Arizona Proposition 301: Methamphetamine Offenses
In November 2006 voters in Arizona will address Proposition 301, sponsored by sponsored by the Arizona Legislature. The current law states that 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. Approval of 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. Click on "Read more" to see a synopsis of the pros and cons and find more information about this ballot measure.
Poll: Will you vote in favor of Proposition 301?
1) Yes, convicted meth users should go to jail.
2) No, the current law stating that convicted meth users get probation for one or two offenses should remain in place.
Advocates of Proposition 301 say that methamphetamines pose a greater danger to our community than any other drug. Meth is highly addictive and destructive. There is a strong connection between meth abuse and identity theft. Phoenix has the second highest rate of methamphetamine abuse of all the nation's cities.
Opponents to Proposition 301 say that low-level drug users should be put on probation and receive treatment instead of being sent to prison. Proposition 301 will cost taxpayers, at minimum, an extra $2,843 for each drug offender it sends to prison.
Read the exact language of Proposition 301, as well as officially posted arguments for and against.
Comments
“About”’s account of the “current law” is simply wrong (and it seems to be based on the “Legislative Council Analysis,” which is also wrong). In fact, the current law already allows the very thing that the proponents of Prop. 301 say is needed. Proponents say that judges need a bigger club — the threat of jail or prison — so that meth users who are ordered to stop using and to comply with every step of their treatment programs will actually comply. Judges already do that, because the law already allows it. Many first and second time meth use convicts get sent to jail or prison after failing to do as ordered.
What Prop. 301 will really do is completely different. First, if it is passed, judges who do not believe in treatment at all get to send meth users to prison straightaway — no treatment, no nothing. The convicts will come out years later as untreated and embittered meth users, costing taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars each to house them every year.
Second, Prop. 301 raises the prison sentences that judges would impose on meth users. Now, when meth users defy treatment orders, judges normally send them to prison for 1 to 2 1/2 years, and the cap is 3 3/4 years. If Prop. 301 passes, the sentences go up astronomically. Some first time meth users would be looking at MINIMUM sentences of 12 years.
If you are interested in how I know this, or in more information, post a question and I will respond.
If what you say is true, this article is TOTALLY misinformed! My knee-jerk reaction was “Of course prop 301 MUST be passed.” But with the information you provide, it changes it all up. I’m not an Arizona voter, but I’m sure similar propositions are being made nationwide, and I want ALL the facts before enacting something with so many long-range affects.
Such a quandry! Could a “Yes” vote also allow a judge to just set them back on the streets? I’m voting NO.
Howard (or anyone else who would be kind enough to respond with answers for me):
While I am leaning toward voting against prop 301, I do want to know where in it does it say that the length of incarceration will be longer ?
Also, in the argument for 301, a 2003 study by Az. State U. was cited, which allegedly showed that in the Maricopa County Drug Courts population, “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)”. I would like to see a copy of that study or at least a comprehensive abstract of it. Where would I find access to it?
Unfortunately, this one passed. The majority voted Yes. This is really going to cost taxpayers. My opinion-The money would have been better spent on law enforcement or treatment programs. I must admit, this was the only prop that confused me…was there recently a different prop or bond 301? Something to do with schools that warranted an obvious yes vote? I actually re-read prop 301 at my polling place, before I made the decision. It just seems like a huge expense for taxpayers. This was also the only one that I voted for that didn’t pass. Can anyone explain why this passed with such an overwhelming majority?
what everyone fails to see here is that they used the drug “methamphetamine” as a selling point for this proposition. i agree, meth is a highly addictive and dangerous drug. but the proposition states “use or possession of a controlled substance” not just meth, as they want you to believe. so all you good folks out there who like to smoke a little weed once in a while, well guess what, now you can go to prision on a first offence. i hope you all are happy !!!