Pubdate: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 Source: Florida Today (FL) Copyright: 2001 FLORIDA TODAY Contact: http://www.flatoday.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/532 Author: James McDonough Note: McDonough is director of the Florida Office of Drug Control Policy First Of Four Guest Columns PROPOSAL IS A FREE PASS FOR ABUSERS The proposed constitutional amendment, "Right to Treatment and Rehabilitation for Nonviolent Drug Offenses," would be more accurately titled "Right to Abuse Drugs." It legalizes, de facto, the possession, purchase and use of all drugs - crack cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, marijuana, cocaine, Ecstasy and otherwise controlled pharmaceuticals such as the powerful and deadly oxycodone and fentanyl. Although the wording of the proposed amendment indicates such legalization applies only to first and second offenses, it allows that any number of drug possessions and purchases can be linked together during a "single criminal episode" to qualify as a single offense. This provision stands the law on its head by creating a free pass for the repeated commission of felonies occurring with the purchase, possession and use of Schedule I controlled substances listed in Florida Statute section 893 (i.e., dangerous and illegal drugs). Law enforcement most likely would be confounded in its attempt to prohibit drug felonies for purchase and possession, since there would be no consequences on the offender for a lawful arrest. The magical "third" offense would never occur, for the first two offenses arrests would be discounted. Moreover, the proposed amendment defeats its own stated purpose by undermining successful treatment by removing any sense of personal responsibility for the individual being treated. Treatment is defined as a "right;" indeed, use of the word "right" is stressed and repeated throughout the length of the amendment. While the taxpayer is given an obligation to pay for treatment, the drug abuser is held to no requirement to refrain from using drugs or to see treatment through to successful completion. Successful outcomes are not demanded and therefore, I can only conclude, not expected. The offender needs only to put in his or her time without concern for the outcomes. As the amendment reads, success or 18 months - "whichever comes first" - is the only requirement necessary to permit the individual to be excused from prosecution, sentencing or continuing court supervision. In this manner, the amendment would render moot the entire Florida drug court system by removing the strong incentives of the criminal justice system to stay the course, as there would be no penalties for failure. An offender may demand treatment as a right at any time, from the moment of being charged with the offense through conviction and sentencing. In so doing, at one fell swoop the ability of the drug court to monitor or supervise the progress of the "client" is removed. What's left is an unfunded mandate that will lead to increased crime in Florida while ensuring that fewer of our addicted population receive effective treatment. The proposed amendment ignores in its entirety both the richness and effectiveness of Florida's drug court system and the substantial increases (over $100 million) in treatment funding for Florida over the past two years. This is a cynical, imported ballot initiative that would normalize the use of drugs, confound the law in any attempt to curtail drug abuse and its felonious consequences, and remove the one element from treatment that all professionals agree is needed for success: strong incentive to get clean of drugs and stay clean. - --- MAP posted-by: Beth