PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Proposition 203



sorry dog
08-13-2002, 04:26 AM
Maybe I should name this part 1 if RD jumps into the conversation.
Anyway- How would you vote on Arizona proposition 203 to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana?
[ August 13, 2002, 05:29 AM: Message edited by: sorry dog ]

Boatcop
08-13-2002, 02:46 PM
This is pretty contoversial here. There hasn't been a whole lot of press, since the measure petition was just submittted, and the signatures confirmed. I expect a whole lot more info in the near future.
What's bad about this is not the decriminalization of marijuana itself. The problem will be in applying the law. (if passed) California has a similar "Medical Marijuana" Law, but has spent millions of dollars in federal court trying to get it to work. It also mandates the state to provide Medical Marijuana to those who "need" it, at taxpayer expense.
The states cannot pass a law that is in violation of federal statutes. Marijuana is still classified as a "controlled substance" under federal law, and possession, importation, transportation, or distribution is a federal felony. It's also a federal crime for a Doctor to prescribe Marijuana and certain other substances, except under federal guidelines. Any Doctor who does, risks having their DEA license, and medication prescription writing privileges revoked. The State has no control over this. It's a federal administrative program.
No matter how you feel about the subject, we simply cannot afford the millions $$ to defend the law in court.
There's already a law in AZ that says there's no jail or prison for possession of small quantities of marijuana and ANY other drug.(Heroin, Cocaine, Methamphetamine, LSD, etc) It was also touted as a "Medical Marijuana" bill when it passed, but buried in the fine print was language that included all drugs. The law allowed someone convicted of simple possession to do community service and probation, but no time. This is for 1st and 2nd offenses. There is also no provision for punishment (jail) for those convicted under this law who refuse to do the treatment or community service. In other words, there's no teeth to the law. (There's a measure on the ballot in Nov. to correct this.)
It also doesn't take into account what the original charge was. They could be selling pounds of meth to kindergartners, but plea down to "simple possession", and get their hands slapped.
The law is bad for Arizona, especially being in the poor financial shape the State's in now.

sorry dog
08-14-2002, 06:07 AM
The way NPR reported it was that the bill would reduce the penalties of possessing 2oz or less of marijuana from a low felony to a misdemeanor (fine). Correct me if this is wrong.
If this is what it does I see this could be both good and bad. I'm sure most of us know someone who has been prosecuted unfairly for what amounts to a simple possession.

Havasu Cig
08-14-2002, 08:23 AM
I would not believe anything NPR says...They are a left wing, tree hugging, communist organization funded by our tax dollars.

sorry dog
08-14-2002, 09:16 AM
And that would make them worse than any other mainstream media?

Havasu Cig
08-14-2002, 09:40 AM
I think they are about as far left as you can get, so they are going to promote their agenda.
As far as the news media, you have to take everything you hear and read with a grain of salt.

sorry dog
08-14-2002, 10:43 AM
I hear ya on the validity of current new reporting. I kinda sucks. I stopped watching the news years ago.
Maybe somebody could tell me exactly what 203 is supposed to do?

Boatcop
08-14-2002, 08:18 PM
The measure itself is pretty lengthy, and I've provided a link below to the whole measure.
For us lazy people, here's some highlights: (with my editorial comments)
1) People found guilty of drug offenses will have to pay for their own treatment. Druggies don't have money. Taxpayers will pay for it.
2) People found guilty of violent drug offenses will have their sentences increased by 50%. Non-violent drug offenses will have mandatory minimum sentences removed. The guy selling meth to school kids can get probation.
3) Felony will be removed on possession of small amounts of Marijuana, a civil violation and fine will be imposed. No definition of "small amount", or if it's packaged for sale. The guy with a dozen dime bags, selling it to school kids gets a civil "traffic ticket."
4) Persons charged with drug offenses won't have property forfeited unless found guilty. The guy with no job, no income, no means of support except selling crack, gets to keep the Mercedes, the Denalli, and the Fountain, and the 50 grand in cash, he got from selling poison to our kids, because he got off on a technicality. Voids the Federal RICO laws.
5) Makes possession of drug paraphernalia no longer a crime. The guy with the hype kit, aids infected needles, meth pipe, and heroin spoon isn't breaking the law anymore.
6) Provisions to prevent those in "need" of medical marijuana from having to get it on the street. Mandates that marijuana must come from State or Federal sources. Forces the State to grow, supply and distribute Marijuana at taxpayer expense.
These laws are always presented to the public as a way to help the poor cancer patient who needs marijuana to overcome the nausea of chemo. But it's really about trying to legalize ALL drugs completely, and portraying the meth and crack addicted tweakers as "victims", and that by decriminalizing drugs will magically make all dopers report for treatment, and we'll no longer have any street drugs, or drug related crime and violence.
On the contrary, the incidence of crime and violence will go UP, as druggines and tweakers flock to Az to take advantage of lax laws. Since the jail provision was taken out of first and second offender drug possession in Arizona, drug related crime and violence has increased over 50%, while other crime is decreasing.
But, enough of my ranting. Read the whole measure yourself. What's more important than what's written there, is what ISN'T there.
Arizona Prop 203 (http://www.sos.state.az.us/election/2002/Info/PubPamphlet/propI-11-2002.htm)

Tom Foolery
08-15-2002, 09:04 AM
Boatcop, not that this pertains to Prop 203 but as a LEO I'm curious as to what your oppinion would be to the government leagalizing and selling drugs for profit.
I would think that if the government started selling, it would cut the cash flow to much of the organized crime, out of country drug lords, gangs & etc., while supplying cash to pay for education, enforcement of associated laws, and medical expenses. Also if the government were to suppy drugs they could also control the contents of them to make them safer and ensure that they are not being cut with dangerous chemicals.
I don't use illegal drugs and I wouldn't start if they were to be come legal. Conversly our current laws don't seem to deter people from using the illegal drugs. I don't belive that there is a large population waiting to take up a drug habbit should it become legal. We once outlawed alcohol and had problems very much like our current drug problems. Most of which have disappeared since the ban was lifted.
Even if the government were to legalize some of the milder drugs (pot for example) I believe that he profits could go a long way to fund the fight against the more dangerous drugs and educating our children about their dangers (Something parents should be doing anyways).
[ August 15, 2002, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Tom Foolery ]

Boatcop
08-15-2002, 12:38 PM
We once outlawed alcohol and had problems very much like our current drug problems. Most of which have disappeared since the ban was lifted.
True, but since then the social impact of alcohol has been tremendous. Domestic violence, drunk driver caused deaths, absenteeism at work, on-the-job injuries, unemployment, etc. costs the taxpayers billions of dollars a year.
Throwing currently illegal drugs into the mix would increase this problem 100 fold. Anyone who thinks that people who don't currently use drugs wouldn't start if it were legal, are just fooling themselves. From a merely economic standpoint, it wouldn't make sense for the government to allow a substance to be legal, and then have to foot the bill to treat all the new addicts it would create.
Children would be much more exposed to it, and that would create a whole new generation of drug dependant people. Look at how well the laws keeping alcohol and cigarettes from minors are working.
Instead of standing outside the Circle K asking for beer, the kids will be there saying, "Buy me some dope, Mister!" after the Friday night football game.
A responsible drug policy requires effective enforcement of existing drug laws, while making treatment of drug dependancy as widely available as possible.
The high rate of recidivism of drug users after treatment shows that either the treatment methods aren't sufficient, or that the users don't want or don't respond to treatment.
Legalizing drugs and making them easier to get isn't the answer. I don't purport to know what that answer is, but I know that legalization isn't one of them.

beyondhelpin
08-15-2002, 02:15 PM
Boatcop
Although I agree somewhat with your opinions on the subject there need to be some changes made.
After all the billions of taxpayer money that has been spent on drug prevention, have we made a dent even a small one in drug trade here? No.
Do you think that the average 13 year old cant get a "hook up" on most drugs? You are fooling yourself if you think they cant. Drugs are easy to obtain for any one that wants them.
With all the enforcment we have done, do you think that our citys are a safer place to live? With all the money to be made in trafficing drugs there is a drug Al Capone on every street corner ready to fight for his share of the profits. Violence begets violence. Pretty soon these dealers make themselfs immune to the violence and the value of life drops substancialy. This applys not only to the dealers but to the children who are around this way of life. 12 year old kids who would just as soon pop a cap in your ass for looking at them funny. WTF
Do you think you home and property are safer because of all the dealers and users who have been taken off the streets? Where one falls the are three more to take his place selling. The hardcore user is not as worried about going to jail as much as he is getting his next fix. Drug prices what they are he will break into your house, jack your car or whatever it takes to get money for his habit. Hopefully our familys are not in his way while this is going on.
Would the social impact of drug use be higher if it was legalized? Yes in some areas like what you mentioned above but for me and my family and society as a whole to be safer from drug violence it is it might be a good trade off.
My comments arent specific to 203, which seems to be poorly written. If I am understanding the law correctly it seems to be trying to make it easier on the casual user. But we cannot keep our heads in the sand and continue to think what we are doing is the best path.
I dont think I have all the answers. Hell I am not even sure I have any of the answers. But I do know what we are doing now is not working. And in my opinion is continuing to make matters worse.
It might be a pipe dream but maybe we need to look at how some of the European countries, like Amsterdam, are handling their drug problems. They have much less violent drug crimes than we do.
As long as fast big bucks can be made in the drug trafficing world we are going to continue to have big problems.