GOV. TAFT RELUCTANTLY DISCOVERS DRUG LAW REFORM

An attempt by a group of citizens to change Ohio's handling of nonviolent
drug offenders has forced Gov. Bob Taft to hastily pull out, dust off and
fine-tune his long-neglected policies regarding the criminalization of drug
users.

As reported last month in CityBeat, the Ohio Committee for New Drug
Policies (OCNDP) plans to place a constitutional amendment on the November
ballot. The initiative would require that certain nonviolent drug offenders
receive treatment instead of incarceration.

With polls indicating that many view drug addiction as a disease, not a
crime, the OCNDP initiative could succeed in Ohio. In recent ABC News and
Columbus Dispatch polls, a majority of the respondents, respectively 69 and
74 percent, favored treatment over prison for drug users.

But the ballot initiative contains several provisions the Taft
administration finds objectionable. According to documents obtained by the
OCNDP from Taft, his wife and his staffers through a public-records
request, the administration's primary concern is the OCNDP's proposed
amendment limits judicial authority over drug offenders who fail to
complete the treatment program.

These documents indicate that, because the administration recognizes the
popularity of the OCNDP's message and don't want the initiative to pass,
they might soon address drug policy reform.

During a July 2001 strategy meeting in Washington, D.C., Ohio state agency
heads and anti-drug groups discussed the need for Ohio to counteract the
OCNDP with policy reforms that the public would embrace.

"We must do drug reform if we want to win," writes Marcie Seidel, Hope
Taft's chief of staff, in her meeting notes. "[The] general public does not
want to put users in prison -- they want them to have treatment."

The message is also evident in meeting notes taken by Domingo Herraiz,
director of Ohio's Office of Criminal Justice Services: "Develop
legislation that would counteract the NDP possible amendment ... Let the
first offensive strategy be the development of a legislative initiative
that will show how progressive Ohio is."

Numerous other bullet points from this meeting demonstrate the emphasis the
attendees place on preempting the OCNDP initiative through drug policy reform.

"Review and update our drug policies in order to counteract this initiative
... Understand that the public wants reform ... Meet with Criminal
Sentencing Commission to adjust several Ohio laws that would be more
palatable to the citizenry and weaken the position of the NDP ... Introduce
legislation -- on behalf of Ohio -- that will show governor as 'reformer.' "

While Ohio administers a judicial program that provides treatment in lieu
of incarceration and maintains the court monitoring favored by Taft, the
program is so inadequately funded that it is nearly nonexistent. According
to the administration's statistics, fewer than 5 percent of eligible drug
offenders have access to Ohio's drug courts, the state's only program
offering treatment as an alternative to imprisonment.

Such inadequate funding is difficult to understand, given the success rate
of drug courts, as consistently shown in dozens of studies from around the
country. In Dade County, Fla., only 11 percent of drug-court graduates
reenter the judicial system, compared to a 60 percent recidivism rate for
incarcerated drug offenders.

In Arizona, 78 percent of drug-court graduates remain drug-free. In
Rochester, N.Y., drug courts cut a 70 percent recidivism rate to 11
percent. In Hamilton County, the home of Ohio's first drug court, the
program reduced recidivism rates by 26 percent.

Because studies also show that drug courts quickly pay for themselves,
Ohio's under-funding of drug courts is wholly unnecessary. In a recent
press release, the U.S. Department of Justice, which offers grants for the
establishment and operation of drug courts, reported that for every dollar
spent on Portland, Ore.'s drug court system the city saved $2.50 in
criminal justice expenses and an additional $7.50 on other crime-related
costs, such as those related to theft and victimization.

The Arizona study cited above also revealed that its successful drug court
program saved taxpayers $2.5 million in its first year of operation by
keeping offenders out of expensive prisons.

The Taft administration is aware of the effectiveness and savings potential
of drug courts. In a memo to Brian Hicks, Taft's chief of staff, Luceille
Fleming, director of the Ohio Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction
Services, brags about the success of these courts.

"Ohio's drug courts have on average a 64 to 75 percent rate of keeping
graduates free from arrest and future drug use," Fleming writes. "That's a
phenomenal success story."

In the same memo, Fleming addresses both the fiscal soundness and
effectiveness of drug courts.

"Drug courts cost less than prison time and are much more effective in
breaking the cycle of addiction and incarceration," she writes.

According to notes taken at anti-OCNDP strategy sessions, the ballot
initiative has finally forced the state's executive branch to consider
expanding the drug court system.

"Increase drug courts in state ... Identify funding for drug court
expansion ... Commit to removing nonviolent drug offenders from Ohio
prisons," the notes say.

But even with the OCNDP breathing down its neck and even though they
recognize drug courts work, Taft's administration still appears somewhat
hesitant to implement these changes.

"[Drug reform] takes us to a place that we normally would not go, such as
changing drug laws," say Herraiz's notes from the Washington meeting.

This hesitancy is also apparent in discussions concerning potential
strategies for defeating the ballot initiative, strategies that exclude
drug policy reform. One such strategy is to show voters the cost of the
ballot initiative without showing the savings or social effectiveness.

"Determine what our costs are for the new legislation amendment -- how much
will it cost tax payers and sell that to the public -- build off of the
anti-tax theme as if this was taxation," the notes say.

Another option is to merely promote the current drug court system: "Attend
drug court graduations along with a media representative."

Taft has virtually ignored the state's drug court system and, after three
years in office, has yet to develop a comprehensive drug policy. Because of
pressure applied by the OCNDP's ballot initiative, it now appears he will
endorse, perhaps even reluctantly expand, drug courts.

But even if Taft is forced to finally act in a substantive manner, Ohio
deserves more than this reactionary leadership. Ohio deserves a government
that intelligently analyzes and evaluates important issues and
energetically and voluntarily backs effective, proven and cost-effective
strategies.