Yappi Sports - THE Ohio Prep Sports Authority  

Go Back   Yappi Sports - THE Ohio Prep Sports Authority > General Sports > Debate Forum

Hello Guest!
Take a minute to register, It's 100% FREE! What are you waiting for?
Register Now
Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-23-18, 09:08 PM
Yappi Yappi is offline
Go Buckeyes
 
Join Date: 04-15-01
Location: Ohio
Posts: 51,163
Yappi will become famous soon enough
Ohio Issue 1

https://www.sos.state.oh.us/globalas...1-petition.pdf

Quote:
One of the hot-button issues on the upcoming Ohio midterms is State Issue 1, titled "The Neighborhood Safety, Drug Treatment, and Rehabilitation Amendment." There are many people and groups who oppose and support the issue, but what does it aim to do?

One of the main takeaways is if passed, the issue would make the possession, obtainment and use of illegal drugs a misdemeanor. There would also be no jail-time attached to drug sentences for first and second time offenders within a 24-month period. After the third time within that period, the issue states jail time or probation would serve as punishment.

With fewer inmates in jails and prisons, the issue would "require any available funding" to be put towards state-administered rehabilitation programs and crime victim funds.
Read more:
https://www.wcpo.com/news/state/stat...n-for-ohioans-
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 09-23-18, 09:26 PM
ronnie mund ronnie mund is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 11-11-13
Posts: 7,160
ronnie mund can only hope to improve
Sounds like a good idea to me. Treating drug use as a criminal issue instead of a medical issue has probably done more harm than good.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-23-18, 09:30 PM
irish_buffalo irish_buffalo is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 12-06-09
Posts: 4,048
irish_buffalo will become famous soon enough
I will vote for Issue 1.

I like that they are going to send drug addicts to treatment rather than jail. I've preached for years that our approach to drug addiction is flawed. You cannot jail your way out of it. These opioid addicts need 6-12 months of constant attention and treatment under lock & key.

Way I read it is 70% to treatment and 30% to crime victim funds.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-23-18, 09:30 PM
zeeman zeeman is online now
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-22-11
Location: in a galaxy far far away
Posts: 6,277
zeeman is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronnie mund View Post
Sounds like a good idea to me. Treating drug use as a criminal issue instead of a medical issue has probably done more harm than good.
you’re nothing if not consistent
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-23-18, 09:31 PM
zeeman zeeman is online now
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-22-11
Location: in a galaxy far far away
Posts: 6,277
zeeman is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by irish_buffalo View Post
I will vote for Issue 1.

I like that they are going to send drug addicts to treatment rather than jail. I've preached for years that our approach to drug addiction is flawed. You cannot jail your way out of it. These opioid addicts need 6-12 months of constant attention and treatment under lock & key.

Way I read it is 70% to treatment and 30% to crime victim funds.
I actually agree with you bison boy
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-23-18, 10:09 PM
domi domi is offline
All Ohio
 
Join Date: 09-06-16
Posts: 983
domi is on a distinguished road
Besides private prisons what groups would be opposed to this? The Ohio prosecutors look like they're opposed to it but I haven't read why. Job security is the only thing I can come up with since more misdemeanors means less trials.

For the record I do not condone anyone using drugs but sending people to prison for getting caught with a dime bag of weed or a couple shrooms is absurd.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-23-18, 10:12 PM
zeeman zeeman is online now
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 10-22-11
Location: in a galaxy far far away
Posts: 6,277
zeeman is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by domi View Post
Besides private prisons what groups would be opposed to this? The Ohio prosecutors look like they're opposed to it but I haven't read why. Job security is the only thing I can come up with since more misdemeanors means less trials.

For the record I do not condone anyone using drugs but sending people to prison for getting caught with a dime bag of weed or a couple shrooms is absurd.
And expensive
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-24-18, 06:43 AM
Termite2 Termite2 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 07-11-03
Location: North Sycamore Twp
Posts: 14,767
Termite2 is on a distinguished road
Where in this amendment does it state what constitutes trafficking and what constitutes personal use. The devil is in the details.

