The Arizona Proposition
200 Situation Explained. Sort of…
(Ed. note: A key part of the prohibitionist
party line is that the Arizona Legislature repealed Prop 200, because the people had been
deceived by the billions spent by evil legalizers. Well, not quite, but it is amazing to
see the lengths that the prohibitionists will go to.)From the
Arizona Daily Star
letters@azstarnet.com
http://www.azstarnet.com/
July 26, 1998
A JAIL IS NOT A PRISON
Iron bars do not a prison make. Apparently it’s all in the name.
That’s why first-time drug offender David P. Calik may be locked up in the
Yuma County Jail, despite the fact that a law passed by voters in 1996 prohibits him from
serving prison time.
It’s a county jail, you see, not a state prison.
And it’s another case of the legal hair-splitting that is employed to
thwart the will of the voters.
Proposition 200, a successful 1996 initiative measure,
mandated treatment and education rather than prison for those convicted of personal use of
drugs for the first or second time. The Legislature, which didn’t agree with the
voters, quickly overrode that requirement, making it permissible but not mandatory to
provide treatment rather than imprisonment.
Backers of the initiative gathered enough signatures to put that legislative
override on hold, thereby restoring the initiative’s original intent, until voters
get to decide the issue once again in November.
But in Calik’s case, prosecutors and a judge found a loophole. The initiative precluded prison time, but said nothing about jails, which
are run by the county, not the state. Also, they have a different name.
Calik appealed the decision of the Yuma County courts, but the Arizona Court of
Appeals upheld his jail sentence.
The initiative’s supporters plan an appeal to the Supreme Court. If that
fails, they plan to clean up the language of the law by placing it back on the ballot in
the year 2000.
It would be easier, of course, to ask the Legislature
to clean up the language, but our legislators have already proven unwilling to allow this
law to take effect.
They not only overrode the ban on prison time, they
also repealed a section of the initiative that made it possible for doctors to prescribe
otherwise illegal drugs, like marijuana, if scientific research shows the drugs can treat
a chronic or terminal disease, or alleviate its pain.
They claimed voters were confused and misled by the campaign to pass
Proposition 200.
That law was also put on hold by referendum and will
be on the ballot in November.
Those two votes will answer the question about who is confused, the voters or
the Legislature.
Also in November, voters will be asked to make it tougher
for the Legislature to thwart their will in the future.
A separate initiative would preclude legislators from making major changes to
any law passed by the voters. Minor amendments which further the aims of the initiative
would require a three-fourths vote.
Of course, there is a competing measure, placed on the ballot by the
Legislature, which would allow any changes with a two-thirds vote.
This confusion is courtesy of your legislators. And they think voters
don’t know what they’re doing.
Supported