Issue 1: Reduced Penalty for Drug Offenses

[street pilot]

I'm torn.

 

Does anyone here work with non-violent drug offenders or reside in states that have similar laws and could offer some real-world experience?

 

https://www.sos.state.oh.us/legislation-and-ballot-issues/ballot-board/#gref

[iwashmycar]

In reading the summary it sounds pretty good....that is if they actually take those "saved funds" that would otherwise be used to incarcerate people and use them for the mental health and other programs they say they would be for...

[Geeto67]

Here is what I like: Longer, harsher penalties do not show a decrease in crime in drug offenses, they do show an increase in recidivism, and 80% of most state's prision spending are on low level drug convictions - so it makes sense to stop spending money where it isn't helping improve the situation.

 

Here is what I don't like: It maybe doesn't go far enough. Reduced penalties are only one half of the equation to actually improving the problem, the other half are programs and supervision strategies, which this bill does not account for. The existing programs are doing the best they can, and while an influx of money can help, there needs to be more of a push for people to be in rehab, treatment, and supervision programs.

 

TL;DR: It's a step in the right direction and should get passed, but there needs to be more investment in rehab/treatment/supervision.

[KentStateTsi]

Reads much like TCAP. My guess is that the county participation was so low they want to make it mandatory state wide. Recidivism is going to happen regardless with controlled substances.

[street pilot]

I think this is what kills it for me, this bullet does not seem specific to drug-related incarceration:

 

Require sentence reductions of incarcerated individuals, except individuals incarcerated

for murder, rape, or child molestation, by up to 25% if the individual participates in

rehabilitative, work, or educational programming.

 

So, 25% reduction in sentencing for burglary, robbery, larceny, assault, etc?

[Geeto67]

I think this is what kills it for me, this bullet does not seem specific to drug-related incarceration:

 

Require sentence reductions of incarcerated individuals, except individuals incarcerated

for murder, rape, or child molestation, by up to 25% if the individual participates in

rehabilitative, work, or educational programming.

 

So, 25% reduction in sentencing for burglary, robbery, larceny, assault, etc?

 

That's just the summary, if you read further down it (pages 3-4 of this document https://www.sos.state.oh.us/globalassets/ballotboard/2018/2018issuesreport.pdf) clarifies it long form that it applies to drug convictions and drug convictions reclassified as other non-violent offenses.

 

As I read it, I do not see anywhere that it reduces sentences for Burglary, robbery, larceny, assault, etc. Assault and Robbery would be excluded because they are violent offenses anyway...but it doesn't exclude a person who has both a conviction for robbery and an conviction for drug possession from having the DP portion of his sentence reduced. It does exclude murderers, rapists, and child molesters from receiving any benefit of the bill. Section F covers who the reductions retroactivly apply to and it's pretty clear:

 

F) Retroactive Application

of this Section.

(1) Any individual who, prior to the effective date of this Proposed Constitutional Amendment Section, was convicted under Ohio law of an offense of possessing, obtaining, or using a drug or drug paraphernalia, or was adjudicated a delinquent based on such an offense and who has not Completed their sentence for such offense, may petition the court in which

the conviction or adjudication occurred to have such charge changed to the respective class of offense as determined by the general assembly in accordance with this Section, and shall be re-sentenced and/or released,

unless the court makes a finding and sets forth a particularized factual basis that the individual presents a risk to the public and should not be re-sentenced and/or released.

 

(2) Any individual who, prior to the effective date of this Section, was convicted under Ohio law of an offense of possessing, obtaining, or using a drug or drug paraphernalia, or who was adjudicated a delinquent based

on such offense, and who has completed their sentence for such offense, may petition the court in which the conviction or adjudication occurred to

have such charge changed to the respective class of offense as determined by the general assembly in accordance with this Section

 

I will say that it's not worded the best so it sounds like everyone but rapists, murders, and kid fondilers are getting a break, but it's pretty upfront that the intent is specifically to target non-violent drug offenses.

 

But let's assume that it wasn't - the program is pretty specific about reducing the sentence 1/2 a day for every day that the individual participates in a rehabilitation or education program, so they don't get it automatically - the prisoner has to work for it. This is similar to what a parole board would consider without the actual hearing to make the determination, so is it really a problem if they are reducing the sentence for lesser crimes as long as the person is showing an effort to improve themselves?

[xlr8tn]

I'm all for 2nd chances. It's the 3rd, 4th, 5th, ECT ECT chances I'm not a fan of. If it's a non-violent drug offense then reduce it but tack it onto their next offense when it happens.....and it will happen.

[RC K9]

I have a hard time justifying putting non-violent drug offenders in cages...

[street pilot]

That's just the summary, if you read further down it (pages 3-4 of this document https://www.sos.state.oh.us/globalassets/ballotboard/2018/2018issuesreport.pdf) clarifies it long form that it applies to drug convictions and drug convictions reclassified as other non-violent offenses.

 

As I read it, I do not see anywhere that it reduces sentences for Burglary, robbery, larceny, assault, etc. Assault and Robbery would be excluded because they are violent offenses anyway...but it doesn't exclude a person who has both a conviction for robbery and an conviction for drug possession from having the DP portion of his sentence reduced. It does exclude murderers, rapists, and child molesters from receiving any benefit of the bill. Section F covers who the reductions retroactivly apply to and it's pretty clear:

 

 

 

I will say that it's not worded the best so it sounds like everyone but rapists, murders, and kid fondilers are getting a break, but it's pretty upfront that the intent is specifically to target non-violent drug offenses.

 

But let's assume that it wasn't - the program is pretty specific about reducing the sentence 1/2 a day for every day that the individual participates in a rehabilitation or education program, so they don't get it automatically - the prisoner has to work for it. This is similar to what a parole board would consider without the actual hearing to make the determination, so is it really a problem if they are reducing the sentence for lesser crimes as long as the person is showing an effort to improve themselves?

 

Not necessarily, but if that's the case I prefer to see the amendment clearly stating such, with accompanying information around how it is retroactively applied, etc. This section reads like a rider bill to me.

[aussiek2000]

Is there an issue 2 where we can vote to increase sentences? My aunt ruined many peoples' lives with her drug addiction. I hope her and any like her rot in their cages.

[BStowers023]

I'm hoping it's passed. I mean at least here in Columbus we seem to give heroin abusers 2nd, 3rd, 4th, really unlimited chances but if you get caught with anything else there is no 2nd chance.

[RedRocket1647545505]

I'm hoping it's passed. I mean at least here in Columbus we seem to give heroin abusers 2nd, 3rd, 4th, really unlimited chances but if you get caught with anything else there is no 2nd chance.

 

I particularly love that we can give out Narcan like its Halloween candy now. We now forgo the death by respiratory arrest so that we can eventually get to the phase where their heart becomes so infected that it starts eating itself from the inside out. We put them all on a list where if they can stay clean for 6 months, a Cardiothoracic surgeon will slap a new valve or two in there for them, because that's a cheap surgery to have done. However, the vast majority never make it to that point (because they can't stay clean) and end up rotting away for weeks in an ICU while their entire system shuts down. That's also a cheap thing we as the taxpayer end up paying for.

[AngryBMW]

I particularly love that we can give out Narcan like its Halloween candy now. We now forgo the death by respiratory arrest so that we can eventually get to the phase where their heart becomes so infected that it starts eating itself from the inside out. We put them all on a list where if they can stay clean for 6 months, a Cardiothoracic surgeon will slap a new valve or two in there for them, because that's a cheap surgery to have done. However, the vast majority never make it to that point (because they can't stay clean) and end up rotting away for weeks in an ICU while their entire system shuts down. That's also a cheap thing we as the taxpayer end up paying for.

 

Racist asshole.

-Marc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

love it

[Geeto67]

I particularly love that we can give out Narcan like its Halloween candy now. We now forgo the death by respiratory arrest so that we can eventually get to the phase where their heart becomes so infected that it starts eating itself from the inside out. We put them all on a list where if they can stay clean for 6 months, a Cardiothoracic surgeon will slap a new valve or two in there for them, because that's a cheap surgery to have done. However, the vast majority never make it to that point (because they can't stay clean) and end up rotting away for weeks in an ICU while their entire system shuts down. That's also a cheap thing we as the taxpayer end up paying for.

 

So, what are you advocating? NOT giving out Narcan? we shouldn't provide care to people in medical distress?

 

The point of measures like the one being discussed is to free up resources to devote to preventative measures like rehab and current treatment like emergency care. There are drugs in prison too, can't keep that stuff out, so we are paying the healthcare cost for prisoners on top of incarceration. At least this way we can take some of the incarceration money and put it into preventative care.

[zeitgeist57]

I particularly love that we can give out Narcan like its Halloween candy now. We now forgo the death by respiratory arrest so that we can eventually get to the phase where their heart becomes so infected that it starts eating itself from the inside out. We put them all on a list where if they can stay clean for 6 months, a Cardiothoracic surgeon will slap a new valve or two in there for them, because that's a cheap surgery to have done. However, the vast majority never make it to that point (because they can't stay clean) and end up rotting away for weeks in an ICU while their entire system shuts down. That's also a cheap thing we as the taxpayer end up paying for.

 

So, what are you advocating? NOT giving out Narcan? we shouldn't provide care to people in medical distress?

 

The point of measures like the one being discussed is to free up resources to devote to preventative measures like rehab and current treatment like emergency care. There are drugs in prison too, can't keep that stuff out, so we are paying the healthcare cost for prisoners on top of incarceration. At least this way we can take some of the incarceration money and put it into preventative care.

 

I definitely appreciate Austin's point, but Kerry shares my sentiment: as terrible as the addiction is to treat (and the strain on the healthcare system/people involved), slapping an additional societal burden on incarceration for non-violent drug offenses will at least free up some resources to treat the problem.

[BStowers023]

This is why I'm particularly for this Issue to be passed because while heroin users and abusers have been given essentially a free pass, all other drug users, carriers, abusers (whatever) have not. This will even things out a bit so we aren't putting non-violent people in prison for carrying weed and what not.

[Geeto67]

This is why I'm particularly for this Issue to be passed because while heroin users and abusers have been given essentially a free pass, all other drug users, carriers, abusers (whatever) have not. This will even things out a bit so we aren't putting non-violent people in prison for carrying weed and what not.

 

I am not sure where you are getting this "free pass" thing. People in possession of Heroin face harsher penalties than Marijuana possession and are about on par with Cocaine possession. The thing is with heroin users, a lot of them are in medical distress when discovered and charged which delays the process.

 

Heroin possession:

 

Up to 1 gram: 5th degree felony, 6-12 months in prison (in favor of community control)

1 to < 5 gram: 4th degree felony, 6-18 months in prison (in favor of community control)

5 to < 10 grams: 3rd degree felony, 9 months to 3 years in prison (in favor of community control)

10 to < 50 grams: 2nd degree felony, 2-8 years in prison (mandatory).

50 to <250 grams: 1st degree felony, 3-10 years in prison (mandatory).

250 grams or more: Major drug offense (MDO), 11 years in prison (mandatory).

 

Marijuana Possession:

 

 

Less than 100 grams: Minor misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $150.

100-200 grams: 4 th degree misdemeanor punishable by 30 days in jail; $250 fine.

200-1,000 grams: 5 th degree felony punishable by 6 months to 1 year in prison; community control presumed.

1,000-5,000 grams: 3 rd degree felony punishable by 9 months to 3 years in prison; no presumption of prison.

5,000-20,000 grams: 3 rd degree felony punishable by 9 months to 3 years in prison; prison time presumed.

20,000-40,000 grams: 2 nd degree felony punishable by 5-8 years in prison (mandatory).

More than 40,000 grams: 2 nd degree felony punishable by a mandatory 8 years in prison.

 

Cocaine Possession

 

 

Less than 5 grams: 5th degree felony punishable by 6-12 months in prison (in favor of community control)

5-10 grams: 4th degree felony punishable by 6-18 months in prison (in favor of community control)

10-20 grams: 3rd degree felony punishable by 9 months – 3 years in (in favor of community control)

20-27 grams: 2nd degree felony punishable by 2-8 years (mandatory) in prison

28-99 grams: 1st degree felony punishable by 3-11 years (mandatory) in prison

100 grams or more: Major drug offense (MDO), punishable by 11 years in prison (mandatory)

 

 

 

Where they might see leniency is in sentencing, the risk profile tends to support rehab and treatment because 90% of new users came into it from legal prescription opoids, whereas the majority of cocaine/marijuana is recreational.

 

By the way, I applaud you supporting this, and more importantly I applaud you for supporting leniency for non-violent offenders.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Geeto67

[Mace1647545504]

Sorry..I disagree not all drugs are the same..heroin..fentanyl..and as much as i hate to say it coke..should be an immediate jail term.

And it will cost money..the state get to guessimate how much it will save..there will be a shortfall and we the taxpayers will foot the bill.

And while we are at it why are we supplying narcan...if you are stupid enough to do heroin..then fuck you..die

mace

[Geeto67]

Sorry..I disagree not all drugs are the same..heroin..fentanyl..and as much as i hate to say it coke..should be an immediate jail term.

And it will cost money..the state get to guessimate how much it will save..there will be a shortfall and we the taxpayers will foot the bill.

And while we are at it why are we supplying narcan...if you are stupid enough to do heroin..then fuck you..die

mace

 

If you are stupid enough to speed while driving a car, then why are we supplying you with a free trip to the hospital? Fuck you... you die

 

If you are stupid enough to fall off your ladder while cleaning the gutters, well you knew the risk that ladders present why are we providing you with healthcare for that fall? Fuck you...die on your lawn

 

If you are stupid enough to cut your wrist because your wife left you, well we told you she was a bitch and you didn't listen, why should you get bandages and treatment? Fuck you...you die you sad sack of shit

 

 

See what a slippery slope this kind of nonsense attitude is?

 

The hard fact is that putting someone in jail doesn't address their addiction. There are drugs in jail - all jail does is add a schedule and structure to getting high.

 

It doesn't address that the largest drug problem this country is facing right now is because there is an industry that is allowed to turn law abiding citizens into junkies through the legal prescription for pain gateway - putting the victim of that scheme in jail doesn't solve that problem.

 

Only 5% of violent offenders committed their offense to obtain money for drugs. So it's not a significant gateway to violent crime, but 71% of individuals put into jail end up committing a second offense. What's the value in putting them in jail where it is likely they will end up career criminals, when the root cause can be addressed.

[Mace1647545504]

No fuck you you liberal pussy..in my early days i was very liberal but i have become very conservative ..if you had been around in my day I can tell you would have had your ass beat daily in my neighborhood..we took acre of our own and people like you would have had their asses beat daily.

I'm from the south end of Columbus and took care of ourselves.

SO when you talk about me doing this ir that I accept the consequences as should the fuck head who shoot horse..again fuck them

 

If you are stupid enough to speed while driving a car, then why are we supplying you with a free trip to the hospital? Fuck you... you die

 

If you are stupid enough to fall off your ladder while cleaning the gutters, well you knew the risk that ladders present why are we providing you with healthcare for that fall? Fuck you...die on your lawn

 

If you are stupid enough to cut your wrist because your wife left you, well we told you she was a bitch and you didn't listen, why should you get bandages and treatment? Fuck you...you die you sad sack of shit

 

 

See what a slippery slope this kind of nonsense attitude is?

 

The hard fact is that putting someone in jail doesn't address their addiction. There are drugs in jail - all jail does is add a schedule and structure to getting high.

 

It doesn't address that the largest drug problem this country is facing right now is because there is an industry that is allowed to turn law abiding citizens into junkies through the legal prescription for pain gateway - putting the victim of that scheme in jail doesn't solve that problem.

 

Only 5% of violent offenders committed their offense to obtain money for drugs. So it's not a significant gateway to violent crime, but 71% of individuals put into jail end up committing a second offense. What's the value in putting them in jail where it is likely they will end up career criminals, when the root cause can be addressed.

[cdk 4219]

All 3 examples aren’t free to the non narcan using individual. If I fall off that ladder it isn’t free for me, speeding doesn’t get me a trip to the hospital, usually a citation. The cutting of the wrist thing may be something the writer has contemplated, but again to the hospital not free.

Now the Narcan, while not free, still manages to cost me money , but the recipient will not be presented a bill, or better yet not pay for this procedure. I enjoy the fact that the antidote is there, but taking death out of the equation with a free pass certainly doesn’t deter. If there were a free narcan style antidote for cliff diving, I would bet more people would be willing to take that risk as well.

 

I was informed at a very young age that touching something hot would be,at the least,uncomfortable to me and was not good in many ways, and I have carried that with me to this day. Some people still have the urge to touch hot things.

[RedRocket1647545505]

So, what are you advocating? NOT giving out Narcan? we shouldn't provide care to people in medical distress?

 

The point of measures like the one being discussed is to free up resources to devote to preventative measures like rehab and current treatment like emergency care. There are drugs in prison too, can't keep that stuff out, so we are paying the healthcare cost for prisoners on top of incarceration. At least this way we can take some of the incarceration money and put it into preventative care.

 

I'm not advocating for anything, one way or the other. I'm just pointing out how it usually plays out. I've found the prime age to be around 28 years old. Most don't make it past that.

[xlr8tn]

My views on drug abuse have changed drastically over time. I used to write them off and say tough shit but these days I don't know if that's right. Everyone makes some bad decisions in their lives at some point. These days as a young person that's a bad decision that can haunt you the rest of your life. No one chooses to become a drug addict and destroy theirs and their family's lives. It's a mistake they make and the consequences are far greater than when I was younger. I view it as a disease or sickness these days when I used to not think that. I wish those people could be helped and I think most, if not all, of them would choose to be sober and not an addict if that were possible. Unfortunately the drugs that are out there now don't give many a real chance of that.

[BStowers023]

My views on drug abuse have changed drastically over time. I used to write them off and say tough shit but these days I don't know if that's right. Everyone makes some bad decisions in their lives at some point. These days as a young person that's a bad decision that can haunt you the rest of your life. No one chooses to become a drug addict and destroy theirs and their family's lives. It's a mistake they make and the consequences are far greater than when I was younger. I view it as a disease or sickness these days when I used to not think that. I wish those people could be helped and I think most, if not all, of them would choose to be sober and not an addict if that were possible. Unfortunately the drugs that are out there now don't give many a real chance of that.

 

I can agree with this to an extent. The disease argument is a very cloudy one. One can argue, well they chose to stick the needle in their arm, but on the contrary that same person would have to acknowledge lung cancer isn’t a disease to someone who’s been chain smoking 25+ years and gets it. Drug addiction still comes down to a choice, but so does eating McDonald’s every day or chain smoking cigs or just not taking care of your health in general. I know people who use drugs regularly who are most likely healthier overall than a lot of people I know who never do (not talking about heroin). I think heroin is in a class of its own. I think the disease heroin addicts face is severe depression. I don’t think anyone with things going well for them in their life chooses to stick a needle in their arm knowing the potential or eventual consequences.

[Cordell]

I think all drugs should be legal. I think most people will continue to not be involved in most drugs, maybe some more weed users but whatever. I also think that everyone takes risks no matter what it is, legal or not, and the person taking the risk ultimately pays the biggest price most of the time. For a lot of risks dying is a possibility, I personally don’t care if someone dies taking a risk of their own free will. For the risks that other people could be getting hurt that’s where the government needs to enforce laws preventing such issues. In the same token I think suicide should be legal. I think people should have other avenues like they do now, but if you really want to die it really doesn’t matter if it’s legal anyway.