This weblog goes back in time, with newest entries at the top. Older entries are transferred to the archive. If a search engine or a link brought you to this page and you don't see what you're looking for, search the site: You can also go to the Pray for Peace News archive (click here) or an index of everything at this site (click here).
PFPF News Update: PFPF News Update: On April 21, 1999, the Arizona State Supreme Court issued a report analyzing Prop. 200's first year. The Court praised the law for saving money and reducing crime and illegal drug use. Prop. 200, which medicalized marijuana, heroin and LSD, among other things, first passed in 1996, then voters reconfirmed it in 1998. The Supreme Court published these results:
The Supreme Court noted these results:
* Cost savings to Arizona taxpayers of over $2.56 million.
* A total of 2,622 offenders diverted into treatment rather than jail or prison.
* Over 98 percent of offenders placed in recommended programs.
* Over three quarters (77.5%) of probationers tested drug-free after program completion.
* Over 61 percent of the 932 probationers for whom data was available completed programs successfully.
* 77.1 percent of probationers made at least one payment towards the cost of their treatment.
"All of these factors are resulting in safer communities and more substance abusing probationers in recovery," the justices said. "The outcome benefits of this intervention over time will reveal not only fiscal and crime reduction benefits, but an increase in the quality of life conditions of this population such as improved family and social relationships, increased work productivity and wages, and decreased health system costs."
"This report firmly supports a new paradigm of drug control for the nation," says Norman Helber, Chief Adult Probation Officer for Maricopa County, Arizona.
Excerpts from the Arizona Voter's Pamphlet
Proposition 200: The Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act
Even if you live outside of Arizona, you may be interested in the current voters' pamphlet, because it shows where the drug policy debate stands in this state.
Yes on 200
A "yes" vote shall have the effect of requiring the entire sentence to be served by persons who commit violent crimes while on drugs, changing sentences for persons convicted of possession or use of controlled substances, and allowing doctors to prescribe otherwise illegal substances for certain patients.
ARGUMENT FOR PROPOSITION 200
Signed by 17 medical doctors and 3 other health care professionals
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.
ARGUMENT FOR PROPOSITION 200
by Dennis DeConcini
United States Senator (Ret.)
Bethesda, Maryland
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% 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.
ARGUMENT FOR PROPOSITION 200
by John Norton
Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Agriculture
Chairman, Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform
Paradise Valley, AZ
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. Treatment 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.
ARGUMENT FOR PROPOSITION 200
by Marvin S. Cohen
Former Chairman
Civil Aeronautics Board
Treasurer, Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform, Phoenix
When John Kennedy was elected President, he asked Stewart Udall, Congressman from Tucson, to be his Secretary of the Interior. Steward 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 society.
ARGUMENT FOR PROPOSITION 200
by Steve Mitchell
Former Asst. U.S. Attorney and Law Enforcement Officer, Phoenix
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. 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.
ARGUMENT FOR PROPOSITION 200
by Rudolph J. Gerber
Judge, Court of Appeals, Phoenix
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 in 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.
This initiative 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.
ARGUMENT FOR PROPOSITION 200
by Dr. John Sperling, President
Apollo Group Inc., Phoenix
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 prisons, 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 1,300 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 1/8 that of prisons. Most importantly, drug users who can work wile 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.
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
(In compliance with A.R.S. section 19-124)
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 substances 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 tor 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.
Proposition 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 treatment.
EXCERPT FROM THE FRIENDS JOURNAL, February 1996 Getting Off Drugs: The Legalization Option
by Walter Wink
Professor of Biblical Interpretation
Auburn Theological Seminary
New York City
Some people argue that legalization represents a daring and risky experiment, but it is prohibition that is the daring and risky experiment.
The drug war is over, and we lost. We merely repeated the mistake of Prohibition. The harder we try to stamp out this evil, the more lucrative we made it, and the more it spread. Our forcible resistance to evil simply augments it. An evil cannot be eradicated by making it more profitable
The Quaker commitment to non-violence has direct implications for the United States' failed drug war. It is a spiritual law that we become what we hate. Jesus articulated this law in the Sermon on the Mount when he admonished, "Do not react violently to the one who is evil!" Applied to the drug issue, this means, "Do not resist drugs by violent methods."
The uproar about drugs is itself odd. Illicit drugs are, on the whole, far less dangerous than the legal drugs that many more people consume. . . . the real killer-drugs (nicotine and alcohol). . . .Drug addiction is singled out as evil, yet ours is a society of addicts. We project on the black drug subculture all our profound anxieties about our own addictions (to wealth, power, sex, food, work, religion, alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco) [and prescription drugs].
No one wants to live in a country overrun with drugs, but we already do. We should at the very least commit ourselves to a policy of "harm reduction." We cannot stop drug violence with state violence. Addicts will be healed by care and compassion, not condemnation.
Pray for Peace News est. 1995
Pray for Peace News was founded to spread awareness, education and devotion to the Great and Holy Mystery that is God. We accept all paths as true; all religions are but branches of the same tree. We promote interfaith dialogue and exchange programs to develop tolerance between religions.
Pray for Peace News is dedicated to nonviolence (vegetarian diet) and daily meditation. Pray for Peace News editors are committed to the legalization of sacred natural medicines for spiritual healing, for all people.
End the War on Drugs
index
