MORE CONSTITUTIONAL CLUTTER?

A proposed initiative to mandate treatment instead of jail for nonviolent
drug offenders is indeed defective, as Mayor Jack Ford says, because it is
"all carrot and no stick," but that's not the only reason it doesn't belong
in the Ohio Constitution.

The amendment, expected on the Nov. 5 ballot, is a perfect example of the
kind of constitutional clutter frequently pushed by special interests in an
attempt to end-run the legislature.

As we have noted before, treating drug abusers rather than sending them off
to prison may be a more effective use of scarce state tax dollars, but such
policy belongs in state law rather than the constitution.

Indeed, the financially strapped state may not even have an extra $38
million a year for drug treatment, but if the amendment is approved, state
officials would have no choice. They would be committed to that level of
funding each year for six years, regardless of the state's fiscal condition.

Mayor Ford, who has teamed with Gov. Bob Taft and others to head off the
amendment, is well qualified to take the lead on this issue. As the former
head of a Toledo substance-abuse treatment agency, Mr. Ford knows that the
threat of jail often is the only "stick" judges have to ensure that drug
abusers pursue the "carrot" of required treatment programs.

The amendment would eliminate the jail threat for first- and second-time
offenders, even if they violate treatment orders. Only on a third offense
would a judge be able to order jail time, a fact that backers of the
measure like to gloss over.

Some people should go to jail for an initial drug offense, just as there
are others who would be better off in a treatment program. That decision
should be made by representatives of the people in the legal system. That's
why we have judges.

There are other reasons to be suspicious of the Campaign for New Drug
Policies and its backers, millionaire businessmen George Soros, Peter B.
Lewis, and John Sperling. If their agenda is to gain a foothold for
legalizing drugs, as opponents have suggested, then that question should be
debated fully and in public.

In the meantime, the Ohio Constitution should not be burdened with
extraneous policy issues.