COUNTY PROSECUTOR AGAINST ISSUE 1

On Nov. 5, a dangerous and overreaching constitutional amendment will come
before Ohio voters. This amendment is supported by interests with nearly
unlimited financial resources.

Citizens of Ohio will likely be buried under paid media advertising
designed to convince Ohio's voters that this amendment will provide Ohio
with a less expensive and more successful means of dealing with drug
offenders. I have read and studied the amendment and this is not the case.

This amendment, designated as State Issue I, would give Ohio's drug users a
constitutional right to avoid punishment for various drug-related crimes
and mandate the courts to provide offenders with drug treatment. It
contains no provisions for treatment of offenders who need alcohol treatment.

While the following organizations support the concept of drug treatment for
offenders, these organizations, among others, are opposed to State Issue I:

Ohio State Medical Association, Ohio Hospital Association, Ohio Nurses
Association, Ohio Association of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors, Ohio
Association of County Behavioral Health Authorities, Ohio Treatment
Alternative to Street Crime Partnership, Ohio Council of Behavioral Health
Care Providers; Urban Minority Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Outreach Programs in Ohio, Ohio
Parents for Drug Free Youth, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Association
of Ohio, Ohio Association of Residential Recovery Services, Ohio Alcohol and
Drug Policy Alliance, Ohio Chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving; Ohio
Council Against Family Violence, Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Troopers,
Buckeye State Sheriff's Association, Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police,
Ohio Chief Probationers Association, Ohio Community Corrections
Association; Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Farm Bureau, Federation of
Independent Business, Ohio Association of Drug Court Professionals, Ohio
State Bar Association, and County Commissioners Association of Ohio.

I agree there is a need to treat people who use drugs. However, I adamantly
oppose a constitutional amendment that would mandate that help. State Issue
I would deprive judges of their discretion in making decisions involving
treatment.

While treatment is often ordered for offenders in drug possession cases,
there are some for whom it is inappropriate. This amendment would tie the
hands of judges, preventing them from making that determination.

It would mandate that a person with multiple convictions for possession of
drugs before the effective date of the amendment be deemed a first-time
offender. There is no mandatory drug testing required under the amendment.

In Preble County, my office has prosecuted a number of individuals for
possession of drugs and other crimes, sometimes violent crimes, who are
professional drug dealers or couriers who do not use the drugs they sell to
our neighbors and children.

Issue I would mandate treatment for those charged with these crimes, even
if they are not addicted to or dependent upon drugs. The amendment even
goes so far as to mandate that violent felonies do not include armed
robbery, kidnapping and some forms of rape, if the offender is charged with
a drug possession offense as well.

This means that if an offender were charged with kidnapping, armed robbery
and a drug possession offense, the violent crimes could be ignored and the
offender ordered into drug treatment for his punishment.

Under current law, those who are caught possessing or using illegal drugs
are routinely provided the opportunity for treatment through intervention
in lieu of conviction, specialized terms of probation or (in some counties)
drug courts.

However, drug addictions are very difficult to overcome. Denial is one of
the stages of addiction. Often the only thing that causes drug addicts to
stick with the treatment program is the threat of incarceration.

Under the proposed amendment, there is no meaningful way to ensure that
offenders follow through with treatment because even if an offender is
totally uncooperative with going to treatment, Issue I would prevent the
court from ever sending the offender to jail for more than 90 days. A trip
to prison would be out of the question.

Repeat offenders who have been before the courts multiple times for drug
offenses will be able to file a motion for treatment and even if they never
go to the first treatment session, the court would be barred from sending
them to jail for more than 90 days, regardless of the possible statutory
penalty for their criminal offense.

The Ohio Constitution is not the place for legislation regarding drug
treatment. If this amendment were to pass and it did not work as intended,
it could only be changed in the future by the passage of another
constitutional amendment.

This amendment is more than 6,500 words long -- longer than the entire U.S.

Constitution. The legislature should be the entity that determines
modifications to drug treatment laws for criminal offenders, balancing
their needs with the rest of the needs for funding from other deserving
segments of our society.

Further, the proposed amendment mandates the spending of millions of
dollars for this program but provides for no sources of funding -- which
means that this money will likely have to come from the state general fund
at a time when the state budget is already in crisis and other programs are
being cut.

I urge you to read the fine print and study the loopholes in State Issue I,
then urge your friends, family and neighbors to help keep our community
safe from illegal drugs and their results by voting against this proposed
constitutional amendment.