he state's district attorneys and police chiefs may know how to fight crime, but they are finding it tough to fight Question 8, the ballot initiative that seeks to replace prison time for some drug offenders with addiction treatment.
Local law enforcement officials say their first problem is public relations, because the measure, when summarized, sounds appealing: Send the drug-addicted to treatment, a cheaper alternative to prison. However, opponents say some of the question's details, which are difficult to explain to voters, could wreak havoc with drug prosecutions.
The measure's foes face another problem: They don't have any money to help them get across their point of view.
The initiative would allow judges to send those charged with a first or second offense of drug possession, manufacturing, distribution, or drug trafficking between 14 and 28 grams of cocaine to treatment if the court finds them ''drug-dependent.'' It also would make it harder for law enforcement officials to seize drug offenders' assets, and those assets seized would pay for addiction programs instead of law enforcement's and prosecutors' antidrug efforts.
Question 8 is supported by a few people with big checkbooks, including George Soros, the famous hedge fund manager, who has made the nation's top philanthropy list for contributing about $1 billion to causes such as this one. Soros has a soft spot for changing drug laws to allow, for example, medical marijuana use.
So far, most of the donations for Question 8 have come from three men: Soros, of New York, who has given $290,000 over the last month; Cleveland Peter Lewis, chief executive officer of the Progressive Group insurance company, who has contributed $315,000 in the same time period; and John Sperling of Phoenix, chief executive officer of the Apollo Group, who has given the campaign $45,000 since September, according to filings with the state Office of Political and Campaign Finance for the period that ended Oct. 15.
Sperling, a millionaire, found marijuana eased his prostate cancer pain. And Lewis has been arrested for using marijuana for circulatory problems.
Those opposing the measure, mostly law enforcement officials, do not even have an account to collect donations.
''We have not really made much of an effort to raise money,'' said Plymouth District Attorney Michael J. Sullivan. ''It's difficult with our full-time commitments. We don't have access to billionaires who look at this as a major-cause issue. But the message is on our side. We believe a grass-roots effort will go a long way toward defeating ballot Question 8.''
While it may appear that local law enforcement is against Question 8, the initiative was written by Tom Kiley, a former first assistant attorney general and former assistant district attorney in Norfolk County who has donated about $40,000 to the cause. Like the question's financial backers, Kiley's interest in the issue is personal. A heroin addiction killed his 50-year-old brother, Scott, two years ago.
''I think of him every day,'' Kiley said, adding that his brother's life might have been saved by rehabilitation.
Despite the fact that the question centers on using seized assets and fines from drug cases to fund treatment for addicts, the controversy is not about the money. It's about whether the ballot question would make it easier for drug dealers to avoid prison time by claiming they are at risk of becoming addicts.
Kiley said someone carrying 28 grams, or about 1 ounce, of cocaine is likely a user and someone who could benefit from treatment.
The district attorneys say a dealer is a dealer and most users could not hold on to that quantity of drugs long enough to sell them.
''There's nobody who opposes treatment for the addicts,'' Sullivan said, ''but there's already treatment for addicts. Ballot Question 8 is all about allowing the drug dealers to escape punishment.''
Just look at the question's financial backers and their reasons for giving, Sullivan said.
Although Kiley does not say it, others working to pass Question 8 argue that the real issue for the district attorneys is that they do not want to lose the millions of dollars a year their departments receive from property forfeiture related to drug cases. Both sides have wildly different estimates on how much law enforcement receives from seizures; the range was $4 million to $9 million.
The initiative also requires public records to be kept detailing all forfeitures.
Kiley estimates that it costs about $5,000 to treat one addict, meaning that even if only $4 million a year were diverted to treatment , 800 people could be helped.
