KING TAFT HAS NO USE FOR TRIVIALITIES SUCH AS DEMOCRACY

After all these years, His Highness Bob Taft still has an arrogant
disregard for democracy, as reflected in his ongoing efforts to scuttle a
proposed amendment to treat drug offenders instead of jailing them.

Years ago, The Athens NEWS caught a glimpse of Taft's sense of his own
majestic worth. Back in the mid-1980s, he blew a gasket when we became the
only newspaper in the state that refused to fall in line behind his
coronation as secretary of state. God forbid a voter or newspaper make a
choice that runs contrary to King Bob's royal expectations.

On Friday, the Columbus Dispatch reported that the Taft administration has
mounted a behind-the-scenes effort to torpedo a constitutional amendment
that deals with drug offenders. If Taft's efforts succeed, Ohioans will not
have an opportunity to vote on a proposal that received substantial public
support in California where voters approved Proposition 36 in 2000.

According to the article, backers of the amendment, the Ohio Campaign for
New Drug Policies, charged that the Taft administration broke the law by
using tax-funded state employees and facilities in its campaign against the
amendment drive. Taft defenders denied any illegality, pointing out that
campaign laws cannot be violated as long as the drug amendment hasn't been
certified for the ballot.

Whether their sneak attack violates the law or not, it subverts the
interests of Ohio citizens who should have a say in this matter. The Taft
anti-amendment campaign also violates common sense. Repeated studies show
that drug treatment is much less costly and much more effective than
imprisonment.

Under the amendment, first-or second-time non-violent drug possession
offenders would be provided treatment instead of being jailed. This would
not apply to those convicted of selling or manufacturing illegal drugs. Any
offender who relapsed, either by not cooperating with the treatment program
or failing a drug test, would go to jail.

While the program would require annual state funding of $38 million,
according to the Dispatch, supporters claim correctly that treatment costs
a fraction of imprisonment.

This doesn't just apply to the simple cost of treatment versus jail. A 1994
study by RAND's Drug Policy Research Center showed that every additional
dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers $7.46 in
societal costs.

And those costs to society aren't just figured in dollars and cents. We're
talking about human lives. As progressive countries in other parts of the
West have found, treatment for drug abusers has a much higher chance of
leading toward recovery and rehabilitation than imprisonment, which amounts
to a revolving door or dead end for most offenders. People arrested for
possession of small amounts of illegal drugs generally are only hurting
themselves and their loved ones; jailing them does the same thing.

It makes much more sense to give non-serious drug offenders a shot at
treatment and recovery, so they can better themselves, remain with their
families, and become -- or continue to be -- productive citizens.

The Taft administration already is planning to have the governor speak out
against the amendment, according to the Dispatch report, among other things
arguing that treatment for drug offenders would weaken prosecution of
people caught with "date rape" drugs.

The same bogus strategy was attempted by opponents of Prop. 36 in
California. A judge subsequently forced them to remove the argument from
their ballot pamphlet because it was "false and misleading." In reality,
those convicted of possessing a drug intended for another party would not
be eligible for treatment under the drug treatment amendment.

The only negative fallout so far from Proposition 36 in California involves
the number of chronic addicts who have taken advantage of treatment under
the program. This has resulted in a demand for the sort of intense,
residential treatment that Prop. 36 backers didn't foresee, and which many
communities in California are ill prepared to provide. However, the fact
that these people are now coming in for treatment has to be seen as
benefit, both for these individuals and society.

Meanwhile, according to a Nov. 15 report in the L.A. Times, California
prison officials report that between July 1, when the law took effect, and
Nov. 4, the incarcerated population fell by 2,400 inmates, a drop
attributed mainly to Prop. 36.

It will take time for California to shift its resources from prisons, which
cost $25,000 per inmate annually, to a range of treatment alternatives, but
the end result will be less money better spent. The same would apply in
Ohio, which has the added benefit of being able to learn from California's
example.

With so many persuasive financial and social reasons for supporting a drug
treatment amendment, it's all the more puzzling why King Taft would go out
of his way to keep this initiative away from Ohio voters.

Perhaps it's the old War on Drugs mentality kicking in. For decades,
politicians almost reflexively have supported any harshening of penalties
against drug or alcohol offenders. They worry that any other position will
expose them to the career-killing criticism of being "soft on drugs."

The results of this political cowardice are manifest in Ohio and elsewhere.
Despite decades of draconian drug policy, drug use remains commonplace and
the prisons continue to serve as holding pens for thousands of people who
could be receiving treatment, taking care of themselves and their families,
and contributing to the economy and society.

The initiative currently under consideration (petitions are due to go out
early next year, with an eye toward putting the amendment on the fall 2002
ballot) will allow our brave political class to sit this one out, and let
Ohio citizens decide for themselves whether treatment is a better
alternative than jail for minor drug offenders.