Unintended consequences.

That’s a risk anytime lawmakers take a stab at solving complicated societal issues.

Health care, public education, unemployment insurance and Medicaid are among recent examples of complex topics Ohio lawmakers have attempted to address. And a sloppy fix, no matter its good intentions, often introduces as many problems as it solves.

Add reducing the state’s prison population to that list.

For the past couple of years in Ohio, lawmakers (…) have tried to use drug sentencing reforms as a direct route to solve another pesky issue: reducing the state’s prison population.

(…) Enter Senate Bill 3.

Introduced early this year as a legislative alternative to the failed attempt to address the issue though a constitutional amendment — State Issue 1, which voters rejected in 2018 — SB 3 seeks to create a clearer distinction between drug offenders — users caught in a cycle of addition who are harming themselves and who could respond favorably to treatment programs — and drug traffickers looking to harm others.

Proponents of Senate Bill 3 say the way it sets tiers for trafficking offenses, based on the amount of drugs a person possesses at the time of arrest (thus determining what would be considered a felony), would classify more offenses as misdemeanors. As a result, they say, more offenders would be directed into court-ordered treatment rather than sent to state prison.

(…) Not so fast, say many in law enforcement and in the judicial system.

(…) Unintended consequences, such as allowing traffickers to carry enough heroin or meth — more than 20 doses — to face only a misdemeanor charge instead of the current felony threat, in some cases as high as a third-degree felony leading to significant jail time.

(…) A present for Ohioans would be an improved bill that serves both the needs of those who can benefit from drug treatment while protecting the community from harmful unintended consequences.

— The Canton Repository