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.