HAMILTON — A state issue likely to appear on

        the Nov. 5 general election ballot would change the way some drug offenders are handled.

        But whether that change is good, whether it's needed and whether the proposed constitutional amendment would accomplish what its supporters claim is being vigorously debated.

        On Thursday, the debate came to Butler County, home to one of the state's few drug courts for adult felony drug offenders.

        In an informational session sponsored by the county's Alcohol & Drug Addiction Services Board, an assistant prosecutor and a major supporter of the Ohio Drug Treatment Initiative squared off. About 50 people attended the event at the Hamiltonian Hotel.

        Edward J. Orlett, a former longtime state representative who now directs the Ohio Campaign for New Drug Policies, said 70 of Ohio's 88 counties lack drug courts. If approved, the amendment “would make every court in this state a drug court,” Mr. Orlett said. The goal, he said, is simply to keep low-level, non-violent drug users — not those who deal drugs — from going to prison. Instead, they belong in treatment programs “so that they become tax-paying instead of tax-using citizens.”

        Per person, drug treatment costs $3,500 a year; prison, $23,000 a year, he said.

        Barbara Schneider Carter, a Butler County assistant prosecutor who focuses on drug court cases and is active in the state's drug court movement, disputed many of Mr. Orlett's assertions.

        She doubts the amendment would save as much money as its supporters claim, noting the hidden cost of conducting additional hearings that it would require. She questions where the state will get the $38 million a year the amendment would mandate.

        Ms. Carter also argued that current laws already give low-level drug offenders a chance for treatment in lieu of conviction.

        Ms. Carter agrees that Ohio should spend more on drug treatment. But, she said, holding up a copy of the proposed amendment, “This is not the way to do it.”

        A constitutional amendment would be much harder to modify than a state law and would have far-reaching consequences, she said. Ms. Carter likened the amendment to “a Bill of Rights for drug offenders.” She said the amendment takes away too much discretion from judges and listed many law-enforcement and judicial organizations that are publicly opposing it.

        An umbrella opposition group, Ohioans Against Unsafe Drug Laws, offers further information on its Web site: www.unsafedruglaws.com. Mr. Orlett's organization also provides a Web site: www.ohiodrugreform.org.

Uniforms are catching on, with little fight
Lemmie: Businesses must listen to boycotters
Freedom Center structure going up
Honus Wagner card vanishes
9 'probable' W. Nile cases investigated
Allen wants to open records of abuse allegations
Civilian wants to be treated like cops
Federated stands by NAACP
Germans pay visit to Blue Ash
Obituary: Elias L. Levine, engine designer
Reading help is just for kids
Schools put money issues to voters
BRONSON: Reparations rally
HOWARD: Some Good News
SMITH AMOS: Downtown melee
Drug court may be up to voters
Ex-police chief on probation
Hospital's location still not selected
Lawyers support councilman
Plan will bypass Oxford voters
Warren Co. voters face money issues
Work on I-75 ramps at Monroe speeded
Youth reproduce memorial
Bill would create Amber Alert in Ohio
Mother of sunburned children says she didn't commit a crime
Fugitive's conviction upheld
Kentucky News Briefs