Pubdate: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 Source: Athens News, The (OH) Copyright: 2002, Athens News Contact: http://www.athensnews.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1603 Author: Scott Weaver, LSW, CCJS Note: The "facts" below are disputed by the Frequently Asked Questions at http://www.ohiodrugreform.org/faq.tpl as well as by information provided at http://www.drugwarfacts.org/treatmen.htm Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?206 (Ohio Campaign for New Drug Policies) DESPITE MISCONCEPTIONS, OHIO'S PRISONS DO OFFER DRUG TREATMENT This letter is in response to Jim White's letter regarding the opposition of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections' (ODRC) director, Reginald Wilkinson, to the proposed amendment to Ohio's constitution (State Issue 1). Mr. White portrays this opposition as nothing more than Director Wilkinson playing bureaucratic "turfism" to protect his own. In reality the opposition goes far beyond this. Mr. White appears to have taken the bait from the amendment's proponents, ignoring and glossing over the very significant details contained within the proposed amendment. If more citizens were aware of these details, the majority would certainly be in opposition. The proponents of the amendment want to paint the picture of thousands of harmless, first-time offenders being senselessly and ruthlessly incarcerated in Ohio's prisons. We are to believe that these offenders are currently provided absolutely no treatment opportunities and resources for self-change within the prisons and numerous other facilities and programs funded by ODRC. This is not the case, as anyone familiar with the state's correctional system can attest to. Ohio already has effective means to deal with drug dependent offenders, and a significant overhaul of sentencing options has been in place since 1996 with the passage of Senate Bill 2. Ohio's prison population has significantly dropped since 1996 while ODRC has simultaneously created and funded hundreds of drug and alcohol treatment programs. I would like to share just some of the finer points of this proposed amendment so voter's are not unwittingly led down the black and white path presented by its backers. The lengthy amendment is unsafe as it applies to qualified offenders. It takes away current powers judges use to deal effectively with offenders who ignore or disrupt treatment. It also takes away important aspects of treatment providers' control over offenders in counseling programs. The amendment wipes the slate clean for all previous drug offenses, enabling multiple offense drug abusers to be treated like first time offenders. It drastically reduces maximum incarceration time to only 90 days The amendment does not require drug testing to show the courts that the offenders are clean and on the road to full recovery. Offenders who go through treatment may have their drug offense records sealed and their conviction expunged. School bus drivers, day care workers, airline pilots, nurses, doctors, pharmacists, teachers or construction workers would be able to conceal their drug offenses from current and future employers. It intensifies the revolving door between treatment and court systems. Many crimes like breaking and entering, burglary, auto theft, fraud and embezzlement may not be prosecuted if the offender is charged with a drug offense. Victims of these crimes are left without compensation because the proposed amendment is silent on victims' right to restitution. The amendment requires $19 million dollars in start-up funding and direct funding of $38 million annually for six fiscal years, plus "adequate" funding after 2009. These amounts are on top of current expenditures for drug and alcohol treatment. No funding source is provided. As a counselor to adult male felony offenders for nearly a decade, I consider this amendment dangerous and unproductive. I certainly agree that offenders should be given the opportunities for recovery and self-change, a "carrot" so to speak. But offenders with entrenched anti-social attitudes and beliefs, along with significant drug abuse histories, must also be given a "stick" to follow through and comply with treatment goals. Often this requires the offender to be temporarily removed from his or her community so that they can focus on their behaviors and addictions. I work with offenders on a daily basis who state that they had lied to their community treatment providers and probation officers, used drugs extensively while on probation, and worked hard to circumvent drug testing and self-help groups. They state that it wasn't until they were incarcerated that they really made any effort to save their own lives. This amendment essentially strips the need for the offender to make any effort and be accountable for their self-destructive behavior. Our communities, personal property, homes, families, children and public institutions will be put in jeopardy by this amendment. It ignores current sentencing laws in Ohio that provide treatment in lieu of incarceration for qualified offenders. The proposed amendment establishes treatment as a constitutional right and a priority for certain offenders while those who voluntarily seek treatment have to wait in line. Regardless of other pressing budget priorities, the state would be required to significantly increase spending on drug treatment for offenders. The amendment ignores the treatment needs of alcoholic offenders. It says next to nothing about drug abuse prevention and education and is unclear in its application to juvenile offenders. The vital question is this: Do Ohio's citizens not want drug dependent offenders held accountable for their actions, for offenders to be given extensive opportunities for second, third, fourth, and fifth "chances", and place those of us who abide by our current laws in physical, emotional, and financial jeopardy? Voting "yes" to Issue 1 will certainly ensure all of these. The proposed amendment must be opposed because it is unsafe, unfair, and unaccountable. For more information, please visit Ohioans Against Unsafe Drug Laws at www.unsafedruglaws.org. Scott Weaver LSW, CCJS 9514 State St. Albany - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake