cannabisnews.com: Endorsement: Question 8 Endorsement: Question 8 Posted by FoM on October 26, 2000 at 20:04:29 PT Editorial Source: Cape Cod Times While new approaches are needed to deal with illegal drugs, this ballot initiative invites trouble. Few would argue that our nation's "war on drugs" has been a dismal failure. Law enforcement officers will tell you that the amount of drug activity on the streets hasn't changed in 20 years. Our prisons are full of drug dealers, but incarceration does not cure the medical problem of drug dependency. Faced with these and other facts, proponents of Question 8 on the state ballot argue that it is time to try something different.The proposed law would loosen the eligibility requirements for drug offenders to get treatment and would set up a treatment fund that would collect forfeited drug assets that are now collected by prosecutors and police. It also would tighten rules on seizing drug criminals' assets.The trust fund administered by the state Department of Public Health is not a bad idea, especially in light of troubling evidence that police and prosecutors have not wisely spent drug forfeiture money.But the drawbacks of Question 8 far outweigh its benefits.Specifically, the proposed initiative would give judges the discretion to decide whether first- or second-offense, low-level drug defendants (those arrested for dealing up to 28 grams of cocaine with a street value of $2,800) could benefit from drug treatment instead of incarceration.If the defendant successfully completes the terms of the drug treatment program, he would carry no criminal record.The Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and every district attorney in the commonwealth are against this approach because it basically means that the third offense in drug dealing is the first offense.Middlesex District Attorney Martha Coakley said the proposal would give drug dealers a "get out of jail free pass."Under the proposed initiative, it would take a lot longer to get drug offenders off the streets.In Bourne, for example, it would mean that an 18-month undercover drug investigation that nabbed several first- and second-offenders would have been a waste of time and resources. The defendants likely would have been returned to the community.Let's look at another dangerous scenario, one entirely possible under the proposed initiative.A dealer with 56 grams of cocaine now divides his stash in two. He sells 28 grams to a friend so that now both could be safe from incarceration under the new law. Now, consider that each dealer sells a gram to 56 individuals. All 56, if they are first- or second-offenders, could also be free of a criminal record if the judge so rules.Granted, several of the 58 individuals, if arrested, could benefit from the drug treatment under the new initiative. But what about the others? Do we allow them to continue spreading the scourge of drugs to another 58 individuals?While it is true that we as a country must develop new approaches to confronting illicit drug use in our society, Question 8 is not the way to do it.Vote no on Question 8.Source: Cape Cod Times (MA)Published: October 26, 2000Copyright: 2000 Cape Cod Times.Address: 319 Main St., Hyannis, MA 02601Fax: (508) 771-3292Contact: letters capecodonline.comWebsite: http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/Feedback: http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/edits/sendaletter.htmRelated Articles: DrugSense FOCUS Alert #189 October 25, 2000 http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7452.shtmlFor Police, Drug War Extends To Ballot Box http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7428.shtmlPassions Money of Few Drive Fall Ballot Questionshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7355.shtmlPacifists In the War On Drugshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7139.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #7 posted by mungojelly on October 27, 2000 at 06:49:10 PT: i am pleased I am very pleased to have an opportunity here in Massachusetts to vote in support of Question 8. This is the first presidential election year in which I have been eligible to vote, and it is good to know that I will have the opportunity to vote not only for a presidential candidate who I truly support (Ralph Nader), and for several libertarian candidates, but also for such a sensible and timely initiative. The conciliatory tone of this article is telling. They admit that treatment works, and that drug forfeiture money is corrupting. Yet, they insist, we should vote no on Question 8 -- but why? The only argument presented is some sort of roundabout parable about 56 grams of cocaine, and the familiar phrase "spreading the scourge of drugs." It is never pleasant to hear assertions that we should vote against treatment and in favor of police corruption in order to end "the scourge of drugs," but placed in perspective articles like this represent significant progress. Not too long ago newspapers were running articles which discussed ONLY the "scourge of drugs," telling unchallenged obscure tales about how a few grams of cocaine will destroy the lives of our children and loved ones, with no hint of a whiff of a suggestion that anyone has ever even vaguely questioned the Drug War. Now these articles are peppered with phrases like "police and prosecutors have not wisely spent drug forfeiture money" and "incarceration does not cure the medical problem of drug dependency." Once these common sense ideas are on the table, it cannot be long before the Drug War is brought to its knees. mungojelly [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on October 27, 2000 at 06:26:15 PT I think I know Hi dddd, John Prine I think. I forgot! Now that's pathetic isn't it? LOL! I'm not sure who owns the Cape Cod Times but later on in the day I'll search around the web site and try to find out!Peace, FoM! [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by dddd on October 27, 2000 at 02:43:22 PT owners Wonder who owns the Cape Cod Times? [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by dddd on October 27, 2000 at 02:40:52 PT I give FoM Ya got me.I cant figure out who wrote those lyrics?...dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Ed Carpenter on October 27, 2000 at 02:35:20 PT: Massachusetts ballot question number 8 Regarding the initiative, I submitted an editorial to the Cape Cod Times which was not acknowledged. It follows:The rules of engagement in the "war on drugs" could change this November. The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled, over the objections of prosecutors and the police, that the referendum question on drug treatment will be on the ballot. The initiative would do two things:One, it would pry from the hands of the district attorneys and police all the drug forfeiture money collected from accused drug offenders. That money, now spent by law enforcement agencies with little or no oversight or accountability, would be diverted into drug treatment programs instead.Two, the ballot question would curb the forfeiture of assets--today more accurately described as confiscation--by forcing the state to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the money or properties to be forfeited were used in committing a crime and were not merely "incidental."Against the initiative: all 11 District Attorneys and the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police. In favor of the initiative are a host of health and civic leaders including the last three former Massachusetts Attorneys General: Scott Harshbarger, Frank Bellotti, and James Shannon, former Norfolk County District Attorney now Congressman William Delahunt, and recently retired District Court judge Milton Raphaelson. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by FoM on October 26, 2000 at 22:42:03 PT Hi dddd! These lyrics popped into my head. This is what it's all about.And you may see me tonight with an illegal smileIt don't cost very much, but it lasts a long whileWon't you please tell the man I didn't kill anyoneNo I'm just tryin' to have me some fun [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by dddd on October 26, 2000 at 22:25:59 PT endoctrination It's sad to see good people who have formulated their viewpoints and opinions,based on mainstream media propaganda. Of course,everyones outlook is skewed by the source of their information/news.The scary part,is thinking about all the ignorant innocents who actually believe that the news they see or read,is a balanced view of reality. This is the primary reason why we are fighting such an uphill battle.The media is obviously poisoned by corporate/political ownership.Perhaps that explains why the author of this article chose to be un-named,and speak out in the strange,nebulous,impersonal format of some newspaper entity........dddd [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: