PROP 200

A blend of drug control ideas in Prop. 200

MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE , I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony concerning the adoption of the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act of 1996 (Proposition 200) by a nearly two-to-one mandate of the voters of Arizona. The purpose of my testimony is to demonstrate that Arizona's voters knew exactly what they were doing on November 5 and to review with you the compelling reasons for the strong public support Proposition 200 received.

I served as treasurer of and an attorney for Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform, the committee that proposed and supported Proposition 200. The group was initially led by John Sperling, president of the Apollo Group, which owns and operates the University of Phoenix. The members were a mix of doctors, lawyers, judges, businessmen, Democrats, and Republicans. When the formal support committee for Proposition 200 was formed, the group asked John Norton, former assistant secretary of Agriculture under President Reagan and then chairman of the Goldwater Institute to serve as chairman of the committee, and me, a Carter appointee (former chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board) to serve as treasurer. Both John and I had for years felt that there has been a serious dichotomy between private opinions and public positions concerning America's drug policies. We knew that the policies followed for the past 35 years hadn't worked, and, in fact, were seriously damaging the country. We felt, as did the other members of the group, that it was time for concerned citizens to speak out publicly. The group decided to seek public input to determine whether the voters of Arizona generally shared our feelings.

In late spring 1995, groups of Arizonans met in workshops to discuss their attitudes toward the war on drugs and to explore possible reforms. Two things were apparent: People did not think current tactics were working, and they did not want to legalize drugs. The majority saw drug addiction as more a medical problem than a criminal problem, and believed that the current emphasis on incarcerating drug users wasn't working. Arizonans were particularly concerned over prison overcrowding and the effect this was having on law enforcement.

Then, during the summer, Arizona voters were polled. We learned that 91 percent of the Arizona public believed that we are losing the war on drugs. At the same time, the public clearly did not want to legalize drugs. It was clear that Arizonans sought more effective policies to deal with our drug problems. When asked what changes they wanted in the war on drugs, 55 percent said that they wanted a serious shift in emphasis from imprisonment to treatment and prevention, while only 20 percent preferred to increase the emphasis on imprisonment. Our group prepared Proposition 200— the Arizona Drug Medicalization Initiative — to enable Arizona voters to reform the state's drug policies consistent with the conclusions they had reached, an opportunity that our elected officials have been unwilling to provide.

The fact that nearly two-thirds of Arizona's voters approved the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act of 1996 has attracted national attention. Some are contending that the voters of Arizona were somehow duped into voting for something they really didn't understand. The contention is absurd. At the end of September 1996, our Committee sponsored another extensive poll of Arizona voters to determine their attitudes toward Proposition 200. In that poll, a question was asked early in the interview that summarized the provisions of Proposition 200 and sought the respondent's reaction. Then each element of the Proposition was explained for the person's separate reactions. Then the question seeking the person's overall reaction to Proposition 200 was asked again.

The most striking result of that poll was the difference in the level of support for Proposition 200 after each element was reviewed. Support for the Proposition 200 rose from 67 percent to 76 percent. The overall results in September were similar to the results in the June 1995 poll. There is no basis whatsoever for any contention that the voters of Arizona did not know what they were doing when they overwhelmingly approved Proposition 200 on November 5,

Today, Americans are understandably pessimistic about this country's drug war. Seven in 10 think drug abuse is worse today than it was five years ago. More than half think it will get even worse. At the same time, a Peter Hart Research Associates poll found that the public strongly favors a balanced approach that includes law enforcement, treatment, education, and prevention. They see current programs as ineffective and want their tax dollars invested in programs that work. In Arizona, the Town Hall on Confronting Violent Crime in Arizona concluded in late 1993 that " [t] oo much of the resources of our corrections system is allocated to the incarceration of nonviolent offenders. Alternative programs for nonviolent drug offenders and the mentally ill are more effective and less costly and should be fully implemented."

CONCERN HAS BEEN EXPRESSED OVER THE relationship between the medical provisions of Proposition 200 and the prohibitions against marijuana stated in federal law. We do not believe that federal law has preempted state law in this area; at the same time, we recognize that, while Proposition 200 allows patients under very limited circumstances to use marijuana, it cannot exempt patients from potential liability under federal law. The doctor's prescription offers a legal defense only under Arizona law.

Both Arizona and California, representing more than 10 percent of this country's population, have allowed the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Any potential federal/state conflicts will be resolved when the United States government recognizes that the evidence and strong public opinion support the rescheduling of marijuana so that it is available nationally for medical use.

Fundamentally, Arizona voters understand that the problem of drug use and addiction is medical. They have rejected a policy of "Do Drugs, Do Time," and have adopted a new strategy of medicalization that places users in treatment programs instead of prison. Our federal laws continue to focus primarily on the drug problem as a penal issue. The high costs of imprisonment have prevented Congress from investing necessary funds in treatment and prevention programs directed particularly to our children.

Arizona voters have decided that it is time to return to rationality and deal with drugs in a way that can benefit rather than harm society. There is no reason to believe that the voters in the rest of the country support the failed drug war as it is currently being waged. We would hope that these hearings will initiate a re-examination that will bring federal drug laws and policies more in line with the will of the people of the United States.

Analysis of Arizona's Proposition 200

The following is Arizona's Legislative Council's analysis of Prop. 200, which was made available to voters along with the full text of the proposition and ballot arguments for and against the initiative:

Proposition 200 would require that certain persons who are convicted of drug offenses be sentenced as follows:

1) Require that persons who commit violent crimes while under the influence of drugs serve 100 percent of their sentences, without eligibility for parole.

2) Require that persons who have been convicted before the proposition passes of the personal possession or use of a controlled substance such as marijuana and who are serving their sentence in prison be released on parole. A person is released on parole after serving time in jail or prison, is under the supervision of a parole officer, and may have his parole revoked if any condition of parole is violated. The State Department of Corrections would be required to establish a procedure for paroling these persons. The Board of Executive Clemency would be required to release these persons unless the Board determines that a person would be a danger to the general public. Persons who are released would be required to participate in drug treatment or education.

3) Require that persons who are convicted after the proposition passes of the personal possession or use of a controlled substance such as marijuana be eligible for probation. A person who is sentenced to probation does not serve any time in jail or prison, is under the supervision of a probation officer, and remains free as long as the person continues his good behavior. A person on probation would be required to
participate in a drug treatment or education program.

Proposition 200 would allow medical doctors to prescribe a controlled substance such as marijuana to treat a disease or to relieve the pain and suffering of a seriously ill patient. The doctor must be able to document that scientific research supports that the use of the controlled substance and must obtain a written opinion from a second doctor that prescribing the controlled substance is appropriate. A patient who receives, possesses, or uses a controlled substance as prescribed by a doctor would not be subject to criminal penalties.

Proposition 200 would establish the Drug Treatment and Education Fund. These monies would come from a percentage of the luxury tax on alcohol, cigarettes, and other tobacco products. Fifty percent of these monies would be transferred to Superior Court probation departments to cover the costs of placing persons in drug education and treatment programs. The remaining 50 percent of the monies would be transferred to the Arizona Parents Commission on Drug Education and Prevention.

Proposition 200 would establish an Arizona Parents Commission on Drug Education and Prevention. The commission would be responsible for funding programs that increase and enhance parental involvement in drug education and treatment.

Accompanying ballot arguments in favor of Prop. 200 were signed by: John Norton, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, chairman of Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform (ADPR); Marvin S. Cohen; a group of 20 doctors; former U.S. Sen. Dennis DeConcini; Steve Mitchell, former asst. U.S. Attorney and law enforcement officer; Court of Appeals Judge Rudolph J. Gerber; and John Sperling, president of the Apollo Group Inc. based in Phoenix.

Eight libertarian candidates for state office and the Maricopa County Libertarian Party signed the only ballot argument against Prop. 200.

Copies of Prop. 200 are available from DPF.