he expansion of reliable treatment for drug addicts is a goal that few people would fault. But the ballot initiative to create a drug treatment trust fund from fines and forfeitures under the state's criminal drug laws is clumsy at best and could undermine legitimate law enforcement efforts. The Globe recommends a No vote on Question 8.
Currently, police and district attorneys claim an estimated $4 million annually in forfeited drug assets. They use the funds for protective custody, undercover vehicles, wiretap equipment, prevention programs in schools, and the like.
But proponents of ballot Question 8, led by out-of-state philanthropists, want to strip law enforcement of those assets. They say the money would be better used for medical intervention to address addiction. They cite a recent federal survey that found unusually high rates of drug abuse in Massachusetts. The war against drugs, they argue, is a washout.
Much more needs to be done to improve drug treatment in Massachusetts, including an expansion of public health programs in the state prisons. But this ballot initiative invites trouble, not solutions, by assuming that drug dealers are often helpless addicts.
The petition specifically allows second offenders charged with dealing up to 28 grams of cocaine (street value $2,800) with the opportunity to avoid sentencing by being categorized as ''a person who is at risk of becoming drug dependent.'' What a field day for dealers who could parcel out their drugs to runners at weights that maximize ''treatment'' options, if apprehended, instead of incarceration.
''It creates a gaping hole in terms of prosecuting drug dealers,'' warns Attorney General Thomas Reilly, who opposes the ballot initiative. The state's district attorneys, who are unanimous in their opposition to Question 8, accurately call it a ''Trojan horse'' for supporters of drug decriminalization.
The drug asset forfeiture process is imperfect. Some police departments view the funds as a budget supplement, not a precision tool to fight drug dealers. Some prosecutors have filed lesser charges for dealers who relinquish assets. The attorney general should tighten oversight of the entire process. But it is not necessary to diminish forfeiture procedures, as Question 8 also proposes.
The benefits of Question 8 are far outweighed by its drawbacks, chief among them the discharging of dealers into neighborhoods just beginning to feel more secure. Voters should reject it.
