ONE DOWN, TOO MANY STILL LEFT

In a year of bad election-related news, Florida voters finally have
something to smile about: An already-clogged Election Day ballot Nov.
5 will have one less state amendment to be decided.

That only leaves about 10, way too many for even the most politically
savvy and dedicated people to keep track of. To cut the overload,
state legislators should ask voters to limit how many amendments can
be on any future ballot to eight or less.

The good news is that one amendment's sponsors decided recently to
delay a referendum two years, to November 2004. The Campaign for New
Drug Policies had only collected about 100,000 of the 489,999 voter
signatures they needed by the Aug. 9 deadline.

If enough voters sign up, ballot position in 2004 will be assured. On
Thursday, the Florida Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the amendment meets
the required tests: It deals only with a single subject and matters
directly related. And its ballot language is not ambiguous or misleading.

Regrettably, the high court has no authority to rule if any such
amendment is good, necessary or effective public policy, or if it
belongs in the state Constitution at all. This amendment is not and
does not.

It's an example of an excellent idea ruined by being carried too far.
The idea is now being used successfully by Drug Courts in counties
like Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach. Such courts offer drug
addicts treatment and rehabilitation to help kick their habits, with
the promise of avoiding a criminal conviction and prison if they succeed.

But the amendment is overkill. It represents a policy that belongs
only in state law. It effectively decriminalizes purchase, possession
and use of illegal drugs for first and second offenses. It doesn't
even make drug offenders successfully complete treatment; they just
have to attend a program for 18 months. It overrides existing drug
courts that have begun to show high degrees of success. It prevents
judges from using their most effective deterrent weapon, "shock
sentencing" of people caught using drugs during treatment.

The two-year delay in bringing this amendment to a vote provides
valuable time for Drug Courts to be implemented in all judicial
circuits and do an even better job in helping addicts. The delay also
provides time for Drug Court supporters to make their case to voters
that this amendment is not needed and would be harmful to the war on
drug abuse.