Pubdate: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 Source: Athens News, The (OH) Copyright: 2001, Athens News Contact: http://www.athensnews.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1603 Author: Terry Smith, Athens NEWS Editor Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/rehab.htm (Treatment) 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. - --- MAP posted-by: Jackl