State Issue 1 downgrades possession of heroin, meth, fentanyl and cocaine from a felony to a misdemeanor, allows release of even violent offenders from prison early and severely limits courts’ abilities to supervise violent offenders on probation. It will result in less-effective treatment, not more. Claimed cost savings are wildly exaggerated. Offenders can’t even go to jail until the third offense within two years. Two opportunities to use and overdose before jail can be imposed? Issue 1 gives drug users less reason to stop. For those who have never used, but are tempted to, it provides less of a reason not to “just try it.”

Issue 1 sends the message loud and clear: Hard drug use isn’t dangerous, isn’t serious in the eyes of the law in Ohio.

Proponents claim Issue 1 is necessary because too many drug users are in prison. This claim is wildly exaggerated. In 2017 , approximately 1,900 people — about 22 people for each of Ohio’s 88 counties — were imprisoned for Felony 4 and 5 drug possession, but only after every other alternative treatment, intense supervision and jail — had likely been tried. Ohio judges believe in treatment, but should an out-of-control addict who has defied all court orders, refused treatment and continues to run with drug dealers not have consequences such as incarceration? When imposed, prison terms are ordered as a last-ditch effort by courts to force an addict to squarely face the consequences of his actions and choices.

And prison may also be necessary when it’s a matter of public safety: Users kill themselves by overdosing and destroy their families, because nothing else matters except the next high; they drive under the influence of drugs; they steal from others, and so on. Issue 1 takes jail, prison and the fear of incarceration off the table for drug users. I don’t oppose Issue 1 because I believe that all drug users should be sent to jail or prison.

All drug users need treatment, but the threat of jail or prison should remain in the law to deter drug use. Some, especially dangerous repeat-offender drug users, should be sent to jail or prison and get treatment. The decision to incarcerate or not, what level of supervision and what treatment to order is best made in the courtroom, not by Issue 1’s “one-size-fits-all” predetermined misdemeanor conviction regardless of an offender’s criminal record, willingness to change and treatment needs.

Issue 1 also gives a “get-out-of-jail-early-card” to violent offenders, convicted of kidnapping and robbery, for example, drug problem or not. Convicted felons get up to a 25 percent reduction, plus an additional 30 days off the prison term the court already ordered them to serve, just for participating in prison programs and education. Isn’t that what inmates are supposed to be doing anyway? Issue 1 proponents claim hard-core drug users don’t ever need to be in prison; apparently, they don’t believe violent offenders should be there either.

Issue 1 also gives another gift to convicted felons, violent or nonviolent, drug user or not: Convicted offenders can’t be sent to prison for probation violations such as using drugs, refusing to drug-test, refusing counseling, contacting victims or not reporting on probation. There would be no limit as to how many times an offender could violate probation terms and avoid prison. Felony offenders will make a mockery of probation and court orders. The public will be less safe and drug use will increase.

Issue 1’s consequences for these violations: community service, increased reporting and the like — all sanctions which an offender can ignore, at will, without the threat of a prison sanction.

Issue 1 is an extreme, radical measure. It results in Ohio having some of the most lenient drug laws in the country. California’s bad experience when it passed Proposition 47, similar to Issue 1: more crime, more drugs, unrealized cost savings.

Let’s not repeat California’s mistake. The stakes are way too high. Existing laws aren’t perfect but Issue 1 is a much worse alternative.

Richard Berens is judge of Fairfield County Common Pleas Court.