Get Active Subscribe Support Us

MARIE DWYER DIRECTOR SPEAKS OUT AGAINST ISSUE 1

On Nov.  5, Ohio voters will be asked to vote on Issue 1, an amendment to the State Constitution.  Known as the Drug Offenders Amendment, Issue 1 would force judges to order treatment instead of jail for eligible offenders.

While there are good and valid reasons to utilize treatment as a way of changing behavior, a constitutional amendment doesn't seem like the best way to go.  Here's why.

* The major reason to oppose this constitutional amendment is because it is just that, a constitutional amendment.  It will be set in stone and could not be adjusted.  Suppose, for example, it is found that the 90-day stay in treatment required by Issue I is too short.  Sorry, it can't be changed

without another constitutional amendment.

* By altering the Constitution, it makes treatment a higher state priority than higher education, public health, environmental cleanup, economic development and many other issues important to Ohioans.

There are also many reasons the procedures required under Issue 1 would not be an effective way to deal with this problem.

* Drug offenders usually come before the courts because they have committed other crimes such as burglary, robbery or embezzlement.

These offenses could then go unpunished since the treatment requirement would supersede the punishment aspect.  This could also leave the victims of the crimes without compensation.

* Our judges get the details of each case and also have a chance to learn the offender's interest in treatment.  They can then suit the remedy to the individual situation.  Under Issue 1 they would not have any say in the remedy.  All would be treated the same.

* On the day the amendment would take effect, all drug offenders, even those with multiple arrests would be treated as first timers, with a clean slate.

* It does not require drug testing while in treatment.

* This amendment does not include alcohol as a drug to be considered yet this drug is responsible for much more damage than any other is.

Because I work in the recovery field, many people might assume I would naturally support a change such as this.  The reality is that because I work in this field, I see first hand the way Preble County's judges treat offenders with drug or alcohol problems and I have come to respect and trust their judgment.

They do a good job and I have no desire to take them out of the equation.  I will surely vote "No" on Issue 1.