A Proposition on the ballot before the citizens of the State of Arizona in the general election,
November 5th, 1996.  This Proposition passed with a margin greater than 2 to 1.


BALLOT FORMAT

PROPOSITION 200


PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION

	OFFICIAL TITLE
	AMENDING TITLE 13, TITLE 41, AND TITLE 42, OF THE ARIZONA REVISED 
STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 11, BY ADDING SS41-1604.16; 
RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ARIZONA PARENTS COMMISSION ON 
DRUG EDUCATION AND PREVENTION; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 11, BY 
ADDING SS41-1604.14; RELATING TO PERSONS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE; 
AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 13, BY AMENDING SS13-3412 AND ADDING 
SS13-3412.01; RELATING TO PERMISSIBLE USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 
BY SERIOUSLY ILL OR TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS; AMENDING TITLE 41, 
CHAPTER 11, BY ADDING SS41-1604.15 AND AMENDING TITLE 31, CHAPTER 3, BY 
ADDING SS31-411.01; RELATING TO PAROLE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF 
PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES; AMENDING 
TITLE 13, CHAPTER 9, BY ADDING SS13-901.01; RELATING TO PROBATION FOR 
PERSONS CONVICTED OF PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF CONTROLLED 
SUBSTANCES AND BY ADDING SS13-901.02; RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT 
OF THE DRUG TREATMENT AND EDUCATION FUND; AND AMENDING TITLE 42, 
CHAPTER 12, BY ADDING SS42-1204.01; RELATING TO LUXURY PRIVILEGE TAXES; 
AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY.

	DESCRIPTIVE TITLE
	REQUIRING PERSONS ON DRUGS COMMITTING VIOLENT CRIMES TO 
SERVE ENTIRE SENTENCE; PROVIDING PAROLE/PROBATION AND TREATMENT 
AS ALTERNATIVE TO INCARCERATION FOR PERSONS CONVICTED ONLY OF 
PERSONAL POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ON FIRST TWO 
OFFENSES; ALLOWING DOCTORS TO PRESCRIBE OTHERWISE ILLEGAL 
SUBSTANCES FOR CERTAIN PATIENTS; CREATING DRUG-RELATED FUND AND 
COMMISSION.

PROPOSITION 200


A "YES" vote shall have the effect of requiring entire sentence to be
served by persons who commit violent crimes while on drugs, changing
sentences for persons convicted of possession or use of controlled
substances, and allowing doctors to prescribe otherwise illegal substances
for certain patients.

A "NO" Vote shall have the effect of retaining the current laws on
controlled substances.


PROPOSITION 200

	OFFICIAL TITLE
	AN INITIATIVE MEASURE

	AMENDING TITLE 13, TITLE 41, AND TITLE 42, OF THE ARIZONA REVISED 
STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 11, BY ADDING SS41-1604.16; 
RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ARIZONA PARENTS COMMISSION ON 
DRUG EDUCATION AND PREVENTION; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 11, BY 
ADDING SS41-1604.14; RELATING TO PERSONS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE; 
AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 13, BY AMENDING SS13-3412 AND ADDING 
SS13-3412.01; RELATING TO PERMISSIBLE USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 
BY SERIOUSLY ILL OR TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS; AMENDING TITLE 41, 
CHAPTER 11, BY ADDING SS41-1604.15 AND AMENDING TITLE 31, CHAPTER 3, BY 
ADDING SS31-411.01; RELATING TO PAROLE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF 
PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES; AMENDING 
TITLE 13, CHAPTER 9, BY ADDING SS13-901.01; RELATING TO PROBATION FOR 
PERSONS CONVICTED OF PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF CONTROLLED 
SUBSTANCES AND BY ADDING SS13-901.02; RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT 
OF THE DRUG TREATMENT AND EDUCATION FUND; AND AMENDING TITLE 42, 
CHAPTER 12, BY ADDING SS42-1204.01; RELATING TO LUXURY PRIVILEGE TAXES; 
AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY.

	TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT

	Be it enacted by the people of the State of Arizona: The following
amendments are proposed to become valid when approved by a majority of the
qualified electors voting thereon and upon proclamation pursuant thereto by
the Governor of the State of Arizona.

	Section 1.  TITLE
	THIS ACT SHALL BE KNOWN AND MAY BE CITED AS THE "DRUG 
MEDICALIZATION, PREVENTION, AND CONTROL ACT OF 1996."

	Section 2.  FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
	THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA FIND AND DECLARE THE 
FOLLOWING:
            ARIZONA'S CURRENT APPROACH TO DRUG CONTROL NEEDS TO BE 
STRENGTHENED.  THIS IS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT, ACCORDING TO THE 
ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION, BETWEEN 1991 AND 1993 MARIJUANA 
USE DOUBLED AMONG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS AND, BETWEEN 1990 
AND 1993 QUADRUPLED AMONG MIDDLE-SCHOOL STUDENTS.  IN ADDITION TO 
ACTIVELY ENFORCING OUR CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST DRUGS, WE NEED TO 
MEDICALIZE ARIZONA'S DRUG CONTROL POLICY: RECOGNIZING THAT DRUG 
ABUSE IS A PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM AND TREATING ABUSE AS A DISEASE.  
THUS, DRUG TREATMENT AND PREVENTION MUST BE EXPANDED.  
	WE MUST ALSO TOUGHEN ARIZONA'S LAWS AGAINST VIOLENT 
CRIMINALS ON DRUGS.  ANY PERSON WHO COMMITS A VIOLENT CRIME WHILE 
UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS SHOULD SERVE 100% OF HIS OR 
HER SENTENCE WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EARLY RELEASE.
	THOUSANDS OF ARIZONANS SUFFER FROM DEBILITATING DISEASES 
SUCH AS GLAUCOMA, MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, CANCER, AND AIDS, BUT CANNOT 
HAVE ACCESS TO THE NECESSARY DRUGS THEY NEED.  ALLOWING DOCTORS 
TO PRESCRIBE SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES COULD SAVE VICTIMS 
OF THESE DISEASES FROM LOSS OF SIGHT, LOSS OF PHYSICAL CAPACITY, AND 
GREATLY REDUCE THE PAIN AND SUFFERING OF THE SERIOUSLY ILL AND 
TERMINALLY ILL.
	THE DRUG PROBLEMS OF NON-VIOLENT PERSONS WHO ARE CONVICTED 
OF PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF DRUGS ARE BEST HANDLED THROUGH 
COURT-SUPERVISED DRUG TREATMENT AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS.  THESE 
PROGRAMS ARE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN LOCKING NON-VIOLENT OFFENDERS UP 
IN A COSTLY PRISON.  PILOT PROGRAMS IN ARIZONA THAT PROVIDE TREATMENT 
ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON FOR LOW LEVEL DRUG OFFENDERS HAVE A 73% 
SUCCESS RATE AND COST ROUGHLY 1/8 AS MUCH AS PRISON. 
	OVER THE NEXT DECADE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS CAN BE 
SAVED BY USING MANDATORY DRUG TREATMENT AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS 
AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO PRISON.
	VIOLENT OFFENDERS ARE NOT ADEQUATELY PUNISHED DUE TO THE 
PRISON OVER-CROWDING CRISIS IN ARIZONA.  PLACING NON-VIOLENT PERSONS 
WHO ARE CONVICTED OF PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF DRUGS IN 
COURT-SUPERVISED DRUG TREATMENT AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS WILL FREE 
UP SPACE IN OUR PRISONS SO THAT THERE IS ROOM TO INCARCERATE VIOLENT 
OFFENDERS AND DRUG DEALERS.
	THE MISSING LINK IN DRUG EDUCATION AND PREVENTION IS PARENTAL 
INVOLVEMENT.
	THE TAX DOLLARS SAVED BY ELIMINATING PRISON TIME FOR 
NON-VIOLENT PERSONS CONVICTED OF PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF 
DRUGS SHOULD BE USED FOR DRUG TREATMENT AND EDUCATION, TARGETED 
AT PROGRAMS THAT INCREASE PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN THEIR CHILDREN'S 
DRUG-EDUCATION.

	Section 3.  PURPOSE AND INTENT
	THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA DECLARE THIEIR PURPOSES TO 
BE AS FOLLOWS:
	TO REQUIRE THAT ANY PERSON WHO COMMITS A VIOLENT CRIME UNDER 
THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS SERVE 100 PERCENT OF HIS OR HER SENTENCE AND 
NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE OR ANY FORM OF EARLY RELEASE.
	TO PERMIT DOCTORS TO PRESCRIBE SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED 
SUBSTANCES TO TREAT A DISEASE, OR TO RELIEVE THE PAIN AND SUFFERING 
OF SERIOUSLY ILL AND TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS.
	TO REQUIRE THAT NON-VIOLENT PERSONS CONVICTED OF PERSONAL 
POSSESSION OR USE OF DRUGS SUCCESSFULLY UNDERGO COURT-SUPERVISED 
MANDATORY DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAMS AND PROBATION.
	TO REQUIRE THAT NON-VIOLENT PERSONS CURRENTLY IN PRISON FOR 
PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS, AND NOT SERVING A 
CONCURRENT SENTENCE FOR ANOTHER CRIME, OR PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OR 
SENTENCED OR SUBJECT TO SENTENCING UNDER ANY HABITUAL CRIMINAL STATUTE 
IN ANY JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES, BE MADE ELIGIBLE FOR IMMEDIATE 
PAROLE AND DRUG TREATMENT, EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICE.
	TO FREE UP SPACE IN OUR PRISONS TO PROVIDE ROOM FOR VIOLENT 
OFFENDERS.
	TO EXPAND THE SUCCESS OF PILOT DRUG INTERVENTION PROGRAMS 
WHICH DIVERT DRUG OFFENDERS FROM PRISON TO DRUG TREATMENT, EDUCATION, 
AND COUNSELING.

	Section 4.
	Title 41, Chapter 11, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding 
SS41-1604.16 to read as follows:
SS41-1604.16. ARIZONA PARENTS COMMISSION ON DRUG EDUCATION AND PREVENTION.
	THE ARIZONA PARENTS COMMISSION ON DRUG EDUCATION AND PREVENTION 
IS HEREBY CREATED.  THE COMMISSION SHALL CONSIST OF NINE (9) MEMBERS. 
THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR 
WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT AND SHALL SERVE A 
TWO YEAR TERM.  OF THE NINE MEMBERS, FIVE SHALL BE PARENTS WITH CHILDREN 
CURRENTLY ENROLLED IN AN ARIZONA SCHOOL, ONE SHALL BE A REPRESENTATIVE 
OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, ONE SHALL BE AN EDUCATOR IN A LOCAL 
SCHOOL DISTRICT, ONE SHALL BE A REPRESENTATIVE OF A COUNTY PROBATION 
DEPARTMENT, AND ONE SHALL BE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DRUG EDUCATION 
AND TREATMENT COMMUNITY.
	EACH MEMBER SHALL BE APPOINTED FOR A TERM OF TWO YEARS.  THE 
MEMBERS SHALL RECEIVE NO PAY, BUT MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR ACTUAL 
EXPENSES INCURRED ON COMMISSION BUSINESS.
	THE COMMISSION SHALL FUND PROGRAMS THAT WILL INCREASE AND 
ENHANCE PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT AND WILL INCREASE EDUCATION ABOUT THE 
SERIOUS RISKS AND PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEMS CAUSED BY THE ABUSE OF 
ALCOHOL AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES. THE COMMISSION SHALL CONTRACT FOR 
ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH A NOT FOR PROFIT 
ORGANIZATION OR GOVERNMENT ENTITY WITH EXPERTISE IN SUBSTANCE ABUSE 
EDUCATION AND PREVENTION.

