PRESERVE SENSIBLE DRUG POLICY

A ``no'' vote on Propositions 300 and 301 will retain the forward-thinking
drug policy that Arizona voters chose two years ago.

That vote, on what then was titled Proposition 200, authorized doctors in
Arizona to prescribe marijuana and other banned drugs as therapeutic aids
for seriously-ill and terminally-ill patients. Many cancer patients attest
to the effectiveness of marijuana in combating the nausea and lack of
appetite caused by chemotherapy treatments.

Proposition 200 also mandated treatment, rather than imprisonment, for
those convicted of simple possession or use of drugs for the first or
second time.

The Arizona Legislature objected to these sensible proposals and in two
laws that directly challenged the will of the voters, sought to undo them.

Proposition 300 is a referendum on a legislative bill that would take away
the right of a terminally ill patient to use marijuana to alleviate pain
and nausea until it is specifically approved by Congress or the Food and
Drug Administration. A ``no'' vote preserves the right granted by Arizona
voters.

Proposition 301 is a referendum on a legislative attempt to imprison,
rather than treat, some drug users. A ``no'' vote would defeat the
Legislature's attempt to thwart the voters' will.

These are not votes about the legalization of marijuana or the
decriminalization of drug use in Arizona, despite what supporters of the
two propositions contend.

There is no attempt to legalize drugs here and this is not the beginning of
a campaign to do so. Proposition 200 has been law for nearly two years. It
has had no adverse effects. It should be allowed to work. That's the
opinion of Attorney General Grant Woods, who originally opposed the measure
but is now campaigning against its repeal, saying the will of the voters
must be respected.

And that's the principal point here. Many of Arizona's legislators, its
governor and its GOP congressional delegation defend the legislative
usurpation of the people's will by arguing that voters were misled into
voting for Proposition 200.

They were not.

Voters passed Proposition 200 because they sympathize with the terminally
ill who might find some relief from pain by smoking or ingesting marijuana.

They passed it because they are tired of a failed lock-em-up drug policy
that threatens to overwhelm the state's and the nation's prisons.

They passed it because they wanted to force the state to concentrate on
education, treatment and rehabilitation rather than punishment for those
with addictions.

Punishment does not work. The prisons are crowded and should be reserved
for criminals.

Vote no on Propositions 300 and 301. Preserve a sensible drug policy and
preserve the right of the voters to have their votes respected.

Checked-by: Joel W. Johnson