cannabisnews.com: Dealing with Drugs 'Yes' on Prop. 302, 'No' on 203

Dealing with Drugs 'Yes' on Prop. 302, 'No' on 203
Posted by CN Staff on September 19, 2002 at 21:46:46 PT
Editorial Opinion
Source: Arizona Republic
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. Editorials represent the opinion of the newspaper, whose editorial board consists of Keven Ann Willey, Phil Boas, Richard de Uriarte, Jennifer Dokes, Kathleen Ingley, Doug MacEachern, Joel Nilsson, O. Ricardo Pimentel, Robert Robb, Laurie Roberts, Paul Schatt, Linda Valdez, Ken Western and Steve Benson.Newshawk: Leon C.Source: Arizona Republic (AZ) Published: September 20, 2002 Copyright: 2002 The Arizona Republic Contact: opinions arizonarepublic.com Website: http://www.arizonarepublic.com/ Related Articles:U.S. Won't Provide Pot to Arizona http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13980.shtmlMarijuana Initiative Foes Fight 'Lie'http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13897.shtmlProp. 203: The Debate Over Pot Laws http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13869.shtmlMarijuana Initiative Qualifies for Arizona Ballothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13727.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #11 posted by DANA on September 20, 2002 at 08:21:45 PT
That Was Remarkably Intricate p4me
And I'm afraid that my contribution from the;"..Choir for debate and additions..",will just be an addition for right now.

While reading your observations on the topic of money,I was reminded of a few years back,when they had this absurd national ad campaign,from the US treasury,in which they advertised money!I think they had some animated George Washington cool dude character,advertising the new dollar coin or something.I dont know about anyone else,but when I thought about the federal government actually buying nation television airtime,to advertise MONEY!,I knew that things were headed in a very strange direction!Think of it;a commercial for money?___WHAT?

And while we're on the topic,whoever came up with the idea to try and make a dollar coin,that was exactly the same size as a quarter,should have been shot!Remember the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin?___And now they have this new fake gold cheesy dollar coin that is just slightly larger than a quarter.It looks like some old subway,or bus token,and I'll bet it is less "precious",than a 1956 penny!

And on yet another topic;Am I the only one appalled to see the grotesque development of this push for a cowboy war?Is anyone aware of the new war powers that the Texas Ceasar has requested,and appears likely to get??__It's absolutely surreal!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by st1r_dude on September 20, 2002 at 07:58:25 PT
editorial author(s)
from the arizona republic -The Arizona RepublicEditorials represent the opinion of the newspaper, whose editorial board consists of Keven Ann Willey, Phil Boas, Richard de Uriarte, Jennifer Dokes, Kathleen Ingley, Doug MacEachern, Joel Nilsson, O. Ricardo Pimentel, Robert Robb, Laurie Roberts, Paul Schatt, Linda Valdez, Ken Western and Steve Benson.you know what to do now: email email email -
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by p4me on September 20, 2002 at 07:44:18 PT
Now where were we
Last night the last thing I did before I went to sleep is write comment1. I wish I would have said in that comment that the MJ laws were counterintuative instead nontuitive, which I really don't think is a word. The MJ laws are also counterproductive, but I refeer(spelled correctly and just misuse) to society at large and not the interest of those that want to bomb and spray Columbia and drive up prices and then control the drug trade to use that money for controlling foreign governments.I have recently read that the International Monetary Fund puts conditions on countries that come to it for aid. Thes reforms of course call for fiscal restraint so that after dictating new policies the IMF gets its money back so it can go to another country and do the same thing. The article I read said that these conditions try to limit social programs and increase defense spending. I say this not in an effort to convince you of anything with my little voice, but to say 1) Try to glean the workings of the Military Industrial Complex in all the news, and 2)look for the workings of the IMF, along with the WTO, in trying to change other nations policies.There is one thing I have never read but would like to present to the Choir for debate and additions. It has to do with money of course and more particularly the printing of money. Now when the government makes a dollar bill and it cost say 80 cents, they make a profit of 20 cents. I know this has an exact name, and think it something like arbitrage. Now think about it. Even a penny cost less than a penny to make and they can spend the money as it comes off the line. Anyway, this is not some speculation, it was in my Money and Banking class 30 years ago.When I was going to college there was rampant inflation and it had the effect of cutting many elderly peoples saving in half in a period of maybe three years because it reduces their purchasing power with the unbelievable inflation. The government was printing money (part of monetary policy) at record levels to pay for the war in Vietnam. Anyone with their savings in cash accounts subsidized the war as more and more money was introduced into the economy.Now, I present this. If you take a $20 bill and destroy it, you have made a contribution to the US Treasury because now they can print another $20 to replace that one for that 80 cents that the one dollar was made for. Well, no one is going to destroy money so it is not a huge profit maker for the government when money is lost or somehow destroyed. And if money is in a fire and you can prove your case the government will replace it, although I have never heard of the procedure or it actually happening.The issue that I am raising is that as long as the drug money leaves the country is that it is all but profit for the country. Picure going to the Post Office and buying one of every stamp for your grandchildren's new stamp collection. You have paid for a service without putting any demands on the Post Office to actually do any service. It does have a liability issue because the Post Office would render a service if ever the stamps were to be placed on mail and at least you would say that you have loaned the Post Office money as long as the stamps are in a collection. So all the drug money that goes out of the country is a loan to the government to the extent of that profit the government made between cost of production and the face amount that is on it and the government spent this money. For every bill leaving the country they can print more money to replace it generating a profit that they spend.I will drop the issue now as I have no point. I only want to present the issue and have no published works on the subject and have never conducted a search on the subject, or have any links to detail anything.One more thing on the Schedule One Lie. How the hell are we letting these prohitionist get away with such a bald-faced and huge lie. It is like they say the sun is always green. It is not just green some times, it is always green. We have 10,000 files from expert witnesses that the sun is green and if you disagree you can examine our files and that will prove once and for all that the sun is green. Now , I ask rhetorically, how are they getting away with this for so long and why haven't their been marches in the street that have lead to mass protest in every major city in the country? It all seems unreal and to verify it is not a mistake in yet another one of my blurts, I repeat that it is unreal.I do not even question whether marijuana is medicine because to say marijuana has no medical value is as wrong as saying the sun is always green. I conclude with the idea that the big picture is not the prohibitionist political position of marijuana has no medical value is invalid, but that the prohibitionist have created a cancer that controls all departments of government to the pain and peril of the people. It is the cancer we should be concerned with and not the symptom of the Schedule One Lie Tumor. The next thing coming if we do not remove the cancer is they will take people's property and freedom for saying the sun is not green.1,2
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by goneposthole on September 20, 2002 at 07:12:22 PT
Arizona Republic
The publishers of the Arizona Republic should load every newspaper they print onto a jumbo 777 cargo plane, ship it to the Boston harbor and use it for fishwrap.Denial manifested by ignoramuses.The drug war must end. To not speak out, to remain silent is wrong. The victims of the Waco lie are now being picked off one by one like Grover Crosslin.Statist rule has never had finer days.However, Bob Marley rules.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by TecHnoCult on September 20, 2002 at 07:07:13 PT
Jose Melendez
What an outrage! Surely, even those that oppose the initiative must see the obvious violation of First Ammendment rights by blocking an initiative just because the powers that be do not agree with it? I mean, what are they worried about? It won't change federal law anyway! How can anyone justify this? What if an initiative was raised to apply term limits to Congress? Would they have the ability to block that from being voted on too? (I know that isn't a local issue, but you get my point.) Hopefully, this will backfire. I guess this will have to go to the Supreme Court. Can't keep it quiet now. Surely, the Supreme Court, not matter what their bias is, can't justify blocking voter initiatives that they don't agree with, right? I mean, even a child knows that is blocking free speech.THC
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by Jose Melendez on September 20, 2002 at 06:39:22 PT
election fraud alert
From:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42109-2002Sep19.htmlCourt Blocks D.C. Vote on Medical Use of Marijuana
By Arthur Santana
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 20, 2002; Page A04
f>
Efforts to legalize marijuana for medical purposes in the District were blocked yesterday when a federal appeals court overturned, without explanation, an earlier court ruling that had cleared the way for the issue to be put before D.C. voters.
The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed a ruling by the U.S. District Court, which in March declared unconstitutional a congressional amendment that prevented the city from spending money to put a medical marijuana initiative on the ballot.
The three appellate justices said in their order that they made the ruling yesterday because today is the city's deadline for printing ballots for the November election. Appeals judges David S. Tatel, Merrick B. Garland and Stephen F. Williams said their decision "will be more fully explained in an opinion to be filed at a later date."
The decision ends a 14-month campaign by the District-based Marijuana Policy Project to again put the marijuana initiative before voters. It would protect from arrest people who, on the advice of their doctors, use marijuana to alleviate nausea, stimulate appetite or ease pain. Eight states have similar medical marijuana laws.
This is the second time that the measure has been blocked in the District. In 1998, D.C. voters passed a similar initiative, 69 percent to 31 percent. But a congressional rider to the D.C. appropriations bill prevented the initiative from taking effect.
Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R-Ga.), who sponsored the rider, said in a statement yesterday that "despite a concerted public relations campaign to distort the real dangers of drugs, such as marijuana, the pro-drug lobby ran head-on today with the rule of law and a court, which recognized the right and responsibility of Congress to protect citizens from dangerous, mind-altering narcotics."
The case, Barr said, "was about whether federal taxpayer dollars should be used to support the drug legalization effort in the nation's capital, and the court's decision today was a clear and emphatic 'No.' "
The Marijuana Policy Project sponsors had hoped to get the measure on the November ballot.
"It is too bad that a three-judge panel was able to thwart the will of tens of thousands of D.C. voters," said Steve Fox, a spokesman for the group. "It is sadder still that this ruling will cause the suffering of seriously ill patients in the city to continue."
In July 2001, the group filed a request with the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics to circulate petitions for the initiative. The board denied that request, citing the Barr amendment -- which prevented the District from spending money to put the measure on the ballot.
The group then filed suit against the federal and District governments, calling the Barr amendment an abridgment of political speech. On March 28, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled in the group's favor.
Additional legal wranglings, which weren't settled until June, left the group with only 25 days to gather the more than 17,000 signatures necessary to place the initiative on the November ballot.
The group turned in more than 38,000 signatures, but the elections board said the medical marijuana advocates had come up short of the required signatures in one city ward. An extensive recount, however, showed that the board had failed to count hundreds of valid signatures.
But by then the U.S. Department of Justice had appealed the federal court decision. An elections board spokesman, Bill O'Field, said this week that board members were waiting for the appeals court ruling before issuing its own decision on whether the initiative could be on the ballot in November.
The court ruling "was very disappointing," Fox said. "But as Al Gore found out, sometimes you fight the good fight only to have your legs cut out from under you by the court."
The initiative is not dead, Fox said. If the Barr amendment is repealed by Congress, he said, the initiative could appear on the ballot in the next citywide election.

Comment #5 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on September 20, 2002 at 06:18:13 PT
Propagandist interruptus
Why do I see Don Rumsfeld's interruption by protesters on TV news multiple times but they don't show the same thing happening to the drug czar? You gotta read this one:
http://www.drugwar.com/pczarinterrupted.shtm
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on September 20, 2002 at 05:57:26 PT
At least New Yorkers get an obvious choice
From the latest NORML e-newsletter:Marijuana Reform Party Candidates To Appear On New York State BallotNew York City, NY: The Marijuana Reform Party (MRP) candidates for governor and lieutenant governor will appear on the New York state ballot this November, according to MRP spokesman and gubernatorial candidate Tom Leighton. The MRP anticipates receiving formal certification by the State Board of Elections later this month.To date, the MRP has received over 150,000 votes for candidates in New York in three separate elections. This year, MRP candidates are hoping to receive 50,000 votes to obtain official political party status. "We can poll less than one percent of all voters and still get the 50,000 votes we need to win a ballot line for the next four years," MRP Lieutenant Governor candidate Thomas Hillgardner said.The MRP advocates for the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes, among other drug law reforms.For more information on the Marijuana Reform Party, please visit:
http://www.marijuanareform.org
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by DANA on September 20, 2002 at 01:46:22 PT
It's Not Easy!
In fact,I admit;it is quite a challenge to avoid the use of expletives,in commenting on the CRUD contained in this "editorial"!.I must give the AZ Republic credit for at least listing the names of the people on the "editorial board",who are supposedly responsible for this piece of twisted RUBBISH!.

"Editorials represent the opinion of the newspaper, whose editorial board consists of Keven Ann Willey, Phil Boas,
Richard de Uriarte, Jennifer Dokes, Kathleen Ingley, Doug MacEachern, Joel Nilsson, O. Ricardo Pimentel, Robert
Robb, Laurie Roberts, Paul Schatt, Linda Valdez, Ken Western and Steve Benson."

Unfortunately,there is no mention as to how many "members",of this board,are employees.? How safe of them to list all these names,giving the impression that the editorial was a group effort! I wouldnt be suprised if some of these "members",worked in the mail-room,or perhaps are "paper delivery specialists".

This part really ,almost caused my Goat,to break out of the new security perimeter I have recently installed!:

"• 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."

Is this meant to be some sort of inside joke!I wonder if the loudmouth ________,who wrote this, knows how long it took for the forfeiture laws to be passed in the first place?I wonder if they would consider that, "hasty"?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Hopeful Freeman on September 20, 2002 at 00:26:09 PT
Perceptions of the Drug war and its tyranny
"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?"
----A possible "shady industry" might try to "help people qualify" for medicinal use of a PLANT. The very scarry part is that such a medicine might be given to CHILDREN(anyone under 18 that is). Will this create ANARKY? or possibly MURDER DEATH AND INSANITY? Wait, does the government still portray such an idea? Is that why millions of people have gone to PRISON? No I got it, we're saving America from the dangers of Abnormal Growth, like men growing breasts for instance. It must be truth, it's what the government told us. Baaaaa say the sheep that beleive this. Instead of allowing such a new and scarry medicine to people let alone children, lets do something safe like give them Drugs that are historical sound in easing pain and killing organs, and the patients taking the MaGiCaL LEGAL DRUGS. But thats all right, they're approved by the FDA. Like Oxycotton, not exactly something I would ever consider giving a child, but when someone is MEDICALLY ILL shouldn't they get the best relief possible? I guess that really all depends on how much profit can be made off it.
"• 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?"
--------I say NO! Lets have them spend countless hours spread over decades of time compiling the reports on the FELONS they caught easing there SO CALLED PAIN in there houses with the EVIL DEVIL PLANT! Who really care if it's the only thing that seems to help them? It's not right to feel good when your ill. If your in pain take something lite like morphine or demeral. It's not like they ever hurt anyone, has it? I would say no, it numbed their brain to a point of total debilatation untill it killed them. Didn't hurt, but neither would a rocket hitting the back of your head. What is it about Marijuana that scares people so much? It does too much good I think. It's a weed, now how can we tax something that doesn't take and exact science to create. It's not like it's tobacco, you don't have to stick to a certain climate to grow it, you don't have to fear cancer from smoking it. You don't even have to worry about such a drug killing you from taking too much. Our brain recognizes the HERB and takes in what it can. It's not like were attacking the brain with alcohol killing brain cells. You can't Overdose on Marijuana due to the fact our brain has receptors made for dealing with marijuana called cannabinoid receptors. Many don't realize that everyones brain has them and everyone has a saturation point, hence it absorbs what it can and after that it doesn't matter how much you take, you won't die due to taking it. Unless of course you are forced to get it off the Black Market and you receive some Cannabis laced with something just nasty enough to harm you, or possibly END a life. "To encourage respect for the law, to take the best approach to drug use", lets have the officers "SERVE" safe medicine to the needy. And Soon they will be once again looked at as trying to protect us instead of imprision us.
Voters should say "yes" to Proposition 302 and to Proposition 203. One step at a time in America. At least we can see the end of the persicution. Now all we have to due is be heard and voting is the only way the people will see a resolution to the Drug War. Godspeed Americans
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by p4me on September 19, 2002 at 22:48:49 PT
They should do that
Maybe the officers should include roach clips and Zig-Zag rolling papers.That would not make up for the 65 years of unjust laws that disregarded the people's freedom to create a police state to look after the interest of the upper 1%. There needs to be a restitution tax taken from the wealthy, fascist or not, to pay restitution to those wrongfully arrested or imprisoned for a non-crime like marijuana possession, trafficing, manufacturing. I am sure the author of this article thinks that this is nontuitive thinking from all the years of government/media mind control, but his thinking is as twisted as the laws. What he said makes a lot of sense, more in a broader sense than rolling papers, but only if the ones that brought us this war pay for it.It is time for some Drug War Trials in this country to bring justice to those that inflicted injustice, fear, and tyranny to the people of what used to be a free land. And I am serious. There need to be war trials and find out all the details of the CIA's and DEA's efforts to drive up drug profits with the intent of controlling the destinies of foreign countries.Let the Drug War Trials begin. Restore freedom to the land and honor the spirit and letter of the constitution and bring the ones that have twisted the laws to wring power and profit to themselves to justice.1,2
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment