|
|
| Battle Begins Over Proposal To Change Drug Law |
|
Posted by FoM on December 14, 2001 at 09:14:27 PT By Alan Johnson, Dispatch Statehouse Reporter Source: Columbus Dispatch 
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.'' Source: Columbus Dispatch (OH) Related Articles & Web Site: The Soros Foundation Network Proposed Constitution Change Would Treat User Calif. Drug Users Get Treatment, Not Jail Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #10 posted by FoM on December 14, 2001 at 19:17:49 PT |
| Sorry to read New York won out. I don't live near any cities. Where we live is more like back east with small mountains or big hills whichever they are. Since the late 70s when they decriminalized marijuana after it carried a twenty to forty year sentence for possession they don't make much to do about marijuana. It went from a horrible law to an almost non existent law. Over these years and not very often in the police log in our once a week newspaper we will see a small fine for marijuana but that's about all. Many people were hurt by the laws before they changed and I think they went after alcohol which they felt was worse then marijuana. A county near us has a judge, they call the hanging judge, and you better not get caught drinking and driving. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #9 posted by FoM on December 14, 2001 at 19:07:49 PT |
| You aren't jumping the gun. I want to know too. Marijuana isn't a hard drug. It is an herb. You can't overdose or die from using it and at worst you might eat too much junk food. No hangover either. Why do they put drugs and marijuana together in an Initiative? I hope they understand why people who are concerned about marijuana laws feel the way they feel. Hard drugs have bad side effects. Cannabis does not. I wouldn't do heroin or cocaine or acid or speed or anything I didn't think of because I am afraid of health problems. I really want to know why but can we find out why? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #8 posted by CongressmanSuet on December 14, 2001 at 18:39:53 PT |
|
Jose, its all in the tickets! Progressive quoted me a policy that was 400 more than Im paying now because my wife has a speeding ticket from 2 years ago. Believe me, I tried to throw my cash this guys way. FoM, the impression I have had of Ohio[remember, Im right next store] is that it isnt the fine thats bad, its all the BS that attends it. One of the posters here several months ago attested to the fact that the worst part of getting busted in Ohio was the administrative hassle of probation, loss of drivers license, etc., tell me if Im wrong. I have also found that Ohio has some of the best bud this side of Ontario! Anyone who wants quality in my neck of the woods takes the ride, all 3 hours of it. Hey, Ohio was my second choice for relocation[sorry, NY won, we are leaving in 3 weeks], Cleveland is not a bad place to be. If by some strange set of circumstances NY is a bust[wrong word] for us, Cleveland will be the next stop! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by Lehder on December 14, 2001 at 18:31:18 PT |
| I was thinking exactly that, FoM. As you say, under 100 g in Ohio demands only a fine, and possibly loss of driver's license - which seems by the way an arbitrary and unjust vexation. But this proposed law supposedly is a liberalization of drug policy, and, if that is truly the case, it must not apply to marijuana: maybe "drugs" here means, indeed, drugs and not herbs. It's not clear what this law means, and, again, I wish that terms had been clearly defined. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by FoM on December 14, 2001 at 16:18:14 PT |
| Why would a person caught with less then 100 grams of marijuana want to have treatment? Paying the fine isn't that hard. I think it's about $100. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #5 posted by Old Boy on December 14, 2001 at 16:03:28 PT:
|
| What a politician.Bob Taft.Gotta love the moron. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by Lehder on December 14, 2001 at 15:29:26 PT |
| "The initiative would provide treatment instead of jail time for first- or second-time, nonviolent drug- possession offenders." Marijuana is an herb, but we know that it's included in this statement with the term "drug." By 'treatment for drug possession' the article deviously implies 'forced treatment for marijuana possession under the threat of prison.' And this is absolutely unacceptable. People have a right to the benefits of marijuana. The only kind of 'treatment' for its use is a repressive political 'treatment' - essentially a hate crime against people who do not share the culture of bigotry and ignorance. "Treatment programs would last up to 18 months. Those who drop out of treatment would go to jail. " The drug war will be over when treatment is voluntary for those who want it, and when the prosecutors of the drug war have gone to jail for their crimes. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #3 posted by Jose Melendez on December 14, 2001 at 14:20:07 PT:
|
The group is backed by Peter B. Lewis, chairman of Progressive Insurance in Cleveland and a major Democratic campaign contributor... I missed this in the first reading, I want you all to know I just got a quote from my Progressive Auto Insurance dealer: less than HALF the competition. Peter Lewis has my business. He must be paying attention to the studies that PROVE driving is safer with marijuana than alcohol... [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #2 posted by Jose Melendez on December 14, 2001 at 14:09:09 PT:
|
| This is typical of how drug warriors work. What was the name of the official who died with pro-legalisation signatures hidden in her desk drawer? And about date-rape: I believe Anslinger's contemporaries suggested that the evil marihuana drove black men to have sex with white women... It's ALL LIES! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by i420 on December 14, 2001 at 13:04:56 PT |
| A Taft spokesman yesterday defended the administration's actions, calling the ballot initiative "a de facto
decriminalization of drugs.''
So what if it is ??? Who are you to JUDGE ??? Listen to SALT-n-Pepper "None of your Business" and every time they say "guy" replace it with "high" also watch the movie "Footloose" and every time they say "dance" replace it with "marijuana prohibition" can you say that??? Give it a try say "marijuana prohibition" see i knew you could ...Now go watch the movie fool "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.'' So what if the gov doesn't like it that doesn't mean squat what does is the WILL OF THE PEOPLE who this governor is REPRESENTING and so what if people are coming in from out of state did we lose the right to freely relocate as we wish is FREEDOM dead BTW California experiment??? Since when was Prop: 215 an experiment get a life ... One last this where do I get petitions ???? [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |