DEFEAT ISSUE 1

The campaign for mandated drug treatment misses the mark. Sure, treatment
works -- with the appropriate incentives

The very wealthy men behind state Issue 1 have had success in California
and elsewhere with their proposals to mandate treatment, instead of jail
time, for drug offenders. Their operatives have been frustrated in Ohio.
Polls have shown a solid majority in opposition to the constitutional
amendment. Proponents complain about the ballot language (words they once
praised). They may even forgo a multimillion-dollar ad campaign.

Ohioans should breathe a sigh of relief. Then, they should go to the polls
on Nov. 5 and ensure defeat of the measure by voting no on Issue 1.

The wealthy supporters are Richard Wolfe, a Columbus native who runs a
California technology firm; John Sperling, the founder of the University of
Phoenix; George Soros, an international financier and philanthropist; and
Peter Lewis, an Ohio insurance executive. Their instincts are sound. Too
often, the so-called drug war has been waged with the big guns of law
enforcement and the military. The thinking has been that prison will teach
lessons, or arms to the Colombias will thwart supply. Treatment hasn't been
sufficiently emphasized. Issue 1 promises change.

The trouble stems from the type of change. Issue 1 may be 10 paragraphs on
the ballot. The amendment would amount 6,500 words in the state
constitution, adding clutter to an already bulging document. The proposal
mandates that the state spend $247 million over seven years. It would
require judges to sentence nonviolent first-time and second-time drug
offenders to treatment. In almost all cases, jail wouldn't be an option.

Proponents admit this kind of policy-making belongs more appropriately with
the legislature. They point to the unlikelihood that Ohio lawmakers will
adopt such a proposal. That doesn't mean legislators and other officials
haven't acted. They have.

The state and its counties have begun to develop further a multidimensional
approach to drug offenders, combining the option of treatment with threat
of time behind bars. Ohio has 48 drug courts, including two in Summit
County. Judges pledge to wipe the record clean if offenders meet the
demands of a treatment program. The attention is rigorous. The requirements
are demanding. The incentive is: An offender falls short, and he or she
heads to jail.

Drug courts have proved successful. So have changes in sentencing
procedures that place greater emphasis on treatment. A small percentage of
nonviolent drug offenders initially lands in prison. The state already
recognizes the savings to be gleaned from treatment instead incarceration.
The added factor is the hammer provided to the judge, the tool that can
bring focus to an offender, the element missing in the ballot proposal.

Ohio spends roughly $172 million a year on drug treatment. It should spend
more. It can do so more effectively than through the passage of state Issue 1.

A broad coalition has formed in opposition, Democrats and Republicans,
prosecutors and drug counselors. Hope Taft, the first lady and a longtime
advocate of the value of treatment, has been a particularly strong voice,
both compassionate and realistic, urging voters to get beyond the slogans
to grasp the hard work of beating an addiction, for the individual and the
community as a whole.

Hope Taft has been a key reason for the frustration of advocates. She
understands the essential role of drug treatment. She also articulates
clearly and passionately that it cannot succeed on its own.