Feature: Soros plan on drugs

FEATURE

A debate: New tactic proposed in war on drugs

After mastering Wall Street, financier George Soros decided to invest in people. He fortified free expression in Hungary by sending copy machines to dissidents whose copiers had been placed under lock and key. During the Russian economic collapse, he sent cash to scientists with the hope of averting a brain drain.

But the fall of the Berlin Wall turned his sights to America, where he became troubled by the war on drugs: Kids urged to turn in their parents. The erosion of hard-won protections against unlawful search and seizure. And political leaders, fearing the label "soft on crime," refusing to critically analyze whether this war could be won.

Soros eventually concluded that more treatment — and less jail time — was needed to reduce addictions and restore liberties.

The New York billionaire is among a trio of wealthy business- men — along with Cleveland's Peter Lewis — helping to bankroll a state-by-state effort to reform drug laws.

They've succeeded in 12 of their 13 efforts, and Ohio is their latest target. Known as the Ohio Campaign for New Drug Policies, the group yesterday submitted petitions to place a proposal on the Nov. 5 ballot that would amend the Ohio Constitution and require the state to offer treatment instead of incarceration for nonviolent first- and second-time offenders who possess anything from marijuana to heroin.

The group submitted almost 780,000 signatures — well over twice the 335,000 required — to Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell on yesterday's filing deadline. Opponents of the initiative immediately called for a "vigorous review" of the names, questioning whether petitioners properly represented the issue to those who signed.

Even before it has officially qualified for the ballot, the initiative has prompted this sort of debate — and attracted odd coalitions on both sides. Ohio's treatment experts are divided. Law enforcement generally opposes it. And while the incarceration rate for blacks accused of drug offenses is 28 times the rate for whites, Toledo Mayor Jack Ford — a black Democrat — is among the leading opponents.

What Soros sees as a human rights issue, opponents such as Ohio first lady Hope Taft view as a dangerous trend. "It's really a step toward decriminalizing Ohio's drug laws," said Mrs. Taft, a nationally recognized expert in substance abuse treatment. Gov. Bob Taft is raising money to defeat the proposal.

Doom for drug courts?

Both Ford and Mrs. Taft say the initiative would replace the state's well-regarded drug courts and treatment programs with ones that don't work as well — or don't work at all. The initiative would reduce judges' abilities to impose the type of short jail stays often credited with helping drug offenders overcome their addictions, they said.

At the Greater Cleveland Drug Court, Judge Larry Jones lists so-called "flash incarcerations" as one of the drug court judge's most important weapons. If Jones learns that an offender failed a drug test, he can immediately order a short jail stay. Under the proposed ballot issue, Jones and other judges would not be able to jail such offenders until their third relapse.

Prosecutors oppose the change. A commonly mentioned reason: It would reduce the leverage they have to persuade drug users to snitch on drug traffickers, who pose more of a threat to society.

Even defendants, such as Gary Efford of Cleveland, concede that jail has helped them heal from their addictions. Efford made a recent appearance before Jones on charges of cocaine possession. "That [jail] got my attention," he said. "It wasn't any fun. It wasn't a Kodak moment, you know? And I tell ya, I'm not going back."

The proposal also would limit to 90 days the sentence for most drug charges. Current laws allow a maximum of 12 to 18 months for certain lower-level felonies.

While many drug court judges oppose the initiative, Jones is "officially neutral." "It has positives and negatives," he said. But his list of "positives" is much longer. "I'm an ex-prosecutor, and I've come full circle on this need for treatment," Jones said. "It works."

In drug court, treatment is mandatory, and those who successfully complete it get their records expunged.

Since Efford's treatment is going well, he qualified for "the rocket docket" — the group of offenders with a history of clean urine screens and stellar attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Jones heard their cases first — as a group — but asked each offender questions.

They told of families reunited, child support repaid, new jobs and new dreams.

Jones saved the thornier cases for last — people such as Donna, a young mother on heroin who asked that her last name not be used. After a briefing from the court's team of experts, he determined that Donna needs in-patient treatment, but none is available. So Jones placed her on a waiting list for a bed at St. Vincent Charity Hospital. Her urine will be tested more frequently. One positive drug test will land her in the county jail until a bed is available.

