 |
|
EDITORIAL
Issue
1: good goal, wrong method
Reading the propaganda and other campaign information being circulated
by proponents and opponents of State Issue 1 can lead one to understand
just how confusing this proposal is. Both sides of the debate contradict
each other with slick catch phrases, biting commentaries and conflicting
polling numbers.
Proponents say the proposal, would mandate treatment, instead of jail,
for nonviolent first-time and second-time drug offenders, is the greatest
thing since sliced bread. Opponents say the proposal just plains stinks,
calling it the “Drug Offenders Amendment.”
Part of the confusion may originate in the fact that Issue 1 is a confusing,
complex proposal that totals almost 6,500 words. If approved by voters
in the Nov. 5 election, the plan would become part of the Ohio Constitution
and would require the state to pay $247 million over the next seven years
to fund expanded drug treatment programs in Ohio.
Providing more treatment options for nonviolent drug offenders is a decent,
worthwhile goal. This proposal, however, would establish a cumbersome
policy that, in its current form, should not become law. Voters should
say no on Nov. 5.
The main problem with Issue 1 is that, if approved, it would become part
of the Constitution, where it could only be changed through another ballot
initiative. According to the Ohio Sentencing Commission, less than 9 percent
of first-time, single-count drug offenders end up in prison. Given that
low number, it does not make sense to place a drug treatment plan in the
Constitution.
What’s driving this is a nationwide effort to find alternatives to
the country’s war of drugs. In fact, similar proposals are on the
ballot in several other states, and California and Arizona voters approved
related plans recently. Proponents of Issue 1 say passing this plan through
a statewide vote is the only way to get it approved since the Ohio General
Assembly has dragged its feet on similar proposals.
Given the dubious drug war and the swelling number of prisoners, Ohio
should do more to promote alternatives to jail for low-level, nonviolent
drug offenders. The state, for instance, should provide more resources
to substance abuse and job training programs. Ohio should also make a
difference by expanding its fledgling drug court system. These changes,
however, can be made more effectively than through the passage of Issue
1.
—Robert
Mihalek
|
