these changes. This is really about the money, easy money -- too easy, even in the eyes of congressional Republicans -- and about accountability, both for the spending and for the results. - --- MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk