SUPPORTERS READY TO PRESS PLAN FOR DRUG OFFENDERS

They Are Rich Beyond Imagination, Mega-Philanthropists With A Bagful
Of Eccentricities.

Although Peter B. Lewis, George Soros and John G. Sperling don't
share political or personal philosophies, they are united on one
front: They passionately oppose the war on drugs -- "a grave
injustice in American society."

Since 1996, the well-heeled trio have used their deep pockets to fund
a national crusade to reform drug laws. Using 19 ballot issues in 11
states from California to Maine, the three have fought drug laws --
and won 17 times.

Now their campaign -- this time in the form of a proposal to
substitute treatment for jail time for nonviolent, first- and
second-time drug offenders -- has come to the heartland. The issue,
which would appropriate $38 million in state money annually for drug
treatment, is likely to be on the Nov. 5 ballot as a proposed
amendment to the Ohio Constitution.

The campaign is expected to gain visibility this week as supporters
seek backing from minority lawmakers and leaders.

Advocates of the proposal contend that Ohio taxpayers would save $85
million annually by diverting more than 4,600 people to treatment
programs instead of jail.

Voters in Florida, Michigan and Washington, D.C., might see similar
ballot issues this fall.

The Ohio proposal could turn into a donnybrook because Gov. Bob Taft,
most of Ohio's political establishment and the law-enforcement
community vigorously oppose it.

"It's just not necessary," said Taft, labeling the proposal
"de-facto legalization, not just of marijuana but a whole range of
other drugs -- crack and cocaine and LSD."

The drug initiative is a "terrible provision to put into the
constitution," said Taft, vowing to raise money to mount a campaign
to defeat it.

Similar opposition existed in California and Arizona, where voters
nonetheless approved a treatment-instead-of-incarceration amendment.

The opposition campaign in Ohio is expected to be headed by the
Columbus consulting firm of Steiner/Lesic Communications, headed by
Curt Steiner, former Gov. George V. Voinovich's chief of staff.

Taft said the state has established 48 drug courts, most in the past
four years, and is spending $170 million on them.

"I am very concerned that this proposal will undermine the
effectiveness of what the drug courts are doing . . . a tough-love
approach," he said.

The governor contacted Lewis, a Cleveland native who is chairman of
Progressive Insurance, the nation's fourth-largest automotive insurer.

"I've encouraged him not to go forward in Ohio," Taft said. "I don't
know if I had any effect on him."

Timothy F. Hagan, Taft's Democratic opponent, said he hasn't seen
details of the proposed ballot issue.

"Philosophically," he said, "I am in favor of diverting nonviolent
offenders from prison and giving them access to treatment.''

In October, the candidate's brother, state Sen. Robert F. Hagan,
D-Youngstown, introduced legislation that incorporates the same
treatment-instead-of-incarceration philosophy.

Arguing For It

All three major supporters of the amendment declined to be
interviewed for this story.

But Ethan A. Nadelmann, a former Harvard University professor and
advocate of drug legalization who acts as Soros' spokesman, repeated
the trio's mantra: The public is ahead of politicians on drug reform.

"What we found in Ohio, as we found in California and Arizona, is a
substantial majority of the public believes that nonviolent drug
offenders should be offered the chance of treatment instead of
incarceration.

"None of these men is involved in this for personal gain," said
Nadelmann, head of the Drug Policy Alliance and the Lindesmith
Center, two drug-reform think tanks. "This is not about trying to
open more casinos or making more money selling cigarettes.

"The only thing these three men have in common is they passionately
hate the war on drugs," he said. "They consider it a grave injustice
in American society."

Drug use, they say, amounts to a personal choice that should not lead
to harsh legal penalties as long as sales or trafficking isn't
involved.

All three men have admitted to trying marijuana.

Lewis, who has said he smoked marijuana while battling prostate
cancer, was arrested in January 2000 in the Auckland, New Zealand,
airport for possession of hashish and marijuana. The charges were
dismissed after Lewis made an undisclosed contribution to a
drug-rehabilitation center.

The Hungarian-born Soros made billions in financial management --
once earning $2 billion overnight speculating on the value of the
British pound -- before becoming one of the world's most generous
philanthropists. He has given $2.8 billion in the past two decades to
liberal causes worldwide.

Sperling made his fortune as the founder of the University of
Phoenix, a for-profit institution that now has 68,000 students.
Recently, Sperling gave $2.3 million to Texas A&M for research on
animal cloning, and he is backing Genetics Savings and Clone, a
company he hopes will clone Missy, his 14-year-old dog.

The Ohio Campaign for New Drug Policies is an offshoot of the
California-based Campaign for New Drug Policies, a nonprofit
organization. That group spent $4.2 million on the
treatment-instead-of-incarceration ballot issue, approved by 61
percent of California voters in November 2000.

Bill Zimmerman, head of the parent organization, said the three major
funders typically provide three-fourths of the total cost of a state
campaign. Because of the organization's charter, donors can give any
amount of money but do not receive tax credit. Unlike other nonprofit
groups, the Campaign for New Drug Policies can use its money for
political purposes.

In Ohio, where the drug-issue campaign is expected to cost $3
million, Lewis, Soros and Sperling will chip in $750,000 apiece,
according to Zimmerman's estimate. The remainder will come from other
contributions.

"There are a lot of people interested in this issue who are not
billionaires who will give from $5 to $25,000,'' Zimmerman said.

Edward J. Orlett, a Columbus lobbyist and former state lawmaker who
is managing the Ohio campaign, said petition forms were circulated in
Cleveland six weeks ago and in Columbus about a month ago. Valid
signatures from 335,422 registered voters will be needed by late
August to place the proposal on the ballot.

The campaign is using paid circulators to gather signatures, focusing
on places such as the Ohio State University campus, shopping malls
and grocery stores.

"It's going very well," Orlett said. He's not sure how many
signatures have been collected but said petition forms for 100,000
names have been distributed.

Circulators, he said, will soon begin working in Dayton and Cincinnati.

Arguing Against It

Opposition to the proposal, meanwhile, is mounting.

John E. Murphy, executive director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys
Association, said the organization's executive committee, including
Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien, voted late last year to
oppose the measure.

In a position paper, the committee reasoned that drug treatment is
not a constitutional issue, eligibility standards are vague, and that
it would tie the hands of courts and corrupt the judicial process.

"This entire process is tailor-made for those who have no qualms
about taking advantage of the system for their own ends, and who have
no interest in treatment or reformation," the prosecutors said.

Among the fiercest opponents is Luceille Fleming, director of the
Ohio Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services under three
governors, including Taft.

If voters approve the issue, Fleming predicts "some quite serious
implications," such as 90-day limits on jail time for any
drug-possession offense. Judges can now assign sentences of up to 18
months.

"It seriously diminishes accountability of the criminal offender,"
Fleming said.

Likewise, she added, it "fails to recognize the efforts of state and
local communities in establishing drug courts."

Fleming said the amendment would not allow any of the earmarked money
to be spent on alcoholism treatment or programs for adolescents with
substance-abuse problems.

Living With Reform

California has had mixed results in implementing the drug-treatment
network that voters approved as Proposition 36 in November 2000.

In Los Angeles County, 31 percent of the 4,329 people sentenced to
drug treatment between July 1 and Dec. 31 last year dropped out
before completing the program. San Diego saw a dropout rate of 46
percent.

Initial statistics from Los Angeles also showed that treatment was
not confined to first- and second-time offenders. The average
participant had been arrested 14 times previously and had two felony
convictions, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Kathryn Jett, director of the California Department of Alcohol and
Drug Programs, said the program is operating in all 58 counties.

"There's an intensive rush to judgment," she said. "Is it working?
Is it effective? It's far too soon to say.

"It's forced the systems that probably should have been talking
together all along to do so."

Establishing treatment programs after the amendment passed, Jett
said, required many new regulations and re-regulation.

The process also has proved more expensive than billed. It is running
$8 million more than the $120 million earmarked by voters.

With California facing budget problems, Jett said, she was forced to
cut other programs such as prenatal care. She could not, by law,
touch the money set aside for drug treatment.

In Florida, as in Ohio, the Lewis-, Soros- and Sperling-backed effort
to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot is meeting opposition.

Jim McDonough, Jett's and Fleming's counterpart in Florida, called
the plan "disingenuous," charging that it substitutes "fake
treatment" for the real thing.

"I don't agree that the voting public understands the bill of goods
they're being handed here," McDonough said.

"At it's core, the ballot initiative is really a camel's nose under
the tent to seek to legalize drugs."