A YES VOTE would change state laws governing drug-dependency treatment and fines paid and money and property forfeited in connection with drug crimes.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws governing drug-dependency treatment and fines and forfeitures based on drug crimes.

This proposed law would create a state Drug Treatment Trust Fund, to be used, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature, solely for the treatment of drug-dependent persons. The Fund would include fines paid under the state's criminal drug laws: money forfeited because of its use in connection with drug crimes; and the proceeds from selling property forfeited because of its use in connection with drug crimes.

The Fund would be administered by the state's Director of Drug Rehabilitation. Money in the Fund would be spent to increase, rather than replace, existing government funding for drug treatment programs. Those programs would be expanded to apply to persons who are at risk of becoming drug-dependent and to include drug abuse prevention through education.

The proposed law would expand eligibility for the program under which a person charged with a drug crime may request a court finding that he is drug-dependent and would benefit from court-monitored treatment. If the court so finds, and the person then successfully completes a treatment program, the criminal charges are dismissed. The proposed law would allow requests to enter this program by persons who are at risk of becoming drug dependent and by persons charged with a first or second offense of manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing a controlled substance, or possessing a controlled substance with the intent to do any of those things, or trafficking 14 to 28 grams of cocaine.

The proposed law would change the state law governing forfeiture of money and property used in connection with drug crimes. Land and buildings could not be forfeited if used in a manner that was merely incidental to a drug crime. The state would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that money or property was subject to forfeiture, and the property owner could then try to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the money or property was legally exempt trom forfeiture All forfeited money, instead of being divided between the prosecuting agency and responsible police department and used for law enforcement purposes, would be put in the Fund. All forfeited property, instead of being so divided and used, would be sold and the proceeds put in the Fund.

Records of all sales and local forfeiture activities would have to be kept and made public unless harm to law enforcement efforts would result. The state Inspector General could audit and investigate these activities. Any official who concealed or diverted any forfeited money or property could be punished by a fine of up to $1000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both.

The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the rest of the law would remain in effect.