DRUG TREATMENT NEEDN'T BE ETCHED IN CONSTITUTION

Only a naif would have the blind faith in government to do the right
thing at all times. The United States has a long history of citizens
pushing and prodding leaders toward social reforms that have moved the
nation forward.

Still, the spate of would-be amendments to the Florida Constitution
indicate an utter lack of faith in the Legislature to make progressive
or even pragmatic policy. Besides reflecting poorly on our leadership,
this citizen urge to govern by amendment shows a gross
misunderstanding of what the constitution is meant to do.

The latest example is a proposed amendment - yet to be approved for
the fall ballot - that would guarantee treatment for first- and
second-time drug offenders who aren't dealers or violent criminals. As
is so often the case with proposed amendments, the concept may be
laudable but the path to implementation isn't.

It's true: Treatment hasn't been emphasized enough in the war on
drugs. Last year, Tallahassee Police Chief Walt McNeil estimated that
80 to 90 percent of local arrests were connected to drugs or alcohol -
proof that incarceration alone isn't working. TPD has taken an
encouraging step forward by trying to start a community court to help
drug addicts get treatment, not more jail time.

Some state officials have criticized the drug treatment amendment as a
license to use illegal drugs. That's too sweeping a judgment, but
there are valid reasons to be concerned about the proposal.

A new and evolving amendment-gathering industry, which charges by the
signature, can gather enough names to get virtually any good idea on
the ballot.

Then well-meaning voters lend their support without considering the
financial consequences. Witness the alarm over the estimated $6- to
$20-billion price tag for Florida's high-speed rail, now a
constitutional requirement.

Generally what's appropriate for the constitution is something that
creates or prevents government power, broadly guiding or limiting the
three branches of government. It's a framework, not a set of detailed
instructions.

Over the years, an alternative to constitutional change has been
considered, and it should be again. The alternative would require a
constitutional amendment, but one granting voters the ability to enact
or amend laws - statutes that the Legislature couldn't tamper with for
perhaps two years. The citizen's statute then would be available for
lawmakers to amend or even repeal by a super-majority vote.

Voters deserve a prominent voice in directing public policy, but
endless amendments aren't the way to go.