cannabisnews.com: Proposed Constitution Change Would Treat Drug User





Proposed Constitution Change Would Treat Drug User
Posted by FoM on December 04, 2001 at 07:41:50 PT
By Dale Emch, Blade Staff Writer
Source: Toledo Blade
A California organization backed by three multimillionaires wants voters to amend Ohio’s Constitution to require that first or second-time drug offenders be sentenced to treatment rather than jail.The Campaign for New Drug Policies, based in Santa Monica, Calif., soon plans to circulate petitions across Ohio to get voters to place the amendment on the November, 2002, ballot.
The amendment would not only supplant judicial discretion in sentencing, but would require the Ohio General Assembly to provide an unalterable funding stream of $38 million through 2009 for drug treatment programs.Creating such mandates doesn’t set well with several local judges, state officials already facing a cash crunch, and even some local drug treatment program directors.But that doesn’t bother the campaign officials, who need 335,000 signatures or 10 percent of the vote total in the last governor’s race, in order to get the amendment on Ohio ballots. They believe that voters here will do what those in California did – ignore their elected officials and other naysayers and approve the amendment."The political establishment opposed us and many [newspaper] editorial boards opposed us, but we still passed with 61 percent of the vote," Dave Fratello, a campaign spokesman, said of the group’s successful California effort.The campaign plans to use big money from its backers to get their message across to voters in Ohio.The trio who shepherded the win in California are Peter B. Lewis, of Cleveland, the recently retired CEO of Progressive Insurance; John Sperling, of Arizona, founder of the University of Phoenix, and financier George Soros of New York. They provide about 75 percent of the organization’s budget.Mr. Fratello said about $4 million was spent in California, and a substantial amount is expected to be poured into the Ohio drive as well. The cash will be used to warm voters to the idea that people with drug addictions should be treated rather than jailed.Violent criminals and drug dealers would not be eligible for the program, he said.About 1,600 inmates are in Ohio prisons exclusively for drug possession charges, according to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. At a rate of $22,200 a year to house a prisoner, it costs about $35.5 million to incarcerate that population.Another 2,400 inmates who are jailed for drug possession and other nonviolent felonies might have been able to avoid prison under the campaign’s proposal, depending on the nature of their charges and their criminal records.Mr. Fratello said the organization doesn’t think people should be jailed just for having a drug addiction."This is just a philosophical disagreement. Our view is that incarceration is more of a last resort. It shouldn’t be the first thing you do to someone," Mr. Fratello said."To resort to what is only punishment right away is using a blunt instrument when a little more creativity can result in more positive changes," he said.State and local officials say that Ohio judges already have the right to send drug abusers to treatment programs - some of which are in lock-down facilities - rather than to prison through the optional treatment in lieu of conviction.If a defendant asks for treatment, he or she enters a plea, but a finding of guilt is put on hold, until treatment is completed. If the defendant successfully completes treatment, the charges are dismissed. Defendants who don’t make it through successfully can be sent to prison.This differs from the constitutional amendment proposal, which wouldn’t allow someone to be imprisoned until after a second offense."I don’t send them to prison for a first offense of drug abuse anyway," Lucas County Common Pleas Judge Ronald Bowman said. "I have them take the treatment, and I keep the prison sentence over their head."Common Pleas Judge William Skow said he too usually opts to give someone a second shot at treatment rather than send them to prison after a relapse. But he emphasized that his patience isn’t boundless."If they’re a first-time offender, I don’t think they belong in prison," the judge said. "At some level it’s an illness - but I don’t think you can go forever without a prison sanction."Though the movement here has flown mostly under the radar of the general public because the petitions have not yet hit the streets, state leaders such as Gov. Bob Taft and top legislators know the debate will be contentious if the controversial issue goes to the voters.The campaign directors are haggling with Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery’s office over the language that will be placed on the petitions circulated among voters.Mr. Taft has yet to come out with an official position on the proposal, but spokesman Joe Andrews said the governor’s office is opposed to the amendment language it has seen so far."This has no business going into our constitution," said Domingo Herraiz, who serves under Mr. Taft as director of the Office of Criminal Services. "Can you imagine muddying the constitution with specific state agencies and specific processes in the constitution? This is legislation, not a constitutional amendment."If what happened in California is any indication, Ohio legislators are bound to come out in force against the policy changes as well.Toledo Mayor-elect Jack Ford, former leader of the state House Democrats, said he thinks the idea of diverting drug abusers into treatment rather than incarceration has merit.But Mr. Ford agrees with Mr. Herraiz that the legislature should approve such programs and decide how much money should be put behind them."The legislature is there for a reason - to represent the people," said Mr. Ford, who founded Substance Abuse Services, Inc., a nonprofit Toledo organization that provides treatment for addicts. "Things that are unforeseen [around the state] may require new priorities for spending. This shouldn’t be done in such a way that the legislature shouldn’t have oversight."But the people backing the campaign think most Ohio legislators won’t find it politically viable to back such a controversial proposal for dealing with drug abusers, so they want to