DRUG WAR SUGGESTION HAS FLAWS

Treatment Proposal Should Be Legislated, Not In Constitution

Backers of a state constitutional amendment to steer certain drug
violators into treatment instead of prison are using the wrong means
to change the course of the war on drugs.

State officials, including Gov. Jeb Bush, are right to oppose the
amendment, which will be on the November ballot for voter approval if
it clears legal hurdles.

Some of the proponents' ideas might make good drug policy, if they
could make it through the Legislature.

But it's a mistake to try to put detailed policy into the
constitution, which is is best used to provide a general framework and
basic principles for government.

The proposed amendment, the Right to Treatment and Rehabilitation for
Nonviolent Drug Offenses, would give certain drug offenders the right
to choose treatment instead of jail for their first two offenses.

The amendment would apply to people charged with or convicted of
possessing or buying drugs or drug paraphernalia. People who traffic
in drugs or commit violent acts, theft or DUI don't qualify.

Critics, including Bush's drug czar, have called the measure "the
Right to Abuse Drugs in Florida Amendment."

Tim Moore, head of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, says
passage of the measure would amount to drug legalization.

This is overheated rhetoric. The issue of whether Florida and other
states are sending too many minor drug offenders to prison and too few
to treatment is complex, but not all the people who think so are nuts.

What's got opponents worried is that the drive is part of a
well-financed national movement, which has already gotten similar
measures approved in Arizona and California. Florida, Ohio and
Michigan are on the list this year.

Parts of this proposal may have merits, although it promises to
overload the treatment system with offenders, many of whom may not
even be suited for treatment.

The Legislature has already established drug courts precisely to find
the most appropriate place for these people, so the ammendment may not
even be needed to accomplish its purpose.

But aside from the merits of the policy, our problem with this measure
is that the people would be voting -- as is typical in these cases =97 on
a brief, inadequate ballot summary, not the detailed language that
would actually be put in the constitution.

The actual amendment is far too lengthy to be put on a ballot, which
is why it should be proposed in law and dealt with by the Legislature.
This is the sort of thing we elect lawmakers for, never mind that even
they don't have time for careful study of all the measures they vote
on.

As law, the measure has the chance of being debated and modified. It
can relatively easily be adjusted later or repealed if it is a
statute, but not if it is in the constitution.

About a half-million registered voters will have to sign petitions for
this and several other ill-advised proposed amendments this year
before they can get on the ballot. The state Supreme Court will have
to approve the ballot language, which Attorney General Bob Butterworth
says is misleading and violates the rule against multiple subjects.

If confronted with a petition for this amendment, we urge you not to
sign it.