COLUMBUS — Senate Bill 3 sounds like a simple, easy idea. Reduce low-level drug possession charges, now felonies, to misdemeanors. At the same time, stiffen the penalties for those dealing in drugs.
However, as Ohio state lawmakers are finding, when it comes to drug laws, nothing is as simple as it seems.
Senate Bill 3, introduced in March and scheduled for a vote perhaps as soon as June, has roiled the drug-enforcement law political waters in a way not seen since voters soundly rejected State Issue 1 in 2018.
Proponents and opponents from the right, left and center are making their voices heard before the Senate’s Judiciary Committee regarding a bill that is, at least partly, in response to an opioid epidemic that has created thousands of new addicts — and felons.
Under Senate Bill 3, instead of felony-level penalties, Ohioans charged with possession of certain drugs would be charged with misdemeanors and given more opportunities for treatment. In theory, this would reduce the public stigma and legal restrictions associated with the crime, smoothing the way for the defendant to more easily find work, housing, etc.
Ohio Senate President Larry Obhof — a Republican from Medina whose district includes Richland and Ashland counties — wants to make it clear the legislation being debated is not a rehash of the rejected state issue.
“I was one of the strongest opponents of State Issue 1. I had no desire to see that passed … it had some serious problems. It took a lot of felonies from drug possession and turned them into misdemeanors even when the quantities (of drugs involved) would have clearly been for trafficking,” Obhof said this week.
Obhof noted that State Issue 1 would have also significantly reduced prison sentences for a “whole host” of people, regardless of the crimes they had committed and led to the rapid release of thousands of inmates.
Mansfield Law Director John Spon, who agreed Senate Bill 3 and State Issue 1 are vastly different, supports the ideas behind the legislation, even though its passage could dramatically grow the caseload his office handles in Municipal Court.
“I am strongly in favor of aggressive prosecution for drug traffickers,” Spon said. “As to those individuals charged with mere possession, the plague of drug addiction has been so prolific that we are tending to create felony records for an entire generation of citizens.
“In doing so, this carte blanche approach fails to adequately recognize the compulsion that drug addiction produces. It’s important to recognize that citizens who are convicted of drug possession offenses still need jobs to support themselves and their families and diminishing that opportunity is counter productive to stabilizing out communities.”
Richland County Prosecutor Gary Bishop said he is concerned the proposal, with lighter sentences, will reduce the incentives for offenders to seek and complete addiction treatment.
“When one understands addiction, which I believe the legislature has failed to do, then one understands that personal and moral incentives to recover from addition are not enough; otherwise most addicts would seek treatment on their own,” Bishop said.
“Under Senate Bill 3, most addicts will have little or no incentive to seek and successfully complete treatment when they can simply receive a local sentence, serve a fraction of it before being released due to jail overcrowding, and go right back to serving the addiction that controls their life,” Bishop said.
“From a human perspective, the bill makes no sense. When a person remains addicted to drugs, it hardly matters whether their conviction is a felony or misdemeanor. They aren’t employable no matter which label goes with their addiction.
“More employers are willing to hire a recovered addict with a felony conviction over a person with a misdemeanor conviction who still can’t pass a drug test or remain drug free in the workplace.”
Richland County Commissioner Tony Vero, who heard from the sheriff’s department this week that the county jail population of 301 is at an all-time high, said he is concerned about costs associated with Senate Bill 3.
“By law, the county must pay the city portions of municipal court services for judges, magistrates, the clerk, and bailiffs. It remains to be seen how the passage could impact us financially on that piece,” Vero said. “I do not have a strong opinion either way yet, other than the proposal seems to reflect some public sentiment with respect to drug-related convictions and their subsequent penalties/sentences.”
The leader of the Senate also wants to make it clear the bill is far from a finished product as testimony and debate continue.
“We are taking time to make sure we get this right. We don’t want to increase the burden on the courts and the jails without (increased) funding. This is a work in progress. We are making a conscious decision to take our time and get it right,” Obhof said.
Obhof, who said lawmakers want to draw a cleaner penalty distinction between drug users and drug traffickers, said legislators are meeting with prosecutors and judges from around the state.
“We want to make sure we can end up in a place we all agree. If someone is looking at the current version and has questions and concerns, I encourage them to reach out (to lawmakers),” he said.
Obhof said the bill is based upon recommendations from a working committee of prosecutors, law enforcement officers, judges and public defenders that has worked on the issue for two years.
Obhof said the bill is still in committee, though he would like to see a finalized version pass the Senate by the end of June.
“It would still have to go through the House. We have a significant way to go before it becomes law,” he said, adding Gov. Mike DeWine has not expressed an opinion on the topic. “The governor is allowing the legislative process to play itself out.”