take the decision out of the hands of elected officials.Charles Saxbe, a Columbus lawyer who is representing the Campaign for New Drug Policies, said the reforms sought by the group probably couldn’t be accomplished in the current conservative legislature."I think there will be a significant resistance to taking the constitutional approach and imposing the funding requirements constitutionally," Mr. Saxbe said. "It’s easy to say there’s a better way, but if you can’t get anyone to step forward and say, ‘I will advance this legislatively and it has a strong chance to succeed,’ this is the only other alternative."Jay Salvage, executive director of the Lucas County Alcohol and Drug Services Board, said he is all for pouring more money into drug abuse programs and making more options available.But Mr. Salvage said he thinks the threat of going to jail helps to motivate addicts to stick with treatment because it takes some time before substance abusers can adjust to sobriety."What the court can do with their hammer is make them stay in treatment long enough so they get a little sobriety so they can start to learn what the treatment system is about," Mr. Salvage said.That there are so many voices of dissent doesn’t surprise Mr. Fratello - the same thing happened in California, which spends about $120 million a year on the program.Because the new law only took effect in July, it’s too early to tell if the goal of treating more addicts while spending less on prisons will be successful.Julia Bates, Lucas County prosecutor, said she likes Ohio’s current system that leaves the decision up to the judges’ discretion because they’re aware of the facts in individual cases.She also doesn’t like that the constitutional amendment proposal doesn’t require a defendant to enter a plea before going into treatment.By the time a defendant fails in two rehabilitation attempts, Mrs. Bates said, it could be a year or two after the initial court appearance. After that much time, she said, trying to prosecute such a stale case would be extremely difficult."I guess my question would be, ‘What does this do better than what we already have?’" she said."We already have procedures that can keep someone from being convicted if they go into treatment."Note: California group tries to put issue on Ohio ballot.Source: Blade, The (OH) Author: Dale Emch, Blade Staff WriterPublished: December 2, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Blade Contact: letters theblade.com Website: http://www.toledoblade.com/ Related Articles:Drug-Zone Law Fails Court Test http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11119.shtmlCalif. Drug Users Get Treatment, Not Jail http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10600.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by i420 on December 11, 2001 at 13:41:24 PT
Free the weed...
You right about the hard drugs FOM. thats why I think so many young people are turning from marijuana to other drugs. They simply are easier to "get away with". Pot is not on the other hand you can smell it on a persons clothes, hair and see it in their bloodshot eyes (visine will cure this).  This is another reason why marijuana prohibition is detrimental to their anti-drug efforts. You want your kids on krack or pot the choice is up to you.
The push down pop up theory might elxplain it more ... you push down on pot they pop up smokin crack ...go figure.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on December 04, 2001 at 21:16:08 PT
i420 
As far as I know you can have three and a half ounces and only get a fine. In our police log that's all I've very seen. I don't understand the treatment issue either. I don't see a big problem with hard drugs. Maybe there around but it isn't easy to notice. I want marijuana reform. I wish so much they could push for marijuana. That would make me so darn happy.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Tim Stone on December 04, 2001 at 20:57:54 PT
Cranky Article
If this article is any indication, the Ohio Establishment is not pleased with this proposed amendment. The reporter had to mention the drug war reform sugar daddies in the first paragraph, naturally. That's a tip-off right there that the reporter gor heavy, and unattributed input from the local town nark. And then the reporter follows with a distinctly ominous, upset-the-apple-cart description of the proposed amendment. Nowhere is there any description of the sky-is-falling opposition to medpot initiatives, all of which passed, and none of which led to catastrophic problems, as the opponents predicted. Nor is there any mention of Arizona's medicalization initiative, or the AZ. Supreme Court-sponsored study that reviewed the effects of the medicalization law and concluded it had saved taxpayers a ton of money and had no obvious down-side, again giving the lie to the opponents. I hate to sound like a cheap Chomsky wanna-be, but this info is easily available to any marginally competent reporter. Yet none of the above info is mentioned. The reporter is either incompetently lazy, or is biased, or is prevented by fear of his editors from actually doing balanced reporting. BTW, I got a bad feeling about the outcome of this ballot item. If it gets in the ballot, tt may well fall victim to the post-9/11 "everything's changed" new world. It may be regarded as frivolous and unneccessary in the revenge-obsessed new world. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by i420 on December 04, 2001 at 13:38:02 PT
Why ??
I don't see the point according to norml.org 1st offence in Ohio for less than a 1/4 pound is a $100 fine now 2nd is a fine also. I think they should be going after medical and hemp on 2 seperate petitions circulated together. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by lookinside on December 04, 2001 at 09:24:44 PT:
when...
legislators begin to represent the voter's interests, the referendum process becomes unimportant...as long as politicians support their contributor's interests over those of the voting public, the voters must be given the opportunity to override their "representatives"...i wish bill gates would jump on the bandwagon...the politicians point at george soros, et al, and whine...but when budweiser donates $10,000 to their campaign, that's ok...hypocrites!
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment