About the author

Related Articles

4 Comments

  1. 1

    Dave

    This comment was sent to me in an email. I am publishing it anonymously at the writer’s request. By the way, normal rules apply here. Argue the issues. No personal attacks.

    Good Morning Dave!

    I am letting you know how I am voting on Issue 1. As you know, I have lost two nephews in the last two years from a heroin
    overdose.

    I am voting NO on Issue 1. I do not think people who use heroin or the likes of it should get any breaks from the law. Furthermore,
    to force someone into treatment is a big waste of our money. They will not get clean until they are ready to do it themselves. I
    know from experience that court ordered treatment is not effective. They end up using the week they have left the treatment because
    they were not ready to accept the treatment. I believe that if you choose to use illegal drugs then you face the consequences in our
    court system, we should not be giving someone who knowingly uses any breaks…period.

    End of story!!!
    *********************************************
    No, it is definitely not the way to go. Have you looked into the way your county handles these cases? Stark County has an excellent
    drug court with a fabulous program. If Issue 1 passes, that would all be null and void. It would be horrible to see a good working
    program be terminated due to Issue 1.

    I would advise anyone to do some research into how their county stacks up on handling the opioid crisis. That is where to start in
    my opinion!!!

    Reply
  2. 2

    Linda McCorkle

    Dave, I will be voting a split ticket: For Cordray/Sutton, and NO on Issue 1. I believe that the policy changes the issue proposes should be dealt with by statute, not constitutional amendments. The Ohio Constitution is already weighed down by amendments whose narrow focus should have made them ineligible for inclusion in what is supposed to be the foundation of our state’s laws

    Beyond the constitutional issues, I disagree with most of the changes Issue 1 would require. I find it disingenuous that they made the sentence reduction availability apply to all except three specified crimes, not only drug offenses. I don’t know how many voters will mind that, or even recognize it, but I do not like being “played.” More important than my feelings is my belief that this amendment, if adopted, would exacerbate existing disrespect for the law. If something is illegal, there ought to be penalties, not guaranteed second chances withing a rolling 24-month period. That the “rehab, not prison” mantra is being chanted by self-proclaimed civil libertarians gives me pause: do they not see excessive state power in allowing the government to require personal rehabilitation? Has anyone thought about how the presence of unwilling participants might ruin the rehab experience for people who chose to be there.

    As I read the full text of the amendment yesterday and I thought about the legal and administrative structures that will be needed to implement and sustain its requirements, all I could think was how unfortunate it is that I am not an attorney or consultant. They will benefit early and often, while the rest of us wonder whatever happened to the savings the amendment promised.

    Yes, you can quote me on that.

    Reply
  3. 3

    Dave

    Thanks to the very quotable Linda M.

    Reply
  4. 4

    LBJ

    I like the idea of addicts who want treatment getting treatment, and I also like the idea idea of people incarcerated for non-violent crimes pursuing enrichment opportunities, but I believe the ballot language for Issue 1 is too broad and too vague. It’s also concerning to me that it would tie a judge’s hands from perhaps issuing an appropriate sentence. The prison system is in dire need of reform and people –particularly POC– need to stop receiving years-long sentences for possession of a bag of weed, but I believe Issue 1 is a dupe.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *