2006 Ballot Proposition Guide |
PROPOSITION 301
OFFICIAL TITLE
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1033
ENACTING AND ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE PEOPLE OF A
MEASURE RELATING TO PROBATION FOR METHAMPHETAMINE
OFFENSES.
TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Be it resolved by the Senate of the State of Arizona,
the House of Representatives concurring:
1. Under the power of the referendum, as vested in the
Legislature, the following measure, relating to
probation for methamphetamine offenses, is enacted to
become valid as a law if approved by the voters and on
proclamation of the Governor:
AN ACT
AMENDING SECTION 13-901.01, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES;
RELATING TO PROBATION.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of
Arizona:
Section 1. Section 13-901.01, Arizona Revised Statutes,
is amended to read:
13-901.01. Probation for persons convicted of possession
or use of controlled substances or drug paraphernalia;
treatment; prevention; education; exceptions; definition
A. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any person
who is convicted of the personal possession or use of a
controlled substance or drug paraphernalia is eligible
for probation. The court shall suspend the imposition or
execution of sentence and place the person on probation.
B. Any person who has been convicted of or indicted for
a violent crime as defined in section 13-604.04 is not
eligible for probation as provided for in this section
but instead shall be sentenced pursuant to chapter 34 of
this title.
C. Personal possession or use of a controlled substance
pursuant to this section shall not include possession
for sale, production, manufacturing or transportation
for sale of any controlled substance.
D. If a person is convicted of personal possession or
use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia, as
a condition of probation, the court shall require
participation in an appropriate drug treatment or
education program administered by a qualified agency or
organization that provides such programs to persons who
abuse controlled substances. Each person who is enrolled
in a drug treatment or education program shall be
required to pay for participation in the program to the
extent of the person's financial ability.
E. A person who has been placed on probation pursuant to
this section and who is determined by the court to be in
violation of probation shall have new conditions of
probation established by the court. The court shall
select the additional conditions it deems necessary,
including intensified drug treatment, community
restitution, intensive probation, home arrest or any
other sanctions except that the court shall not impose a
term of incarceration unless the court determines that
the person violated probation by committing an offense
listed in chapter 34 or 34.1 of this title or an act in
violation of an order of the court relating to drug
treatment.
F. If a person is convicted a second time of personal
possession or use of a controlled substance or drug
paraphernalia, the court may include additional
conditions of probation it deems necessary, including
intensified drug treatment, community restitution,
intensive probation, home arrest or any other action
within the jurisdiction of the court.
G. At any time while the defendant is on probation, if
after having a reasonable opportunity to do so the
defendant fails or refuses to participate in drug
treatment, the probation department or the prosecutor
may petition the court to revoke the defendant's
probation. If the court finds that the defendant refused
to participate in drug treatment, the defendant shall no
longer be eligible for probation under this section but
instead shall be sentenced pursuant to chapter 34 of
this title.
H. A person is not eligible for probation under this
section but instead shall be sentenced pursuant to
chapter 34 of this title if the court finds the person
either:
1. Had been convicted three times of personal possession
of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia.
2. Refused drug treatment as a term of probation.
3. Rejected probation.
4. WAS CONVICTED OF THE PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF A
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OR DRUG PARAPHERNALIA AND THE
OFFENSE INVOLVED METHAMPHETAMINE.
I. Subsections G and H of this section do not prohibit
the defendant from being placed on probation pursuant to
section 13 901 if the defendant otherwise qualifies for
probation under that section.
J. For the purposes of this section, "controlled
substance" has the same meaning prescribed in section 36
2501.
2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition
to the voters at the next general election as provided
by article IV, part 1, section 1, Constitution of
Arizona.
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
In 1996, the voters passed the Drug Medicalization,
Prevention and Control Act of 1996. This law states that
in most cases, a person who is convicted for the first
or second time of personal possession or use of a
controlled substance, including methamphetamine, is
eligible for probation and cannot be sentenced to a term
in jail or prison. Only when a person has been convicted
three times of personal possession or use of a
controlled substance, including methamphetamine, can
that person be sentenced to jail or prison. However,
that person may be eligible for probation pursuant to
the general probation laws for convicted persons.
Proposition 301 would amend the current law so that a
person who is convicted for the first or second time of
personal possession or use of methamphetamine can be
sentenced to a term in jail or prison.
This change in the law will allow judges to use a jail
term as a condition of probation to force
methamphetamine users to comply with court mandated drug
treatment and rehabilitation.
ARGUMENTS "FOR" PROPOSITION 301
Passage of this proposition is essential for the fight
against meth. I've been an early and active supporter of
this ballot measure because methamphetamines pose a
greater danger to our community today than any other
drug. Meth is highly addictive and destructive. There is
a strong connection between meth abuse and identity
theft. Maricopa County police agencies report that in 90
percent of the cases in which they serve warrants for
suspected identity theft, they find meth on the
premises. Phoenix has the second highest rate of
methamphetamine abuse of all the nation's cities, as
evidenced by drug tests done on arrestees.
Meth is also a "parent snatcher" for children whose
parents become addicted. Meth robs children of their
parents and often makes their childhood a chaotic,
horrible experience.
This proposition will change the law so that people
arrested for possession of meth can be sentenced to jail
or prison after their first conviction for drug
possession. Currently, meth users can be incarcerated
only after their second or third conviction for drug
possession, or if they refuse to participate in
treatment.
Time in jail is often the only thing that offers meth
addicts a secure, drug-free environment and an
opportunity to reflect on their situation. In 2003,
researchers at Arizona State University conducted a
study of Maricopa County's Drug Courts. They found that
drug offenders who were sentenced to a term in jail were
almost twice as likely to complete a drug treatment
program successfully than were offenders who received no
jail time (40 percent compared to 22 percent).
To turn the tide against meth, we must give prosecutors
and judges the tools necessary to deter meth use and to
ensure meaningful opportunities for treatment. I urge
you to vote yes.
Andrew Thomas, Maricopa County Attorney, Phoenix
ARGUMENTS "AGAINST" PROPOSITION 301
Proposition 301 could deny thousands of people the
opportunity for cost effective drug treatment, clogging
our prisons with more non-violent addicts and
potentially costing taxpayers millions of dollars.
The voters of Arizona made it clear that they believe in
treatment for drug users by voting for the Drug
Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act of 1996.
Through programs like Drug Court, that law provides
probation and treatment for low-level drug
offenders--those convicted of simple possession and
personal use. The program saved taxpayers over $12
million in 2004. Unlike prison, these probation programs
are no free ride. Participants must pay for their
treatment. They work, pay taxes, and support their
families while in treatment. If they don't comply with
treatment, the judge can sentence them to jail. But
Proposition 301 would gut this very successful program,
replacing it with costly prison sentences.
Everyone agrees that methamphetamine use is a serious
problem in our community. If we want people to stop
using drugs, the obvious solution is to provide
treatment. Research shows that people addicted to
methamphetamine can be treated as successfully as any
other addict. But this proposition could send all of
them to prison, further stretching our state budget.
VOTE NO on Proposition 301 because:
Voters already decided that low-level drug users
should be put on probation and receive treatment
instead of being sent to prison.
This proposition will cost taxpayers, at minimum, an
extra $2,843 for each drug offender it sends to prison
and would be less effective than the cheaper treatment
alternatives already in place.
This proposition would not affect violent criminals,
drug dealers, or people who manufacture
methamphetamine because they are already subject to
stiff sentences under Arizona law.
Arizona voters got it right the first time. VOTE NO on
Proposition 301.
Caroline Isaacs, Program Director, American Friends Service Committee, Arizona Area Program, Tucson
Matthew Lowen, Program Coordinator, American Friends Service Committee, Arizona Area Program, Tucson
Paid for by "American Friends Service Committee"
COMMON SENSE REQUIRES A "NO" VOTE
Most people in the therapeutic and criminal justice
community strongly disagree with this proposition.
Incarcerating thousands of drug users, at huge taxpayer
expense, will have extreme negative social and economic
consequences.
In 1996, the voters overwhelmingly supported Proposition
200, described as "treatment not prison for drug
offenders." Under Prop 200, a person charged with simple
possession of drugs (not including drug sales) who has
no history of violent offenses and who desires treatment
must get an opportunity on probation. Probationers are
required to attend drug treatment and counseling and to
drug test regularly as conditions of probation, and if
probation is violated only then does jail or prison
become an option.
Over ten years, drug court programs have been successful
in helping many thousands kick drug addiction where jail
and prison sentences have failed. Because the stated
purpose of Arizona's penal code is to punish rather than
reform, the Arizona Department of Corrections devotes
little or no resources to drug rehabilitation. The
result is that after a meth user finishes his prison
sentence he's released to the community to continue his
drug use.
Methamphetamine is indeed a dangerous drug used
disproportionately by the poor. But crack cocaine,
ecstasy, and heroin are all similarly dangerous.
Methamphetamine is a political football. Politicians
looking for an easy sound bite are jumping on the "tough
on meth" bandwagon. Prison however is not the correct
medical or social solution to this problem.
If this measure passes, then our prisons will be further
overcrowded, our courts will be further clogged with
drug cases instead of cases involving violent or
property crime, and drug addicts will receive no
treatment.
Proposition 301 will create far more harm than good for
Arizona. Vote NO on November 7.
Robert Hooker
Pima County Public Defender
Robert Hooker, Pima County Public Defender, Tucson
Paid for by "David J. Euchner"
BALLOT FORMAT
REFERRED TO THE PEOPLE BY THE LEGISLATURE
OFFICIAL TITLE
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1033
ENACTING AND ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE PEOPLE
OF A MEASURE RELATING TO PROBATION FOR
METHAMPHETAMINE OFFENSES.
DESCRIPTIVE TITLE
AMENDS CURRENT LAW TO MAKE A PERSON INELIGIBLE FOR
MANDATORY PROBATION IF THE PERSON IS CONVICTED OF
THE PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF A CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCE OR DRUG PARAPHERNALIA AND THE OFFENSE
INVOLVED METHAMPHETAMINE.
A "yes" vote shall have the effect of making a
person ineligible for mandatory probation if the
person is convicted of an offense involving the
personal use or possession of methamphetamine. YES
A "no" vote shall have the effect of retaining the
current law requiring mandatory probation to a
person convicted for a first or second offense for
the use or possession of methamphetamine, unless
the person has been convicted three or more times
of personal possession or use of a controlled
substance or drug paraphernalia, refused drug
treatment as a condition of probation, or rejected
probation. NO
The Ballot Format displayed in HTML reflects only the text of the Ballot Proposition and does not reflect how it will appear on the General Election Ballot.
Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced as submitted in the "for" and "against" arguments. This text only version of the proposition guide may not include striking, underlining, emphasis and bolding of words in the proposition language, or in "for" or "against" arguments.
Next Proposition
Back to Table of Contents