Families in Action
A Guide to Drug-Related State Ballot Initiatives
Arizona Proposition 200
13, TITLE 41, AND TITLE 42, OF THE ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING
TITLE 41, CHAPTER 11, BY ADDING §41-1604.16; RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT
OF THE ARIZONA PARENTS COMMISSION ON DRUG EDUCATION AND PREVENTION;
AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 11, BY ADDING §41-1604.14; RELATING TO PERSONS
NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE; AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 13, BY AMENDING
§13-3412 AND ADDING §13-3412.01; RELATING TO PERMISSIBLE USE OF CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES BY SERIOUSLY ILL OR TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS; AMENDING TITLE
41, CHAPTER 11, BY ADDING §41-1604.15 AND AMENDING TITLE 31, CHAPTER
3, BY ADDING §31-411.01; RELATING TO PAROLE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF
PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES; AMENDING TITLE
13, CHAPTER 9, BY ADDING §13-901.01; RELATING TO PROBATION FOR PERSONS
CONVICTED OF PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AND
BY ADDING §13-901.02; RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DRUG TREATMENT
AND EDUCATION FUND; AND AMENDING TITLE 42, CHAPTER 12, BY ADDING §42-1204.01;
RELATING TO LUXURY PRIVILEGE TAXES; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY.
Be it enacted by the people of the State of Arizona: The following amendments are proposed to become valid when approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon and upon proclamation pursuant thereto by the Governor of the State of Arizona.
Section 1. TITLE
THIS ACT SHALL BE KNOWN AND MAY BE CITED AS THE "DRUG MEDICALIZATION, PREVENTION, AND CONTROL ACT OF 1996."
Section 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA FIND AND DECLARE THE FOLLOWING:
Section 3. PURPOSE AND INTENT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA DECLARE THEIR PURPOSES TO BE AS FOLLOWS:
Chapter 11, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding §41-1604.16
to read as follows:
§41-1604.16. ARIZONA PARENTS COMMISSION ON DRUG EDUCATION AND PREVENTION.
Title 41, Chapter 11, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding §41-1604.14 to read as follows:
§4l-1604.14. PAROLE NONELIGIBILITY; VIOLENT CRIME; INFLUENCE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE; DEFINITION
Title 13, Chapter 13, §13-3412, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended as follows:
§13-3412. Exceptions and exemptions; burden of proof; privileged communications.
Title 13, Chapter 13, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding §13-3412.01 to read as follows:
§13-3412.01. PRESCRIBING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES INCLUDED IN SCHEDULE I OF §36-2512 FOR SERIOUSLY ILL AND TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS
Title 41, Chapter 11, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding §4l-1604.15 to read as follows:
§41-1604.15. PAROLE ELIGIBILITY FOR PERSONS PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
Title 31, Chapter 3, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding §31-411.01 to read as follows:
§31-411.01. PAROLE FOR PERSONS PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE; TREATMENT; PREVENTION; EDUCATION; TERMINATION OF PAROLE
Title 13, Chapter 9, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding §13-901.01 to read as follows:
§13-901.01. PROBATION FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF PERSONAL POSSESSION AND USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES; TREATMENT; PREVENTION; EDUCATION
Title 13, Chapter 9, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding §13-901.02 to read as follows:
§13-901.02. DRUG TREATMENT AND EDUCATION FUND
Title 42, Chapter 12 is amended by adding §42-1204.01 as follows:
§42-1204.01. LUXURY PRIVILEGES TAX; PURPOSE; DRUG TREATMENT AND EDUCATION FUND; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS REVOLVING FUND
Section 13. Severability
If any provision
of this Act, or part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstitutional, the remaining sections shall not be affected but shall
remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of the
Act are severable.
Proposition 200 would require that certain persons who are convicted of drug offenses be sentenced as follows:
1. Require that persons who commit violent crimes while under the influence of drugs serve 100% of their sentences, without eligibility for parole.
2. Require that persons who have been convicted before the proposition passes of the personal possession or use of a controlled substance such as marijuana and who are serving their sentence in prison be released on parole. A person is released on parole after serving time in jail or prison, is under the supervision of a parole officer and may have his parole revoked if any condition of parole is violated. The State Department of Corrections would be required to establish a procedure for paroling these persons. The Board of Executive Clemency would be required to release these persons unless the Board determines that a person would be a danger to the general public. Persons who are released on parole would be required to participate in drug treatment or education.
3. Require that persons who are convicted after the proposition passes of the personal possession or use of a controlled substance such as marijuana be eligible for probation. A person who is sentenced to probation does not serve any time in jail or prison, is under the supervision of a probation officer and remains free as long as the person continues his good behavior. A person on probation would be required to participate in a drug treatment or education program.
Proposition 200 would allow medical doctors to prescribe a controlled substance such as marijuana to treat a disease or to relieve the pain and suffering of a seriously or terminally ill patient. The doctor must be able to document that scientific research supports the use of the controlled substance and must obtain a written opinion from a second doctor that prescribing the controlled substance is appropriate. A patient who receives, possesses or uses a controlled substance as prescribed by a doctor would not be subject to criminal penalties.
Proposition 200 would establish the Drug Treatment and Education Fund. These monies would come from a percentage of the luxury tax on alcohol, cigarettes and other tobacco products. 50% of these monies would be transferred to Superior Court probation departments to cover the costs of placing persons in drug education and treatment programs. The remaining 50% of the monies would be transferred to the Arizona Parents Commission on Drug Education and Prevention.
200 would establish an Arizona Parents Commission on Drug Education
and Prevention. The Commission would be responsible for funding programs
that increase and enhance parental involvement in drug education and
During my service in the Reagan Administration, I was able to participate directly in their efforts to reduce the size of government. This philosophy has broad appeal today and politicians of both parties are searching for ways to make government more efficient.
However, one area that politicians seem reluctant to examine is that of our failed drug policies. We are spending billions for prisons to incarcerate low level drug users. In the federal prison system, 61 percent of the inmates are in for drug offenses. Of the drug offenders serving in state prisons, 38 percent of them are in for simple drug possession. Nationally, the cost to build a new prison bed averages $40,000 and the cost to maintain it averages $30,000 per year.
The results would be different if prison was a disincentive to using drugs. But most wardens say that it is impossible to eradicate drugs from the prison system. A friend of mine in law enforcement once told me that the prisoners would take the "do drugs, do time" bumper stickers and slice them in half to more accurately read "do time, do drugs." HBO recently issued a documentary which featured veteran prisoners in the prison teaching younger prisoners how to manufacture methamphetamine.
I am supporting
the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act because I believe
we must reform our drug policy. The Act mandates that first and second
time offenders convicted of simple possession or use will receive treatment
and probation as an alternative to incarceration. Treatments costs 1/8
of the cost of prison time and is certain to have a better result than
incarceration during which many addicts continue to use drugs at public
expense. Most importantly, the money saved on the prison spending can
be invested in drug prevention for our youth.
Former U. S. Deputy Secretary of Agriculture
Chairman, Arizonans for Drug Reform
When John Kennedy was elected President, he asked Stewart Udall, Congressman from Tucson, to be his Secretary of the Interior. Stewart brought a small cadre of Arizonans to work for him in Washington. I was lucky enough to be in the group--as Special Assistant to the Solicitor.
Young people serving in the Kennedy Administration met twice a month in an informal group called the New Frontier Club. I remember at one meeting having an extensive discussion about our drug laws. There was general consensus that the criminalization of narcotic drug use was not working -- just as prohibition didn't work. We were concerned that the Government was spending a lot of money and the situation was only getting worse. I thought that the laws would be reformed soon since their failure was so obvious. That was 34 years ago!
Today, the failed drug war continues. At the state level drug control spending is over $16 billion with 80% going to the criminal justice system, and 20% to education and treatment. We need to reverse these priorities so that we spend at least the same amount on treatment and education to what we spend on enforcement and prisons.
The Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act seeks to equalize the spending on treatment and education. Rather than wasting money on prison for minor drug users, the Act invests in treatment for users and prevention for our youth.
There is strong
evidence that this approach will be more effective. A Rand Corporation
study in 1994 found that treatment is much more effective than enforcement
and prisons in reducing cocaine use. It is time to adopt rational, cost-effective
measures that deal with drugs in ways that benefit rather than harm
Marvin S. Cohen
Former Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board
Treasurer, Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform\
Marijuana has been known for decades to help in treating the terminally and seriously ill patient. Because of the value of marijuana as a drug, the American Medical Association vigorously opposed the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 which made it impossible for doctors to prescribe this drug for their patients. Modern research shows marijuana helps cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy; treats glaucoma; prevents convulsions; arrests severe muscle spasms in patients with neuromuscular disorders; stimulates appetite in AIDS patients. Last year the American Public Health Association urged the "Administration and Congress to move expeditiously to make cannabis available as a legal medicine where shown to be safe and effective." In 1988, the Drug Enforcement Agency's own administrative law judge, Francis L. Young, declared marijuana fulfilled the legal requirement of currently accepted medical use in treatment, adding it was "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."
Yet today, doctors still cannot help patients for whom all other medicines have failed and marijuana may have scientifically-proven benefit. The edicts that tie their hands are not passed down by physicians or research scientists, but by government bureaucrats and political appointees.
The Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act of 1996 lets doctors help their seriously and terminally ill patients for whom all other options have failed, by prescribing marijuana as a medical therapy in those situations. It does this judiciously and responsibly. The prescribing doctor must obtain a second physician's opinion. Prescription and drug use must follow accepted medical standards under the purview of the Arizona Board of Medical Examiners. There must be documented scientific evidence of potential benefit.
The Drug Medicalization,
Prevention and Control Act of 1996 is a moderate, well-reasoned proposal
that enhances the physician's ability to help suffering patients. It
deserves our strong support.
As a former prosecutor and U.S. Senator, I have spent my life fighting against drugs. I am supporting the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act because it will help strengthen Arizona's drug control.
By placing small, personal drug users into treatment and probation, the Act will clear up prison space for violent criminals and drug dealers. The Act also creates a Parents Commission on Drug Education and Prevention. This Commission will seek more drug education for parents and greater parental involvement in drug prevention.
The Act requires
violent drug offenders to serve 100 percent of their sentence and has
a three-strikes-and-you're-out clause. I urge you to vote Yes on the
Drug Medicalization Prevention, and Control Act. It's a better way.
United States Senator (Ret.)
As a former cop, I have seen the failure of our drug policies on the street.
As a former U.S. Attorney, I have seen the failure of our drug policies in the courts.
And as a parent, I am afraid that if we don't do something different, my children might be the next victims.
That's why I am backing the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act which is a new and effective way of controlling drugs. The Act adopts a get tough, get smart approach.
The Act gets tough on dangerous, violent drug offenders. It requires them to serve 100% of their sentence. In addition, judges may be more likely to sentence these offenders to longer sentences because the people have identified them as a menace.
That Act will also have an impact on other violent and dangerous offenders. Arizona suffers from an immense prison crisis. This overcrowding has had a chilling effect on sentencing. The Act will free up needed prison space for violent offenders and drug dealers.
The Act gets smart by investing money in prevention programs, not wasting it on prison for minor drug users. It creates the Arizona Parents Commission on Drug Education and Prevention. The Commission will fund programs for parent drug education and develop drug prevention programs which will increase parental involvement. After all, if we parents don't get involved, we're never going to reduce drug abuse among our children.
So I urge
you to vote yes on the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control
Act, it's a new and better way of dealing with our drug problem.
Former Asst. U.S. Attorney and Law Enforcement Officer
The "Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act" deserves support. Drug abuse is a public health issue. We need to medicalize our drug policy and put more emphasis on drug prevention and treatment. The current approach to drug policy is not working. The most recent government numbers show that marijuana use among our youth (12-17) increased by several hundred percent over the last couple of years. We need to invest more money on drug treatment and prevention for our youth and spend less money on prisons for simple, nonviolent drug users. This Act will free up more prison space for drug dealers and violent offenders.
This initiative also has medical benefits. Medicalization means that we treat drug abuse as a public health issue. Drug abuse is a disease; throwing heavy prison sentences at users does not solve their problem. This Act calls for mandatory, court-supervised treatment and probation as an alternative for non-violent drug users. It provides expanded drug prevention programs. It will also allow doctors to prescribe controlled drugs such as marijuana for seriously and terminally ill patients.
This reform is not decriminalization. This Act only applies to people who are convicted of personal possession or use of a controlled substance. Dealers would continue to be rigorously prosecuted and incarcerated, and persons who commit violent crimes while on drugs would receive tougher penalties, up to 100% of their sentence. Drug users would still receive criminal penalties, probation, and mandatory court-supervised treatment.
This Act only applies to non-violent drug offenders. Offenders with a violent criminal history would be ineligible.
will save money and, more importantly, help break the cycle of "do
drugs - do time - do drugs" by a more crime-effective approach
to drug users. As a judge, I feel it deserves support.
Rudolph J. Gerber, Judge
Court of Appeals
Drug abuse is not just a criminal justice problem, it is first a public health problem. Addiction to controlled substances is a disease. If our drug policy was really a "War" as some claim, we would demand a new strategy or court-martial the general. Polling shows that over 90% of Arizonans believe we are losing the War on Drugs. Perhaps this is why our new Drug Czar, General McCaffrey, has said, "war" is the wrong metaphor and that the drug problem is a "cancer."
Sending minor drug users to prison draws resources from society and does nothing for the addict. There are drugs in the prison system. Often, prisoners simply continue their addiction in prison and are released back into society.
Minor drug users are the fastest growing group in Arizona prison, out pacing even violent offenders and drug dealers. Between 1994 and 1996, the number of mere users in Arizona prisons increased by 658. The cost of each new prison bed in Arizona is $35,000 and it costs $18,000 to maintain it. So the net cost of these new addicts to the state over the last two years is $46.7 million, not to mention the cost to maintain the 1300 existing beds taken up by drug users.
I urge your
support for the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act of
1996. The Act offers first and second time offenders who are convicted
of personal possession or use of a controlled substance drug treatment
and probation. This treatment costs one-eighth that of prisons. Most
importantly, drug users who can work while under treatment remain taxpayers
and are not severed from their families who can offer vital support
in recovery. The Act will also invest resources in drug prevention for
youth which emphasizes parental involvement.
Dr. John Sperling
President, Apollo Group Inc.
This proposition sounds deceptively appealing, but it gives less freedom with the one hand than it takes away with the other.
Proposition 200 contains some libertarian-sounding provisions that would restore a measure of freedom that has been denied by current drug laws -- such as allowing the medical use of controlled substances to alleviate pain and suffering, and treatment instead of incarceration for non-violent drug users. Cost reductions in our prisons sound good, too.
But, on balance, this proposition is anti-freedom -- and certainly anti-responsibility.
Proposition 200 creates another tax-hungry government entity (a Parents Commission) and creates compulsory business for the lucrative (and highly ineffectual) "drug abuse treatment" industry. Convicted drug users must undergo treatment as a requirement of Proposition 200 (whether they need it or not). If they can't pay for their own treatment, we, the taxpayers, pick up the tab.
It's high time government stopped treating responsible adults as children.
If you care about the suffering of patients who are denied the medical benefits of controlled drugs…
If you care about the lives wasted in prison for the mere possession of recreational substances...
If you want real, meaningful drug reform...
... then stop prosecuting people for using drugs. Control the sale of drugs just as we now control the sale of alcohol and tobacco.
Suddenly there will be room in our jails for truly violent offenders.
Suddenly there will be far fewer violent crimes, when drugs are no longer worth fighting over, stealing for, or pushing on our children.
PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
AMENDING TITLE 13, TITLE 41, AND TITLE 42,OF THE ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 11, BY ADDING §41-1604.16; RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ARIZONA PARENTS COMMISSION ON DRUG EDUCATION AND PREVENTION; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 11, BY ADDING §41-1604.14; RELATING TO PERSONS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE; AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 13, BY AMENDING §13-3412 AND ADDING §13-3412.01; RELATING TO PERMISSIBLE USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES BY SERIOUSLY ILL OR TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 11, BY ADDING §41-1604.15 AND AMENDING TITLE 31, CHAPTER 3, BY ADDING §31-411.01; RELATING TO PAROLE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES; AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 9, BY ADDING §13-901.01; RELATING TO PROBATION FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AND BY ADDING §13-901.02; RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DRUG TREATMENT AND EDUCATION FUND; AND AMENDING TITLE 42, CHAPTER 12, BY ADDING §42-1204.01; RELATING TO LUXURY PRIVILEGE TAXES; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY.
REQUIRING PERSONS ON DRUGS COMMITTING VIOLENT CRIMES TO SERVE ENTIRE SENTENCE; PROVIDING PAROLE/PROBATION AND TREATMENT AS ALTERNATIVE TO INCARCERATION FOR PERSONS CONVICTED ONLY OF PERSONAL POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ON FIRST TWO OFFENSES; ALLOWING DOCTORS TO PRESCRIBE OTHERWISE ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES FOR CERTAIN PATIENTS; CREATING DRUG-RELATED FUND AND COMMISSION.
About Site Map Privacy
© Copyright 2001 National Families in Action. All rights reserved.
Questions? Write to email@example.com.