BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION TO ISSUE 1

Finally there is bipartisan cooperation in Columbus on something - in this
case, state Issue 1, which would only add to the mish-mash of the Ohio
Constitution if voters should approve it on Nov. 5.

Proving once again that politics makes strange bedfellows but money is a
great uniter, the consultants setting up the campaign to defeat Issue 1 are
two partisan foes, Curt Steiner, former chief of staff to Republican Gov.
George Voinovich, and Toledo's Jim Ruvolo, former state Democratic chairman.

Normally, these two veteran political operatives would be on opposite sides
of almost anything, but they're teaming up to knock down Issue 1, which
would take away discretion judges now have in sentencing first- and
second-time drug offenders.

Mr. Ruvolo's opposition to Issue 1 is no particular surprise. He is
chairman of the board of Substance Abuse Services, Inc., the Toledo agency
previously headed by Mayor Jack Ford. Mr. Ford has taken a statewide
leadership role in defeating this misguided constitutional amendment.

As we have noted before, there is plenty of room for debate on the question
of diverting nonviolent drug offenders from jail and into treatment. But
that debate ought to take place in the General Assembly. The measure should
not be written into the state constitution, which already has become
encumbered over the years by a number of misplaced amendments.

That the issue even made the Nov. 5 ballot was somewhat of a surprise,
given the sloppy and sometimes fraudulent signature-gathering techniques
employed by paid solicitors working for the well-funded Ohio Campaign for
New Drug Policies. In Michigan, a similar issue backed by the same group
under another name has failed to qualify for that state's ballot because of
improper wording.

Voters also need to keep in mind that the campaign for Issue 1 is being
paid for by three multimillionaires, two of them from out of state, who
claim that the war on drugs has failed and that jailing nonviolent
offenders is not the answer.

Even if that were true, however, judges should not be stripped of their
discretion in handling individual cases, and state lawmakers should not be
handcuffed by inflexible mandates for spending on drug treatment, $38
million in this case.

Backers of Issue 1 have succeeded with similar measures elsewhere, but if
voters resist the constitutional clutter at stake here, Ohio won't be one
of them.