By Spencer Hunt
Enquirer Columbus Bureau

T H E   P R O P O S A L

Current law: First- and second-time nonviolent drug felonies can serve their prison sentences, up to 18 months, or enter a treatment program supervised by a drug-court judge. Offenders who break the rules could be jailed. Ballot proposal: Removes the option of prison time; imposes treatment for first- and second-time offenders who have not been convicted of more serious crimes. Upon completion of a treatment program of 12 or 18 months, the conviction could be removed from court records.

Americans spend $19 billion yearly to help fight the war on drugs. On Election Day, Ohio voters will weigh in.

A proposed constitutional amendment on the Nov. 5 ballot gives voters a chance to fundamentally alter state drug laws and policies.

Called Issue 1, the amendment would transform Ohio's justice system and divert thousands of non-violent offenders into treatment programs instead of prisons and jails.

The proposal is rooted in a belief that it is better and less expensive in the long run to try to cure drug addicts than simply warehouse them behind bars. While the savings are unknown, taxpayers would spend $247 million over the next seven years to cover expanded drug-treatment costs.

The issue pits a coalition of politicians, judges, prosecutors, police and treatment officials who back the status quo against a trio of wealthy businessmen who have decided the war on drugs is a failure.

Billionaires George Soros, Peter Lewis and John Sperling led a $1 million petition drive that put Issue 1 on the ballot. Although opinion polls show public support is sagging here, they won similar drug-treatment campaigns in Arizona and California easily.

"Most people who are arrested are like you or me. They just happened to get busted with a controlled substance in their pocket," said Richard Wolfe, a Columbus native and California businessman who gave $200,000 to the Ohio treatment campaign.

"We're sending kids to prison where they learn to be high-end criminals," Mr. Wolfe said. "Is this a good thing to do? I don't think so."

Issue 1's opponents argue the proposed amendment would wreck a legal system that's putting more and more non-violent offenders into treatment each year.

Ohio has 27 county drug courts that put non-violent offenders into treatment programs. Last year these courts dealt with about 3,500 arrested offenders, according to the Ohio Judicial Conference.

Issue 1 would essentially turn every Ohio court into a drug court. First- and second-time non-violent offenders could demand treatment at any point after they are arrested or during their trials.

Once that request is made, a court-appointed treatment official would determine which services and programs an offender needs. That person would get two chances to complete treatment before a judge could order jail or prison time as punishment.

Those people who complete treatment programs would have their criminal records sealed, in an effort to help them find jobs.

Issue 1 would make court officials treat every non-violent drug offender as a first-time offender even if there were a long history of prior non-violent arrests.

Of the $38 million that would be spent on treatment each year, only 15 percent could be spent on administrative costs of running the program. Some county officials say they'll need much more than that to cover their costs.

All these requirements anger judges, who would lose the power to make treatment decisions themselves. Among other things, they say, their ability to immediately jail offenders is vital to get them to take treatment seriously.

"Ohio's courts are far ahead of the national curve in my view," said Madison County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Nichols, a vocal opponent to Issue 1. "Now, out of the blue, we get this (amendment)."

Court and treatment officials also argue that most non-violent offenders don't go to jail or prison. A study of 123 Montgomery County offenders sent to prison on possession charges showed they had prior felony convictions or they accepted plea bargains.

Issue 1 supporters point to statistics from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections that show 2,592 people are sent to prison on low-level drug-possession charges each year.

Including parole violators, and offenders sent to county jails and community prisons, they estimate up to 4,100 people will get treatment instead of incarceration each year.

Dave Fratello, the campaign's legal and political director, said the amendment does take away judges' powers. He said that's necessary to make sure that every court in Ohio follows the drug-treatment proposal to the letter. He also said it's better to put treatment decisions into the hands of health professionals, not judges.

Judges can still jail offenders, he added, just not right away.

While the debate rages over this complex 6,500-word amendment and everything it would or would not do, its $247 million cost has risen to become the one factor that will determine its fate.

The ballot summary voters will read Nov. 5 lists the seven-year cost in its first paragraph. Issue 1 supporters say this is unfair because the ballot language does not mention Ohioans would save millions more in reduced prison, jail, police, court, health and welfare costs.

Supporters estimate Ohio would save $21 million a year over treatment costs, but there's no reliable estimates showing just how many would be eligible for treatment. Experts also disagree over how the court system will react to Issue 1, how much it costs to jail drug offenders and how much time they spend behind bars.

Douglas A. Berman, an Ohio State University law professor specializing in criminal sentencing, said there's no way any average voter can thoroughly analyze what Issue 1 will do.

"The core issue is, do we as a society want to lock up people or put them in treatment," Mr. Berman said. "I think I would prefer Issue 1 simply if it said that."

E-mail shunt@enquirer.com