BOB AND HOPE TAFT ON DRUGS

Undermining the Ohio Campaign For a New Drug Policy That Promotes Treatment

A recent investigative report by a Washington, D.C., group accuses Ohio
Governor Bob Taft and First Lady Hope Taft of trying to aggressively derail
a constitutional initiative for a new state drug policy that promotes
treatment.

While the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy statistics
shows that as the "war on drugs" has intensified, the cost of illegal drugs
has fallen, and the purity or strength -- depending on the drug -- has
climbed steadily. Meanwhile, new cartels form as fast as the old ones are
taken down by the increasingly militarized effort. If the apparent success
rate doesn't raise enough questions already, a recent 43-page report by the
Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) begs to know, "What is
the drug war really about?" As well as "What's going on in Ohio?"

This special investigative report by Daniel Forbes, "The Governor's
Sub-rosa Plot to Subvert an Election in Ohio," is built on close reading of
public documents generated by Bob and Hope Taft, among others, as part of
their aggressive and well-funded campaign against a new drug policy
initiative that would amend the Ohio constitution. The initiative, which
would essentially mandate treatment rather than probation for low-level
drug offenders, is likely to be on the November ballot as Issue No.1.

The Forbes report says that Gov. Taft and the First Lady "aggressively
sought and received help from outside Ohio to plan and implement their
campaign against the Ohio Drug Treatment Initiative" and that "both state
and U.S. taxpayers have been underwriting the campaign." He also implicates
several taxpayer-subsidized nonprofit groups, Florida and Michigan
government officials, and White House and congressional staffers who have
contributed to the Taft anti-initiative effort.

There's nothing wrong with elected officials making known their opinions on
policy initiatives being brought to the public vote, but the report accuses
the Tafts of blurring the lines between politics and policymaking, between
the Governor's reelection campaign and what is purported to be an
educational campaign waged through public service announcements.

"They may sincerely believe, in their paranoia, that this will lead to the
legalization of drugs," says Ohio Campaign for New Drug Policies director
Ed Orlett, "but that is the farthest thing from our minds."

Orlett says the Ohio Drug Treatment Initiative is targeted at abusers of
crack cocaine and will have little effect on marijuana offenders because,
according to Ohio law, possession of up to 100 grams of pot -- about 1.6
ounces -- is a misdemeanor with a maximum fine of $100.

"If those people asked for a court appearance" in lieu of simply paying the
fine, Orlett says, "they would be considered for treatment. But it's
unlikely that anyone would request that if they could just pay the fine and
be on their way."

Crack use, however, is a felony, and so treatment rather than incarceration
for that offense could keep a lot of people out of prison. Orlett notes
that 65-70 percent of the 4,400 people who were sent to prison last year
went in for possession, and that a disproportionately large number of
African Americans end up serving time. The initiative would save such
offenders from a felony record.

The initiative is backed by three rich men -- billionaires George Soros and
Peter Lewis and multimillionaire John Sperling -- who have financed drug
reform initiatives for several years. Orlett, a democrat who was a
Dayton-area state rep from 1973 to 1985, hopes it will not only treat
rather than punish, but also that it will save the state money.

"The second-largest department in the state, at almost $1 billion a year,
is the correctional system," Orlett says. "Sending nonviolent offenders to
prison costs Ohio taxpayers $22,000 per year per inmate. The Department of
Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services acknowledges that treatment costs less
than $4,000 per year."

To get the proposed amendment on the ballot, Orlett and company have to
collect 335,000 signatures. They have nearly met the requirement, though
Orlett says they plan to collect a significantly larger number -- because
in light of the Taft administration's opposition and the IPS report, they
expect that the list will be carefully scrutinized in an effort to throw
names out.

The IPS report says not only that the Tafts, their chief of staff Brian
Hicks, and several high-ranking staff members have been working since last
spring to defeat the ballot initiative, but also that the
counter-initiative campaign has taken advantage of vast amounts of paid
state time and spent state money, planned to access federal funds, and
involved the supposedly nonpartisan Partnership for a Drug-Free America.
Working together, state, federal and PDFA strategists put together a
20-page "playbook" with two tasks: to keep the initiative off the ballot
or, if it gets to the ballot, to defeat it.

Nonetheless, Ohio criminal justice chief Domingo Herraiz is quoted in the
report as saying, "We had nothing to hide -- we had to determine the
initiative's implications."

As aggressively as they seem to be campaigning against the initiative, the
Taft administration does not want to talk about the Forbes report. Indeed,
Forbes depends heavily on public documents because Herraiz is the only
member of the administration who would speak to him. For this story, a
request to speak with the governor was deferred to media relations man Joe
Andrews, who did not return phone calls. Instead, he directed this reporter
to Kurt Steiner, spokesperson for Ohioans Against Unsafe Drug Laws -- a
group that sprung up to oppose the issue. But even Steiner passed the phone
to Jenny Camper, a PR professional who says she doesn't have a history with
the issue, but had worked with Steiner before, was available, and so was
hired for the fight.

Camper says supporters of the bill who scrutinize the funding and
collaborators involved in the counter-initiative campaign are only throwing
up a smokescreen. "They keep raising this, and I think they are trying to
divert attention from issues of the campaign," she says. "Governor Taft and
Hope Taft both support our efforts. Mrs. Taft is our co-chair. We interact
with her frequently on this. They can have an opinion on it. To imply that
they shouldn't analyze this is wrong. They have to put time into it to
understand it."

Camper says the amendment is specific in its regulations, but not in its
finances. It takes away judicial discretion to remove offenders from
treatment if they distract their peers or if they seem not to take the
program seriously. Camper alleges that judges feel they need the "stick"
that status quo sentencing guidelines provide -- six to 18 months -- to
motivate offenders in current treatment programs.

"We've concluded by looking through the amendment and talking with people
that it breaks down the balance between treatment and law enforcement to
get offenders on a path to recovery."

Camper also points out that the initiative doesn't stipulate where its $19
million in startup funds and $38 million in annual operating costs would
come from. She disputes the claim that the initiative would save the state
money. Other critics claim that the specificity that drug law requires does
not belong in the constitution.

Orlett, remaining true to either his political suspicions or to the
strategy Camper suggests he is using, cautions people who may think of
dropping checks in Taft's campaign coffers.

"I would suggest that political contributors be careful how they make their
checks out," he says. "And be sure what the money is going to be used for."