DRUG ISSUE WOULD CHANGE CONSTITUTION

COLUMBUS, Ohio - The only statewide issue on the Nov. 5 ballot has three
billionaire businessmen battling Ohio's justice establishment over how
nonviolent, first- and second-time drug offenders are sentenced.

State Issue 1 would require judges to order treatment instead of prison for
those offenders. Currently, a judge has the option of sentencing them to as
much as one year in prison for a first offense and up to 18 months for a
second offense.

However, judges routinely require treatment for those convicted of simple
possession of cocaine, heroine or other felony-level narcotics. But they
use the prison option as a motivator for staying clean, opponents of the
issue say.

Backers of the issue say locking up people whose only offense is drug abuse
or possession can turn a person with a drug problem into someone who
commits more serious offenses. They argue that treatment costs about $4,000
a year for each offender versus about $22,000 for incarceration.

"It saves money and it saves lives. That's the bottom line," said Ed
Orlett, a former Ohio legislator who is the director of the Ohio Campaign
for New Drug Policies. "We can treat six people for what it costs to keep
one in prison."

The issue would add 6,500 words to the Ohio Constitution and remove several
sentencing provisions from state law. Many were passed by the Legislature
in its landmark 1995 crime bill, designed to offer judges alternatives to
incarceration. The law set guidelines for Ohio's 50 drug courts and for
courts in counties that do not have them.

Those guidelines should be left alone because they are working, backers say.

"It reduces judges' discretion to do what's most effective for the offender
and safest for the community," said Jenny Camper, director for Ohioans
Against Unsafe Drug Laws, an opponents group chaired by Gov. Bob Taft's
wife, Hope. "Once you take discretion away from judges, ... it's the
community that could pay the price there."

The issue is patterned after similar proposals in Arizona and California
bankrolled by billionaires George Soros, John Sperling and Peter Lewis.
Another issue was defeated in Massachusetts and it failed to get on the
ballot in Michigan this year.

Fighting the Ohio issue are the state's judges, prosecutors and many drug
treatment professionals who say Issue 1 would give little motivation to
those who need treatment the most.

Backers are concerned the 750-word explanation that will appear on the
ballot could confuse voters. A seven-year price tag of $247 million appears
in the first paragraph of the ballot language and could send voters into
sticker shock, they said.

Opponents argue that the complaint came late in the game. They point out
that one primary Issue 1 backer, state Sen. Ben Espy, a Columbus Democrat,
was part of the 5-0 Ohio Ballot Board vote that approved the language.

"It's pretty amazing they are crying foul. They are not coming to terms
with the fact that what they introduced in Ohio is bad public policy,"
Camper said.

Opponents also say the language would be too difficult to change if the
program isn't working because it would require another constitutional
amendment to do so. However, the Legislature would have to draft the
language that sets the issue into the constitution, Orlett said.

Orlett acknowledges that drug courts have helped addicts kick their habits.
He said Issue 1 would expand the program to ensure that every offender
receives needed treatment.

"It provides new weapons. We have been losing the war up to this point. We
can make some significant advances in ending the war on the use of drugs,"
Orlett said.