The biggest problem I see is:
"The general assembly shall include such appropriations in each State biennial budget beginning with the budget commencing July 1, 2019, in a total amount equal to the projected savings in state costs that
would result from the implementation of this Amendment during the biennium period. The general assembly would determine the projected savings by multiplying the projected fewer number of days of incarceration that would be served in state prisons as a result of the provisions in the Amendment by certain per-diem rates, which would be biennially adjusted by the rate of inflation. The general assembly would also enact a system to adjust the appropriations at the close of the biennial budget period based upon true-ups of the projected savings"

No, will never vote for any law that mandates spending based on nebulous criteria; it is a special interest lawyer's dream.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-24-18, 06:57 AM
Zunardo Zunardo is offline
All American
 
Join Date: 03-03-10
Posts: 1,824
Zunardo is on a distinguished road
It's interesting that the first words of the title of the proposed amendment are "Neighborhood Safety".

After the title and opening paragraph restating the title, that phrase appears nowhere in text of the amendment.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-24-18, 08:44 AM
14Red 14Red is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 03-12-12
Posts: 3,820
14Red is an unknown quantity at this point
This is one of those proposals that need more looking into, and there is a secondary effect.

On the surface, it appears to be a bad idea. I mean, isn't the goal to rid ourselves of crime and drugs? But the other thing to think about is the cost of arresting and incarcerating people. Our public dollars are getting slimmer and slimmer. We put people in jail, and it's really, really expensive to take care of them. Many are repeat offenders.
So I'm voting for this, I feel we need to save jail space for real criminals. Now the flip side is you'll have more drug offenders on the streets, probably committing more crimes. So who knows how it works itself out.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-24-18, 08:54 AM
dado6 dado6 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-15-07
Posts: 10,713
dado6 is on a distinguished road
I heard an Ohio judge on the radio a week or so ago, and he said the issue is poorly written, and would be bad law.

Basically, he said it isn't limited to drug offenses; it allows reduced sentences for all offenders with the exception of murderers, rapists, and child molesters.

I need to know more about this before I decide how to vote.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-24-18, 08:59 AM
14Red 14Red is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 03-12-12
Posts: 3,820
14Red is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by dado6 View Post
I heard an Ohio judge on the radio a week or so ago, and he said the issue is poorly written, and would be bad law.

Basically, he said it isn't limited to drug offenses; it allows reduced sentences for all offenders with the exception of murderers, rapists, and child molesters.

I need to know more about this before I decide how to vote.
Ok, so the issue may be worded better as...we don't have money to jail everyone, let's change the laws so judges have more flexibility. The other option that may be more popular is to lower the standards of our jails today. One reason people stay in prison is because they live better in jail than they do outside of jail.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-24-18, 09:08 AM
IcyCoolDevil IcyCoolDevil is online now
All Region
 
Join Date: 08-28-06
Posts: 279
IcyCoolDevil is on a distinguished road
I am always leary of legislation that is put up to a vote of the citizens. If it is such great legislation why are our elected legislators not passing it before it gets sent to the voters?
If our elected legislators aren't doing what we want then we should change them.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-24-18, 09:11 AM
dado6 dado6 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-15-07
Posts: 10,713
dado6 is on a distinguished road
Another issue brought up by the judge (I wish I could remember his name and office) was that pro-Issue 1 financing is coming from outside of Ohio (California, I think). I will try to find a link to the interview.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-24-18, 09:13 AM
Wildcat97 Wildcat97 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 06-29-05
Location: Strongsville, Ohio
Posts: 8,115
Wildcat97 is an unknown quantity at this point
So, currently, many times treatment is ordered as a condition of probation. The truth of the matter is many violate that condition, even with possible jail time hanging over their head if they dont proceed with treatment. So, we honestly believe that removing that over someone's head makes it more likely that the "addict" will proceed with treatment?

Nevermind, this turns Ohio into a trafficking thoroughfare.

But sure, let's just latch onto the nice little shiny thing, which is so typical of our feeble minded society as of late

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-24-18, 11:01 AM
Qcity Qcity is offline
All American
 
Join Date: 01-31-08
Posts: 1,357
Qcity is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by IcyCoolDevil View Post
I am always leary of legislation that is put up to a vote of the citizens. If it is such great legislation why are our elected legislators not passing it before it gets sent to the voters?
If our elected legislators aren't doing what we want then we should change them.
Your first sentence is spot on. Worse yet; this is a constitutional amendment.....the legislature cannot even change it. This is yet another disastrous Issue being funded by out-of-state interests. It will have horrible consequences. VOTE NO!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-24-18, 11:43 AM
D4fan D4fan is online now
All World
 
Join Date: 01-08-15
Location: At work
Posts: 2,883
D4fan is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qcity View Post
Your first sentence is spot on. Worse yet; this is a constitutional amendment.....the legislature cannot even change it. This is yet another disastrous Issue being funded by out-of-state interests. It will have horrible consequences. VOTE NO!
Same here.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-24-18, 11:49 AM
D4fan D4fan is online now
All World
 
Join Date: 01-08-15
Location: At work
Posts: 2,883
D4fan is on a distinguished road
I agree that real treatment to overcome addiction is preferable to incarceration, but forced treatment does less than incarceration , which at least protects society.


Once they are truly ready for treatment, treatment has a much better chance of working. Simply changing our laws on incarceration will do nothing to change how ready a person is to benefit from treatment.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-24-18, 11:56 AM
SWMCinci SWMCinci is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 02-20-07
Location: Outside of Ohio..... Now
Posts: 17,929
SWMCinci is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14Red View Post
......We put people in jail, and it's really, really expensive to take care of them. Many are repeat offenders.......
So you really think treating someone for a self-inflicted "disease" by sending them to rehab is going to be cheaper than locking them up and having them sweat out the drugs?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-24-18, 12:09 PM
Caleb Caleb is offline
All World
 
Join Date: 12-31-05
Posts: 2,515
Caleb is on a distinguished road
I would agree with the rehab part of the bill but the issue is this country seems to be sliding away from sentencing an individual to jail time in general. For example I have heard arguments for not jailing the drug dealer. Why not? Also I would be willing to bet a user has committed a crime against somebody. A lot of so called users have stolen or did something against the law so what do you do with that? Just brush it off because after all they have a drug problem?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-24-18, 12:09 PM
ronnie mund ronnie mund is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 11-11-13
Posts: 7,160
ronnie mund can only hope to improve
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMCinci View Post
So you really think treating someone for a self-inflicted "disease" by sending them to rehab is going to be cheaper than locking them up and having them sweat out the drugs?
Yes.

http://www.bhsbaltimore.org/site/wp-...ment-Costs.pdf

Quote:
State and national studies have estimated that it costs between $26,390 and $38,383 annually to incarcerate a drug offender in Maryland. Costs for treatment vary by level of care and length of treatment, but even the most expensive treatment is less costly than incarceration. A 2008 study estimated treatment costs ranged from an average of $2,326 for non-methadone outpatient services—and $7,409 per episode for methadone treatment—to $21,404 for therapeutic community treatment.2
Drug Rehab Instead of Prison Could Save Billions

Quote:
If only 10 percent of drug-addicted offenders received drug rehabilitation instead of jail time, the criminal justice system would save $4.8 billion compared to current costs.1 If 40 percent of addicted offenders received treatment instead of jail, those savings would rise to $12.9 billion.1
http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads...tion_ac-dp.pdf

Quote:
Reports by government agencies, centrist and center-right think tanks and surveys of programs in Maryland show that treatment is a much less expensive option than incarceration for handling substance abusing offenders.
https://www.rti.org/news/study-repla...-justice-costs

Quote:
The study, published online in November in Crime & Delinquency, found that diverting substance-abusing state prisoners to community-based treatment programs rather than prison could reduce crime rates and save the criminal justice system billions of dollars relative to current levels. The savings are driven by immediate reductions in the cost of incarceration and by subsequent reductions in the number of crimes committed by successfully-treated diverted offenders, which leads to fewer re-arrests and re-incarcerations. The criminal justice costs savings account for the extra cost of treating diverted offenders in the community.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-24-18, 12:20 PM
19AL63 19AL63 is offline
All American
 
Join Date: 03-21-11
Posts: 2,037
19AL63 is on a distinguished road
Just looking at and reading this makes me question, is this really going to work to reduce drug usage and crime and it is really going to save the tax payer money. I really have to say no to both points.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-24-18, 12:30 PM
Zunardo Zunardo is offline
All American
 
Join Date: 03-03-10
Posts: 1,824
Zunardo is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by dado6 View Post
Another issue brought up by the judge (I wish I could remember his name and office) was that pro-Issue 1 financing is coming from outside of Ohio (California, I think). I will try to find a link to the interview.
According to Ballotpedia, the Ohio committee behind Issue 1 received $4.86 million to fund the issue. Of that, at least $3.5 million comes from these players:

1.5 million from the Open Society Policy Center (George Soros)
1 million from the Chan Zuckerberg Advocacy (FB's Mark Zuckerberg's)
1 million from the Open Philantropy Project (Zuckerberg's FB co-founder Dustin Moskovitz

https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Issue_1...(2018)#Support
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-24-18, 12:34 PM
Qcity Qcity is offline
All American
 
Join Date: 01-31-08
Posts: 1,357
Qcity is an unknown quantity at this point
All you need to know.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-24-18, 12:38 PM
ronnie mund ronnie mund is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 11-11-13
Posts: 7,160
ronnie mund can only hope to improve
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19AL63 View Post
Just looking at and reading this makes me question, is this really going to work to reduce drug usage and crime and it is really going to save the tax payer money. I really have to say no to both points.
What would you propose to reduce drug use and crime?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-24-18, 12:45 PM
Termite2 Termite2 is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 07-11-03
Location: North Sycamore Twp
Posts: 14,767
Termite2 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronnie mund View Post
What would you propose to reduce drug use and crime?
I would argue that this issue would increase both
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-24-18, 12:57 PM
ronnie mund ronnie mund is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 11-11-13
Posts: 7,160
ronnie mund can only hope to improve
Quote:
Originally Posted by Termite2 View Post
I would argue that this issue would increase both
Based on what, exactly? The majority of real-world examples show that use either stays roughly the same or drops slightly.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-24-18, 02:14 PM
19AL63 19AL63 is offline
All American
 
Join Date: 03-21-11
Posts: 2,037
19AL63 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronnie mund View Post
What would you propose to reduce drug use and crime?
If I told you, you would not like my answer, so my common sense tells me to just be quiet on this subject. I will say i do not believe the line we are being given that drug addiction is a disease, I believe drug usage is a choice and a bad choice just like many other bad things you can do to yourself. How many times have you heard of someone having a gun put to their head and being forced to take the drug?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-24-18, 02:19 PM
ronnie mund ronnie mund is offline
All Yappi
 
Join Date: 11-11-13
Posts: 7,160
ronnie mund can only hope to improve
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19AL63 View Post
If I told you, you would not like my answer, so my common sense tells me to just be quiet on this subject. I will say i do not believe the line we are being given that drug addiction is a disease, I believe drug usage is a choice and a bad choice just like many other bad things you can do to yourself. How many times have you heard of someone having a gun put to their head and being forced to take the drug?
Solid cop-out.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-24-18, 02:19 PM
domi domi is offline
All Ohio
 
Join Date: 09-06-16
Posts: 983
domi is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Termite2 View Post
I would argue that this issue would increase both
People are not going to start using drugs because the punishment changes from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Some useful info:
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...ve/1337425002/
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ohio All-Star Wrestling Team Now Accepting Applications for 2019 & 2020 Teams Ohio TofC Wrestling 1 09-23-18 09:22 AM
All star game- Ohio 22 Pa. 20 LICKING COUNTY FAN Football 15 07-16-18 08:12 PM
College Players of The Week - Michigan / Ohio area (04/03) - seclmw Baseball 2 04-03-18 07:21 PM
Ironman bdhof Wrestling 120 12-11-17 09:15 PM
Regional Ohio Results HiC Wrestling 4 05-22-17 09:56 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:16 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Registration Booster - Powered By Dirt RIF CustUmz