ADD NEW WEAPON TO METH BATTLE

Proposition 301 is not a new approach in dealing with methamphetamine users.

In fact, it essentially rolls back the clock to the pre-1996 era when
judges could sentence first-time meth offenders to jail or prison.

Back then, meth wasn't the huge drug menace that it is today. But it
is quickly replacing marijuana as the nation's most-used illegal
narcotic, according to U.S. Justice Department data and surveys.

And in Arizona, crime statistics provided by the FBI and the state
show that meth is linked to three of every four crimes. Moreover, a
five-year study by the University of Arizona reveals that hospital
admissions related to meth exceed those related to cocaine use.

To give prosecutors another tool - actually an old tool that's been
eclipsed by two public votes - the Legislature has referred
Proposition 301 to the ballot.

It's a good idea, given the seriousness of meth addiction. Opponents
who claim that this will open the door to first-time offenders
clogging our jails and prisons while being denied all-important
education and treatment programs espouse a hollow fear.

There is not a judge around who will give jail time to an individual
convicted of a first or second possession-of-meth offense without any
prior felonies, says Jane McLaughlin, the chief counsel of the drug
unit for Attorney General Terry Goddard. "Fears that all will be
incarcerated are grossly unfounded."

Proposition 301 is all about judicial discretion.

That's the way it was before the 1996 vote on a ballot proposition
that mandated that first- and second-time drug offenders receive
mandatory education and drug treatment and probation. It passed, and
in 2002 another ballot proposition modified that law so that judges
could send first and second offenders to jail if they refused
probation or if they failed to attend the drug treatment programs.

Proposition 301, if approved, would only apply to meth, and not to
other drugs such as marijuana, heroin, cocaine, Ecstasy and others.
There would be no mandatory probation, though judges still would be
empowered to send these individuals to drug treatment programs and
probation immediately upon a plea or conviction.

And if Proposition 301 passes, counties and the state should allocate
more funds to improve drug treatment and education programs, because
research shows that they work.

Barbara Broderick, the chief adult probation officer for Maricopa
County, likens Proposition 301 to reverse mandatory sentencing. Meth
treatment no longer would be mandatory. Judges would have judicial
discretion, looking at previous convictions on other crimes - from
identity theft to burglary - and making a determination if the
individual would be a danger to self, family or community if placed
on probation.

This strikes us as reasonable, not punitive. And enrollment in
substance-abuse programs in jail or prison should be within reach.

We recommend a "yes" vote on Proposition 301.