Friday, March 29, 2002
Paid petition circulators are hard at work in Ohio trying to put on the November ballot an amendment to the state constitution that would replace jail sentences with treatment for first- and second-time non-violent drug offenders. Ohio, however, already has drug courts that balance treatment options with jail terms for those who don't complete their treatment programs or are repeat offenders. The state doesn't need a measure that would, in essence, legalize street drugs.
Supporters of the measure say that drug courts are inadequate to handle the number of drug users and that drug courts have limited reach. This may be true in the other states that the Campaign for New Drug Policies has initiated its so-called reform measures, but it's premature to criticize Ohio's program when it is still in its early stages.
Local example: Many courts in the state are interested in establishing a drug court as Judge John Durkin has in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, but judges first want to evaluate the experiences of existing programs before they move ahead. And we agree that Ohio's program should be fully realized before amending the state constitution to lock in an expensive alternative.
The measure calls for an allocation of $38 million in state funds for treatment of drug abusers. Of course, this assumes that the individually designed treatment plans the law calls for, including literacy training, vocational training, family counseling and similar services that can help address the problems underlying drug abuse, can be attained within the mandated budget.
According to its backers, "the initiative will turn back the clock and require the state government to restore funding levels in place in fiscal year 2001 for drug treatment, prevention and related rehabilitation programs." Given the state's severe financial problems, it's hard to imagine where the funds are to come from for such an ambitious plan -- even if, as backers suggest, reduced costs in the prison system will more than pay for it.
But such expectations have yet to be demonstrated. Giving some of those convicted of non-violent drug crimes the opportunity to choose treatment and rehabilitation is not the same as assuming that every first- and second-time drug offender desires treatment or, more important, will successfully complete a treatment program.
We appreciate the sincerity of those funding the initiative campaign -- Peter B. Lewis, chairman of Cleveland-based Progressive Insurance; John Spurling, founder of the University of Phoenix, and billionaire philanthropist George Soros -- in favoring rehabilitation over incarceration.
But as far as we are concerned, drug abuse is both a personal choice and a crime that has a deleterious effect on individuals, families and communities. And crimes deserve punishment.