Pubdate: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 Source: Columbus Dispatch (OH) Copyright: 2001 The Columbus Dispatch Contact: http://www.dispatch.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/93 Author: Alan Johnson BATTLE BEGINS OVER PROPOSAL TO CHANGE DRUG LAW Even before it gets to the ballot, a proposed state constitutional amendment to treat drug offenders instead of jailing them faces stiff opposition from the Taft administration. Yesterday, backers of the Ohio Campaign for New Drug Policies charged that the administration illegally mounted a behind-the-scenes campaign against the issue using state employees and state facilities at taxpayer expense. "State officials have plotted to blockade our initiative, to keep it off the ballot, and ultimately to confuse and scare voters into opposing it," said Edward J. Orlett, a lobbyist and former state legislator who is campaign manager for the drug initiative that backers hope to get on the statewide ballot in November 2002. "What we have found is not mere monitoring or discussion of our initiative, but a range of clearly wrong and unethical campaigning activities." A Taft spokesman yesterday defended the administration's actions, calling the ballot initiative "a de facto decriminalization of drugs." Documents obtained by Orlett seem to show an orchestrated effort by top officials in the Taft administration, including Chief of Staff Brian K. Hicks; Hope Taft, the governor's wife; and Luceille Fleming, director of the Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services, to block the issue from getting to the ballot or defeat it if it does. There has also been consideration of putting together a competing drug-reform plan for submission to the legislature, documents show. "The first line and best possible defense against the proposed Constitutional amendment is to keep it off the ballot," Fleming wrote in a Sept. 13 memo to Taft aide Greg Moody. Hope Taft, a longtime campaigner against drug and alcohol abuse, was among those who attended a Nov. 7 meeting to discuss opposing the drug initiative. The meeting was held in the governor's offices on the 30th floor of the Riffe Center. Administration officials were apparently aware of the fine line they walk in challenging the issue. "We need to find out . . . what we can and can't do, what the trigger is that we can't go past once it becomes more than an issue," said Ann Husted, Taft's special events coordinator and a longtime Republican political operative. The group discussed media events at which Taft will speak out against the amendment and point to the value of the "hammer of incarceration." That strategy, which has been employed in Florida, involves using arguments that the amendment would weaken prosecution of "date-rape drugs," having the governor lobby legislators and mayors, and enlisting the support of police and sheriffs. One of the documents shows the Taft administration clearly wanted to keep hands off fund-raising in fighting the drug issue, suggesting it should be handled through the Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services or with the help of Andy Futey, a Taft appointee to the Ohio Lottery Commission. "The governor is not for this (proposal)," Taft spokesman Joe Andrews said yesterday. "He's spoken with experts and drug court officials and will oppose it. He thinks it's a de facto decriminalization of drugs. He's concerned about bringing the failed California drug experiment to Ohio." Andrews said the governor and his staff have done nothing improper because the issue has not been certified to appear on the ballot. "People from out of state are coming in and going against the governor's policies," Andrews said. "He feels he has a right to defend them." Carlo LoParo, spokesman for Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, said Ohio campaign-finance laws have not been triggered because the issue is not on the ballot. Despite the opposition, it appears the issue will move forward. Ohio Attorney General Betty D. Montgomery yesterday tentatively approved the ballot language for the issue after reviewing it for 10 weeks. The issue will now be sent to the Franklin County Board of Elections to certify that the 100 signatures accompanying the proposal are from registered voters. Backers of the initiative must then begin the task of gathering 335,422 valid signatures from at least 44 counties to put the issue before voters next year. The initiative would provide treatment instead of jail time for first- or second-time, nonviolent drug-possession offenders. Those convicted of trafficking, manufacturing or selling drugs, or drunken driving would be ineligible for the program. The program would require annual state funding of $38 million. However, backers claim the price tag of treatment -- about $3,500 per year -- is less costly than incarceration, roughly $22,000 annually. Treatment programs would last up to 18 months. Those who drop out of treatment would go to jail. The Campaign for New Drug Policies, a California group that backed Proposition 36, a similar amendment in that state, is also supporting ballot issues in Florida and Michigan next year. The group is backed by Peter B. Lewis, chairman of Progressive Insurance in Cleveland and a major Democratic campaign contributor; billionaire financier/philanthropist George Soros; and John Spurling, founder of the University of Phoenix. Dave Fratello, national campaign director, said the reaction of Ohio officials is similar to what happened in other states. "The public is way ahead of the politicians on this issue," he said. "It's no surprise to see the old guard fight a change this dramatic in drug policy. "What's new is the arrogance and the willingness to illegally use state resources and employees to assemble and pursue a campaign." - --- MAP posted-by: Beth