cannabisnews.com: Don't Let This Deal Go Down . . . Don't Let This Deal Go Down . . . Posted by FoM on October 29, 2000 at 06:24:14 PT By Ralph C. Martin III Source: Boston Herald As November approaches, voters may be hearing more about a ballot initiative that purports to be meaningful drug policy reform but in reality is nothing but a drug dealer's bill of rights.Question 8, while claiming to provide treatment for drug users, would in fact help drug dealers escape prosecution while siphoning money away from drug investigations. The initiative is a fraud. It's a Trojan horse preying on public sentiment to cure drug users. It wrenches the tools away from law enforcement and gives drug dealers an advantage.Question 8 creates a judicial loophole for drug dealers that would make mandatory minimum prison sentences a thing of the past.It would allow even the worst offenders - those who traffic in cocaine and heroin - to have their criminal charges dismissed.If Question 8 passes, drug dealers will be able to demand treatment instead of incarceration even if they are not addicted to drugs.Currently, drug dealers with addiction problems can get treatment in jail.No one is opposed to treatment for drug users but if you look behind the Question 8 facade, it allows charges to be dismissed for drug dealers who claim they are drug dependant.Furthermore, it potentially allows drug dealers to have an unlimited number of cases dismissed, thereby encouraging repeat offenses without any consequences even if a drug dealer fails to complete a treatment program.We cannot allow drug dealers to avoid prison simply by saying they're addicted to the drugs they sell.We cannot have a revolving door in our courts that lets defendants walk away from convictions every time they are charged with dealing drugs.Question 8 would also undermine the investigation and prosecution of drug cases by draining funds currently devoted to the war on drugs.By creating a ``drug treatment trust fund,'' Question 8 would take away drug forfeiture assets that help sustain law enforcement's efforts against drug dealers.Moreover, Question 8 would make it harder to receive assets because it would raise the burden of proof at drug forfeiture hearings from ``probable cause'' to proof by ``clear and convincing evidence.''In addition to that, taxpayers would end up paying all costs of drug forfeiture hearings because assets would no longer be used to pay the public costs of the hearings.To expect taxpayers to pick up the tab on drug forfeiture hearings that currently pay for themselves makes no sense.And to let drug dealers walk away from prosecution and let a flawed law foster the growth of the illegal drug establishment is just plain wrong.Let us not return to the days when drugs were the scourge of our streets, putting our children and our neighborhoods at risk.We must not undo all the good work we have done.We have come too far to allow our communities to once again be held hostage by drug dealers.Law enforcement officials across the commonwealth - including the state's other 10 district attorneys, the attorney general and the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association - oppose Question 8 for the simple reason that it opens a loophole for drug dealers to avoid punishment.Say ``no'' to a free ride for drug dealers.In November, please, vote ``no'' on Question 8.Ralph C. Martin II is Suffolk County district attorney.Source: Boston Herald (MA)Author: Ralph C. Martin III Published: October 28, 2000Copyright: 2000 The Boston Herald, Inc.Address: One Herald Square, Boston, MA 02106-2096Contact: letterstoeditor bostonherald.comWebsite: http://www.bostonherald.com/Related Articles:Question 8 Addresses Root Causes of Drug Abusehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7481.shtmlChief Urges No on Eighthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7480.shtmlEndorsement: Question 8http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7465.shtmlFor Police, Drug War Extends To Ballot Box http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7428.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #5 posted by mungojelly on October 31, 2000 at 03:51:13 PT: "No one is opposed to treatment" "No one is opposed to treatment for drug users" -- this is what they have been telling us here in Massachusetts. No one is opposed to treatment for drug users, least of all them. Not in theory, anyway. Of course when it comes down to any _particular proposal_ that would provide treatment to drug users, they are always against it. Theoretically, though, they support it wholeheartedly. That is, as long as the money keeps flowing into the drug war coffers. mungojelly [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by dddd on October 30, 2000 at 05:19:25 PT hard to believe I get a chill when I read things like;"Moreover, Question 8 would make it harder to receive assets because it would raise the burden of proof at drugforfeiture hearings from ``probable cause'' to proof by ``clear and convincing evidence.''In addition to that, taxpayers would end up paying all costs of drug forfeiture hearings because assets would nolonger be used to pay the public costs of the hearings.To expect taxpayers to pick up the tab on drug forfeiture hearings that currently pay for themselves makes nosense." My first reaction is to look again to make sure the writer isn't just attempting to make a sarcastic joke. I almost cant believe that there is a real person writing such twisted crap.Maybe it's just a silly halloween prank.I think it's quite likely that most of the crackpot editorial commentaries like this;are products of an ondcp paid propaganda scheme. The spookiest costume for haloween,would be a czar costume.Or if you really wanna terrify your friends,here's a tasteless concept;,,,get a group of guy together,and dress up like swat team ninjas,and pretend you got one of those no-knock warrants,that are about as easy to get as a library book.Kick down the door,and after you got everyone laying face down on the floor,,,say,"trick or treat". (This is obviously a sick,and perhaps inapropriate attempt at offbeat humor.I apologize if you are offended by this sordid,trashy jive.).........dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Frank on October 30, 2000 at 04:42:29 PT Police Just Want Money & More Power What Question # 8 does is gets people treatment who need it and gets the police away from the money trough. The police don’t care about people addicted to drugs only the money generated by the “War on Drugs” i.e.: profit sharing for law enforcement. Do what’s right vote Yes on this issue. Get people treatment who need it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by legalizeit on October 29, 2000 at 07:44:32 PT Flawed law? Illegal drugs? HAHA! >...let a flawed law foster the growth of the illegal drug establishment is just plain wrong.If this fragment is taken out of context it turns the meaning right around!!>Let us not return to the days when drugs were the scourge of our streets, putting our children and our neighborhoods at risk.Yeah, legalize and regulate them, and watch the criminal empires crumble and vanish! [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by MikeEEEEE on October 29, 2000 at 06:47:26 PT drug dealer's bill of rights If it's not the state drug dealers and/or the corporate drug dealers than it's not allowed. The anti is for no, there's too much no in policy. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: