PAPER TIGERS: MEDIA LITTLE HELP IN STOPPING DRUG INITIATIVE

By: Alex Mahon

[ Alex Mahon is a colonel in the Arizona National Guard and a director of
the Methamphetamine Control Strategy. ]

Editor's note: The Republic editorial board publicly opposed
Proposition 200 before the election.

TEXT: I find it very interesting that your paper has finally found the
time to explore the full ramifications of Proposition 200 now that
it is too late. Your attention was sorely missed before the election.
Could it be that you supported the legalization of marijuana (and some
other extremely dangerous drugs), but opted to ignore the issue rather than
show your hand?

Have you modified the longcherished value of "the people's right to
know," to "the people's right to know only what the news media thinks they
ought to know?"

I find it peculiar that when the voices against Proposition 200 held
press conferences and other events, the news media stayed away in droves.
Curious.

To a certain extent you have, however, redeemed yourselves. Your recent
reporting is generally accurate and complete. If you will permit me some
observations:

> The old saw about not eating sausage if you saw how it was made
applies to Proposition 200. It contains too many elements, most of which
have nothing to do with each other: Medicalization of marijuana,
medicalization of extremely dangerous "hard" drugs, criminal penalties for
drug traffickers, criminal penalties for drug users and demandreduction
programs.

Don't be surprised if one element steps on another. And if you draft a
confusing proposition, don't be surprised if the electorate is confused.
Indeed, how many voters know what a Schedule I controlled substance is. Do
you really think reasoning men and women want to "medicalize" heroin and
LSD?

> Assume for a moment that the medicalization of marijuana has merit
(after all, medically approved and legitimately manufactured morphine,
cocaine and methamphetamine are available under proper medical
supervision). Why mess up a potentially legitimate issue with heroin and
LSD? Dumb. Or perhaps the real motive is legalization, not medicalization.

> What happens when recalcitrant drug users can no longer be coerced
into treatment by the threat of some jail time? I bet you can figure it
out. Some of our very successful drug court programs will probably go away.

> Virtually all the news media are describing the passage of
Proposition 200 as a popular mandate, as if by acclamation.

Did you know that the population of Arizona is 4,462,300? That there are
3,262,300 Arizonans eligible to vote (73.1 percent)? That there are
2,257,000 registered voters in Arizona (69.2 percent of those eligible)?
That 1,431,300 registered voters voted in the last election (63.4 percent)?
That 872,200 voters voted for Proposition 200 (60.9 percent)?

This means that 38.6 percent of registered voters voted for Proposition
200. And that 26.7 percent of those who were eligible to vote, voted for
Proposition 200. And that 19.5 percent of our population created something
we're all going to have to live with.

While it cannot be denied that the passage of Proposition 200 was valid,
it is not a popular mandate. It's more akin to when only half the players
on the one team show up to play a technical victory by default. Please
curb your gift for deceptive exaggeration when describing public support
for Proposition 200.

As someone who is intensely involved in the antiillegal drug arena, I
was extremely disheartened by the passage of Proposition 200. Some among us
even said, "If the people we're trying to help don't care, why should we?"
Fortunately, the committed many are still energetically engaged, and
disappointment over the passage of Proposition 200 has given way to renewed
resolve.

Copyright Arizona Republic

>I have no expertise to say whether National Guard Col. Alex Mahon is, as
>suggested in previous notes, engaging in "conduct unbecoming an officer,"
>legally speaking. I can say the following screed penned by Col. Mahon is
>unflattering to him and to drug warriors everywhere.
>
>In attacking Prop. 200 rhetorically two months before AZ legislators
>gutted the measure Col. Mahon goes so far as to deconstruct the whopping
>2to1 vote FOR the new law by dividing the raw number of 'YES' votes on
>200 into the total number of all votingeligible adults, thereby drawing
>the "percentage" of Arizonans who have foisted this nightmare law onto the
>Fine Upstanding People of Arizona down to 19% and why should we listen
>to such a tiny minority?, Col. Mahon asks.
>
>ABSOLUTELY CHILLING, especially coming from a politically active member of
>the armed forces of the United States mere weeks before the popular law was
>stripped of its meaning and denied the chance of implementation. All the
>more so that the National Guard is evidently engaged in political lobbying
>so soon after joining with CADCA in its muchhyped partnership... And the
>fact that CADCA paid for a university professor's poll also used to support
>this week's successful legislative thwarting of Prop. 200.
>
>Once again, I'd ask what happened to General McCaffrey's "this is not a
>war" policy. Col. Mahon definitely did not get the message. CADCA's
>lobbyists are wearing fatigues.

The 'Yes' votes (872,000) were divided into the total population(4.5
million) to reach Col. Mahon's> 19% < figure. That includes kids,
immigrants, and noneligible persons like felons.

dave fratello