DRUG LAWS NOT FOR CONSTITUTION

Ohio could have a new drug war next year.

The Campaign for New Drug Policies wants to put a measure on the
ballot that would require treatment for all first- and second-time
nonviolent drug offenders. The idea was adopted in California, and
there are efforts to put it on the ballot in Michigan and Florida.

Meanwhile, supporters are charging that the Taft administration is
illegally trying to stymie their efforts. They have a paper trail
wherein administration officials discuss how to defeat the measure.
The Taft people say the idea is "de facto decriminalization" of drug
use.

The proposal is a bad idea. As a general rule, a constitution ought
to be for big, structural issues, not garden-variety laws.

The idea of treatment over incarceration is one many policy-makers
largely embrace. They know it's cheaper than putting people in
prison. But, really, the problem is not that nonviolent first-time
offenders are going to jail; it's that not all of them have access to
treatment. This measure calls for up to 18 months of help.

Some experts disagree with codifying the notion that offenders get
two free bites before facing prison. They argue that the threat of
prison is one of the things that keeps people in treatment. They
don't want to forfeit that leverage.

That's an argument that's tough to overcome.