PROPOSED DRUG LAW CHANGE WON'T ACHIEVE ITS GOALS

Ohioans have a major choice this fall when they decide whether to approve a
controversial ballot initiative changing Ohio's drug laws.

The measure's well-financed supporters say they just want to ensure that
first- and second-time nonviolent drug offenders receive treatment rather
than prison time. They believe the proposed constitutional amendment would
help addicts and save the state money.

No doubt the initiative's backers are well intentioned as they try to
achieve those goals.

But good intentions don't necessarily translate into good policies, and
that's the case here.

This measure is just wrong for Ohio.

The initiative ties the hands of judges, while forcing lawmakers to earmark
millions upon millions of dollars for an untested system regardless of
whether it works.

But perhaps the worst aspect of this measure is that changing the system
would be extremely difficult because it would require yet another
constitutional amendment. And that's a terrible prospect if we find that
this amendment is not the bill of goods sold to us by the billionaire
backers who are funding this initiative.

There's also some irony in the possible consequences of this measure.

The main thrust of the initiative is to ensure treatment for drug
offenders. Yet, the very provisions contained within the amendment threaten
that mission.

For example, judges would be unable sentence drug offenders - some of whom
might have histories of violence - to more than 90 days, a far cry from the
18-month maximum under current law.

This means that judges would lose their ability to enforce treatment
because the measure essentially takes away their power to jail offenders.
That removes the threat needed to persuade addicts to attend treatment
programs.

Simply put, this amendment is all carrot and no stick.

So, indeed, there are serious concerns about whether this system will work
at all.

In fact, one year after the same ballot initiative took effect in
California, statistics show about a third of drug offenders failed to
complete their treatment programs, according to an article in the
Cincinnati Enquirer. A California Superior Court judge, however, gave even
higher numbers, saying 50 percent of offenders skipped out on their
treatment programs, the newspaper reported.

As a lawmaker and taxpayer, I'm concerned the Ohio General Assembly would
be forced to set aside millions of dollars for such an untested system. The
amendment would require the state to spend $19 million this fiscal year and
another $38 million a year over six years.

That's disturbing in light of Ohio's recent economic woes. Even if Ohio
must contend with future budgetary problems, lawmakers wouldn't be able to
touch any of the millions of dollars earmarked for the drug initiative. And
in the middle of a recession, legislators need to have the flexibility to
set priorities based on the current financial landscape.

Unfortunately, legislators might have to raise taxes, scale back other
important programs, or cut local government funds because no revenue source
is identified to pay for the amendment's required drug-treatment spending.

For this reason, among the others identified here, I urge you to vote
against the Ohio Drug Treatment Initiative.

Mr. Redfern represents the 53rd Ohio House district.