News (Media Awareness Project) - US WV: Editorial: Ohio Drug Plan Absurd |
Title: | US WV: Editorial: Ohio Drug Plan Absurd |
Published On: | 2002-08-25 |
Source: | Intelligencer & Wheeling News-Register (WV) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-22 13:49:50 |
OHIO DRUG PLAN ABSURD
A proposal likely to be on the November election ballot should be rejected
by Ohio voters, because it virtually raises a white flag in the war against
drugs.
The measure, set forth as a proposed constitutional amendment as a result
of a statewide petition drive, probably will be labeled as State Issue I.
It would allow people convicted of using illegal drugs - even repeat
offenders - to demand that judges send them to drug treatment programs
instead of jail. In such cases, judges would be permitted to order
treatment for no more than 18 months, followed by a maximum of 90 days of
court supervision.
Adding insult to injury, the ballot initiative would require that Ohio
spend $247 million on drug treatment programs through the 2009 fiscal year.
Judges should have the discretion to provide treatment instead of jail for
some drug offenders. They should not be required to do so. Ohioans should
reject Issue I.
A proposal likely to be on the November election ballot should be rejected
by Ohio voters, because it virtually raises a white flag in the war against
drugs.
The measure, set forth as a proposed constitutional amendment as a result
of a statewide petition drive, probably will be labeled as State Issue I.
It would allow people convicted of using illegal drugs - even repeat
offenders - to demand that judges send them to drug treatment programs
instead of jail. In such cases, judges would be permitted to order
treatment for no more than 18 months, followed by a maximum of 90 days of
court supervision.
Adding insult to injury, the ballot initiative would require that Ohio
spend $247 million on drug treatment programs through the 2009 fiscal year.
Judges should have the discretion to provide treatment instead of jail for
some drug offenders. They should not be required to do so. Ohioans should
reject Issue I.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...