DESPITE MISCONCEPTIONS, OHIO'S PRISONS DO OFFER DRUG TREATMENT

This letter is in response to Jim White's letter regarding the
opposition of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections' (ODRC)
director, Reginald Wilkinson, to the proposed amendment to Ohio's
constitution (State Issue 1). Mr. White portrays this opposition as
nothing more than Director Wilkinson playing bureaucratic "turfism" to
protect his own. In reality the opposition goes far beyond this.

Mr. White appears to have taken the bait from the amendment's
proponents, ignoring and glossing over the very significant details
contained within the proposed amendment. If more citizens were aware
of these details, the majority would certainly be in opposition.

The proponents of the amendment want to paint the picture of thousands
of harmless, first-time offenders being senselessly and ruthlessly
incarcerated in Ohio's prisons. We are to believe that these offenders
are currently provided absolutely no treatment opportunities and
resources for self-change within the prisons and numerous other
facilities and programs funded by ODRC.

This is not the case, as anyone familiar with the state's correctional
system can attest to. Ohio already has effective means to deal with
drug dependent offenders, and a significant overhaul of sentencing
options has been in place since 1996 with the passage of Senate Bill
2. Ohio's prison population has significantly dropped since 1996 while
ODRC has simultaneously created and funded hundreds of drug and
alcohol treatment programs.

I would like to share just some of the finer points of this proposed
amendment so voter's are not unwittingly led down the black and white
path presented by its backers.

The lengthy amendment is unsafe as it applies to qualified
offenders.

It takes away current powers judges use to deal effectively with
offenders who ignore or disrupt treatment. It also takes away
important aspects of treatment providers' control over offenders in
counseling programs.

The amendment wipes the slate clean for all previous drug offenses,
enabling multiple offense drug abusers to be treated like first time
offenders.

It drastically reduces maximum incarceration time to only 90
days

The amendment does not require drug testing to show the courts that
the offenders are clean and on the road to full recovery.

Offenders who go through treatment may have their drug offense records
sealed and their conviction expunged. School bus drivers, day care
workers, airline pilots, nurses, doctors, pharmacists, teachers or
construction workers would be able to conceal their drug offenses from
current and future employers.

It intensifies the revolving door between treatment and court
systems.

Many crimes like breaking and entering, burglary, auto theft, fraud
and embezzlement may not be prosecuted if the offender is charged with
a drug offense. Victims of these crimes are left without compensation
because the proposed amendment is silent on victims' right to
restitution.

The amendment requires $19 million dollars in start-up funding and
direct funding of $38 million annually for six fiscal years, plus
"adequate" funding after 2009. These amounts are on top of current
expenditures for drug and alcohol treatment. No funding source is provided.

As a counselor to adult male felony offenders for nearly a decade, I
consider this amendment dangerous and unproductive. I certainly agree
that offenders should be given the opportunities for recovery and
self-change, a "carrot" so to speak. But offenders with entrenched
anti-social attitudes and beliefs, along with significant drug abuse
histories, must also be given a "stick" to follow through and comply
with treatment goals. Often this requires the offender to be
temporarily removed from his or her community so that they can focus
on their behaviors and addictions.

I work with offenders on a daily basis who state that they had lied to
their community treatment providers and probation officers, used drugs
extensively while on probation, and worked hard to circumvent drug
testing and self-help groups. They state that it wasn't until they
were incarcerated that they really made any effort to save their own
lives. This amendment essentially strips the need for the offender to
make any effort and be accountable for their self-destructive behavior.

Our communities, personal property, homes, families, children and
public institutions will be put in jeopardy by this amendment. It
ignores current sentencing laws in Ohio that provide treatment in lieu
of incarceration for qualified offenders. The proposed amendment
establishes treatment as a constitutional right and a priority for
certain offenders while those who voluntarily seek treatment have to
wait in line.

Regardless of other pressing budget priorities, the state would be
required to significantly increase spending on drug treatment for
offenders. The amendment ignores the treatment needs of alcoholic
offenders. It says next to nothing about drug abuse prevention and
education and is unclear in its application to juvenile offenders.

The vital question is this: Do Ohio's citizens not want drug dependent
offenders held accountable for their actions, for offenders to be
given extensive opportunities for second, third, fourth, and fifth
"chances", and place those of us who abide by our current laws in
physical, emotional, and financial jeopardy? Voting "yes" to Issue 1
will certainly ensure all of these.

The proposed amendment must be opposed because it is unsafe, unfair,
and unaccountable. For more information, please visit Ohioans Against
Unsafe Drug Laws at www.unsafedruglaws.org.

Scott Weaver LSW, CCJS

9514 State St.

Albany