Donna is part of a nationwide heroin epidemic that experts say is fueled by a cheaper, more potent strain that allows needle-averse users to smoke or snort the drug. Hospital emergency rooms reported a 470 percent increase in visits related to snorting or sniffing heroin between 1989 and 1998, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

A losing war on drugs

As addictions have risen, treatment programs have closed, said Dr. Gregory Collins, head of the Alcohol and Drug Recovery Unit at the Cleveland Clinic.

"We used to have 15 treatment centers and now it's down to four, and most are underfunded and struggling. . . Substance abuse treatment was probably the hardest hit in the managed care overhaul. . . Hospitals have closed their treatment units because they're no longer cost-effective," he said.

Collins supports the ballot initiative and views it as a means of expanding the drug court concept.

Although two new state studies show drug courts have saved money and reduced the number of repeat offenders, they exist in just 25 of the 88 counties. Ohio's tight budget makes their expansion unlikely.

Collins welcomes the proposal's promise of new money for treatment: $19 million in start-up costs, $38 million annually for six years and "adequate" funding when the six years expire in 2009. (It would apply to drug offenses that come before the courts starting July 1, 2003.)

“Whenever this sort of thing is considered, it’s been my experience that anybody who seems to be in favor of it is accused of being soft on drugs,” he said. “I want to be perfectly clear: I’ve been doing this kind of work for 30 years. I despise drugs. . . But what we’re doing isn’t working very well. More than 50,000 inmates in Ohio alone; 1.9 million nationwide — the largest number of prison inmates in the free world. I think it’s a disgrace, and it speaks eloquently to the fact that this has been a horrible social policy failure.”

Other treatment experts take a different view. At Maryhaven, Columbus’ oldest treatment facility, director Paul Coleman has said the proposal would give lawbreakers a constitutional right to treatment and could place them in line ahead of others with more serious problems.

Most major law enforcement groups also oppose the proposal.

Portage County Prosecutor Victor Vigluicci called the proposal “filled with loopholes.” If it passes, Vigluicci envisions this scenario: Police arrest a well-known drug trafficker for possession of cocaine. Although there is no evidence that he is addicted, he gets treatment over jail simply by asking for it. It would be his constitutional right.

The proposal would change the definition of “first-time offender” to anyone who is convicted after the effective date of the initiative — even people such as drug traffickers with established criminal records.

Supporters say the change is needed to allow treatment for chronic offenders — people who commit robberies and other offenses to support a habit, then go to prison, and are released and start using all over.

The Ohio proposal is modeled after California’s Proposition 36, approved in November 2000. It uses the same definition of first-time offender.

Early studies show mixed results in California. Because the initial offenders had more serious addictions than anticipated, California scrambled to open more expensive inpatient beds.

In the long run, California is expected to save $40 million annually, according to a July 1 study by the Health Policy Tracking Service for the National Conference of State Legislatures. “Although substance abuse treatment expenses will increase under the measure, the prison operation costs will decrease by a greater amount,” the report says.

For Ohio to save money, the initiative would need about 1,700 people to go into treatment instead of jail or prison each year, supporters say. They base that claim on the current incarceration costs of $22,000 per year, compared with an average of $3,500 per individual for a range of high-quality treatments.

Backers of the amendment project the 1,700 threshold will be easy to reach, but state prison officials predict just 1,458 would be diverted from prisons in the first year — a number projected to drop to less than 1,200 in later years. Tom Stickrath, assistant director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, based the projections on an analysis by the prison department.

Brian Hicks, chief of staff to Gov. Taft, said California’s results show Proposition 36 needs some tweaking, at the very least.

Because Proposition 36 is a law, unlike Ohio’s proposal, which is a constitutional amendment, California legislators can change it. If the Ohio plan passes, it could not be changed without another vote of the people. “That’s no way to make public policy,” Hicks said.

In Ohio, it’s the only way, supporters say, because conservative legislators would never pass a drug reform law. One was introduced last October. It has not had one hearing.

____________

Report by Sandy Theis
Plain Dealer Bureau Chief, Columbus 08/08/02
Source

home