IT AIN'T BROKE OHIO ALREADY HAS DRUG COURTS OPTION

Gov. Bob Taft is on a crusade against a ballot initiative that would make
sweeping changes in the way drug offenses are handled in Ohio.

The governor is joined in his efforts by numerous law enforcement groups,
medical and hospital officials, judges and attorneys, crime victim groups,
and drug treatment professionals.

The initiative -- the Ohio Campaign for New Drug Policies -- would require
judges to sentence nonviolent first- and second-time drug offenders to
treatment programs instead of prison.

So what's so terrible about that? Few would argue that if a person has a
chemical dependency that causes him to break the law, he needs treatment.

First, the initiative is not needed. Ohio's drug laws already allow
intervention instead of prison for low-level drug offenses. Rather than
being required to order treatment programs, judges should be able to
continue to decide each case on its own merits. Sometimes treatment is
what's needed; sometimes prison is the best way to get a young offender's
attention.

Second, it's the money. The initiative would require Ohio to increase
drug-treatment spending by $19 million initially, then $38 million a year
for six years -- and it mandates how that money would be spent: on plans to
treat "the whole person," including literacy training, vocational training
and family counseling as well as drug counseling and treatment. Ohio's
current drug court program already offers similar treatment -- but like
most state programs, it's been hit by budget cuts.

Apparently initiative backers John Sperling, George Soros and Peter Lewis,
all three billionaires, think they know more than the Ohio Legislature
about what can and should be spent to operate an anti-drug program in Ohio.
They want to set in stone a fixed amount of funding for this program, which
they claim would ultimately save money for the state. Never mind that the
state is coming off a recession that severely dented its revenues, and that
the state constitution requires a balanced budget now.

Which brings us to our third objection: the method. A constitutional
amendment is an overly drastic step for a change in policy, and sound- byte
campaigning is not an effective way to educate the public. Proponents of
drug law change would do better to work through the Legislature, where the
proposal can be vetted by our elected representatives and made to fit the
budget. If this is an idea that's worth a try, let's give it just that -- a
try, and not throw away the key after we unlock the door.

Ultimately, people are best encouraged to follow the law if the law is both
compassionate and firm. Treatment is needed in some cases, and should
continue to be an option. But if treatment is the required sentence, it
removes an important incentive for staying away from drugs in the first place.

Ohio's drug courts, while suffering from budget woes, already offer what
the Ohio Campaign for New Drug Policies would offer -- only they work
within the limitations of the system. Let's keep it that way.