Pubdate: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 Source: Arizona Republic (AZ) Copyright: 2002 The Arizona Republic Contact: http://www.arizonarepublic.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/24 DEALING WITH DRUGS 'Yes' On Prop. 302, 'No' On 203 Imagine the state police handing out marijuana. Sound preposterous? That's just what Proposition 203 requires. The Department of Public Safety would have to distribute free pot to anyone with a registration card for medical marijuana. Maybe the officers should include roach clips and Zig-Zag rolling papers. Proposition 203 masquerades as a simple expansion of the measure voters approved six years ago, authorizing the use of marijuana for medical reasons and putting non-violent drug users into treatment instead of jail. But read Proposition 203 closely, and you'll find a Pandora's box of nasty surprises. Here are just a few of the reasons to vote "no": * People with qualifying health conditions would get registration cards entitling them to 2 ounces of free pot a month. As proof, they'd need a doctor's note saying they have a debilitating condition that may be mitigated by marijuana. Their caregivers could also get registration cards. So could children younger than 18, if the parents agreed. How long would it take for a shady industry to spring up to help people qualify? * DPS would have to obtain and store marijuana and run a distribution system. Is this how we want the state police spending time and resources? * Authorities' ability to seize the assets of drug-law violators would be drastically curtailed. The wide-ranging reach of forfeiture laws may be worth some scrutiny. But we shouldn't leap into such a dramatic change so hastily. One of the main thrusts of Proposition 203 is to decriminalize the possession of 2 ounces or less of marijuana for personal use. Possession would still be subject to a $250 civil fine, rising to $750 on a third offense within a two-year period. The fine could be waived for those who undergo court-approved drug treatment. Decriminalizing marijuana may indeed deserve more discussion. But this proposition, loaded with other baggage, isn't the basis for a carefully reasoned debate. Instead, it is an ill-conceived overhaul of drug laws that goes far beyond its purported aims. The other drug-related ballot measure, Proposition 302, is just the opposite. Arizonans should vote "yes," because it accomplishes a clear, worthy goal - giving judges the hammer of imposing jail time on convicted drug users who refuse to get court-ordered treatment. Under current law, first-time offenders for personal possession of drugs aren't sent to jail. Instead, they're put on probation and required to attend a drug treatment or education program. This is a sensible way to help drug abusers confront their problem - as long as they follow and complete the program. The dilemma is what to do if they refuse to comply. With other offenses, the answer is simple: The judge revokes probation and the offender goes to jail. But if a first-time drug offender doesn't follow the probationary requirement to get drug treatment . . . well, that's just too bad. This is not a sensible way to encourage respect for the law. Proposition 302 would give judges the option of putting those who refuse treatment behind bars. Opponents of Proposition 302 argue that the option is unnecessary, because a judge can always hold someone in contempt for refusing to follow a court order. But that's too cumbersome and costly, with the whole process of a separate hearing. To encourage respect for the law, to take the best approach to drug use, voters should say "yes" to Proposition 302 and "no" to Proposition 203. - --- MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart