FIRST, DO NO HARM

A group organized as the Ohio Campaign for New Drug Policies pulled off an
impressive feat this summer. It collected 780,000 signatures - more than
double the number required - in an effort to force a Nov. 5 vote on a
constitutional amendment touted as requiring treatment instead of prison
for non-violent drug users.

The goal is laudable. But this initiative is a rotten way to achieve it. In
fact, State Issue 1 on the Nov. 5 ballot (as it will be known assuming
enough petition signatures are verified) would almost certainly do more
harm than good.

Issue 1 would add 6,500 words to the Ohio Constitution - doubling its
length in one fell swoop - and write into the state's 151-year-old
foundation document a costly, detailed prescription for dealing with drug
offenders.

Not only is this constitutional mandate unnecessary - court-sponsored drug
treatment programs are already up and running here and in more than half of
Ohio's 88 counties - it would deprive judges of their most vital tool: the
ability, via the threat of a substantial prison sentence, to convince drug
abusers to complete their drug treatment programs.

These are just some of the reasons law enforcement officials, judges and
policy-makers of all political stripes have joined Gov. Bob Taft in lining
up against the measure.

Make no mistake. This isn't some half-baked plan concocted by a couple of
wayward ex-hippies. It's the work product of the Drug Policy Alliance, a
sophisticated organization bankrolled by three of the wealthier men in
America (George Soros, Peter Lewis and John G. Sperling) who believe the
war on drugs has been an abject failure. Their track record is impressive:
they've mounted 19 ballot issues in 11 states over the past six years, and
lost only twice.

The core of the Ohio proposal is this: judges would be required to give
first- and second-time offenders the option of treatment instead of prison,
and could sentence them (even if they fail to complete treatment) to no
more than 90 days. Judges now can impose a sentence of up to 18 months in
prison for such offenses.

Issue 1 would also write into the Constitution a funding mandate that would
cost $247 million over the next seven years.

What's wrong with this?

Well, for openers, Ohio already directs most personal use drug offenders
into treatment, and rarely sends anyone into the state prison system for
simple possession of small amounts of illegal drugs.

The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, in a recent study,
said there were currently about 865 such offenders in its 45,000-inmate
population. Issue 1, the study estimated, would lower than number to about
300. Taking these low-level offenders out of the prison system would save
the state between $12 million and $15 million a year, the department said.
That's less than half of what Issue 1 would require lawmakers to spend on
treatment programs and other procedures.

But a larger concern is the effect Issue 1 would have on drug addicts.

The biggest is the one cited above: that judges would lose their strongest
tool for convincing defendants to complete treatment programs. Moreover,
prosecutors predict that some defendants, with only three months at stake,
would be less likely to agree to a plea bargain that would commit them to a
treatment program, while others would opt to take their three months and
avoid treatment (and probation) all together.

An analysis by Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery, Hamilton County
Prosecutor Mike Allen and others concluded that Issue 1 "amounts to a
defacto decriminalization of the possession and use of any illicit drug,
including heroin, LSD and crack, for eligible offenders."

Problem is, we wouldn't get any of the benefits that a full-blown
decriminalization would bring.

So please, pay attention this fall when the TV ads start to air. Do your
homework when hear a radio commercial or see a story in the newspaper. We
suspect you'll come to the conclusion we've reached: treating non-violent
drug offenders instead of just throwing them in prison makes sense, but
Issue 1 does not.