	Section 5.
	Title 41, Chapter 11, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding
SS41-1604.14 to read as follows:
SS4l-1604.14. PAROLE NONELIGIBILITY; VIOLENT CRIME; INFLUENCE OF CONTROLLED 
SUBSTANCE; DEFINITION
	NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, ANY PERSON CONVICTED 
OF A VIOLENT CRIME COMMITTED WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF A CONTROLLED 
SUBSTANCE IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS TITLE 13, CHAPTER 34, IS 
NONELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE AND MUST SERVE 100 PERCENT OF HIS OR HER 
SENTENCE IN PRISON.  PURSUANT TO SS41-1604.09, THE DIRECTOR SHALL INCLUDE 
ANY SUCH PERSON IN THE CLASSES OF NON-ELIGIBILITY REQUIRED TO BE 
ESTABLISHED BY THE DIRECTOR.
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION, A VIOLENT CRIME INCLUDES ANY CRIMINAL ACT
WHICH RESULTS IN DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURY OR ANY CRIMINAL USE OF 
WEAPONS OR DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTS.

	Section 6.
	Title 13, Chapter 13, SS13-3412, Arizona Revised Statutes, is 
amended as follows: SS13-3412.  Exceptions and exemptions; burden of 
proof; privileged communications.
The provisions of SS13-3402, 13-3403, 13-3404, 13-3404.01 and 13-3405 
through 13-3409 do not apply to:  
Manufacturers, wholesalers, pharmacies and pharmacists under the 
provisions of SS32-1921 and 32-1961.
Medical practitioners, pharmacies and pharmacists while acting in the
course of their professional practice, in good faith and in accordance with
generally accepted medical standards.
Persons who lawfully acquire and use such drugs only for scientific purposes.
Officers and employees of the United States, this state or a political
subdivision of the United States or this state, while acting in the course
of their official duties.
An employee or agent of a person described in paragraphs 1 through 4 of
this subsection, and a registered nurse or medical technician under the
supervision of a medical practitioner, while such employee, agent, nurse or
technician is acting in the course of professional practice or employment,
and not on his own account.
A common or contract carrier or warehouseman, or an employee of such
carrier or warehouseman, whose possession of such drugs is in the usual
course of business or employment.
Persons lawfully in possession or control of controlled substances
authorized by title 36, chapter 27.
Persons who sell any non-narcotic substance that under the federal food,
drug and cosmetic act may lawfully be sold over the counter without a
prescription.
THE RECEIPT, POSSESSION OR USE, OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE INCLUDED IN 
SCHEDULE I OF SS36-2512, BY ANY SERIOUSLY ILL OR TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT, 
PURSUANT TO THE PRESCRIPTION OF A DOCTOR IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE 
PROVISIONS OF SS13-3412.01.
In any complaint, information or indictment and in any action or proceeding
brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter the burden of
proof of any such exception, excuse, defense or exemption is on the
defendant.
In addition to other exceptions to the physician-patient privilege,
information communicated to a physician in an effort to procure unlawfully
a prescription-only, dangerous or narcotic drug, or to procure unlawfully
the administration of such drug, is not a privileged communication.

	Section7.
	Title 13, Chapter 13, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding
SS13-3412.01 to read as follows:
SS13-3412.01.  PRESCRIBING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES INCLUDED IN SCHEDULE I 
OF SS36-2512 FOR SERIOUSLY ILL AND TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS 
	NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, ANY MEDICAL DOCTOR 
LICENSED TO PRACTICE IN ARIZONA MAY PRESCRIBE A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE 
INCLUDED IN SCHEDULE I OF SS36-2512 TO TREAT A DISEASE, OR TO RELIEVE THE 
PAIN AND SUFFERING OF A SERIOUSLY ILL PATIENT OR TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT, 
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SS13-3412.01.  IN PRESCRIBING SUCH A 
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, THE MEDICAL DOCTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH 
PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL STANDARDS.
	NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, A MEDICAL DOCTOR MUST 
DOCUMENT THAT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH EXISTS WHICH SUPPORTS THE USE OF A 
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE LISTED IN SCHEDULE I OF SS36-2512 TO TREAT A 
DISEASE, OR TO RELIEVE THE PAIN AND SUFFERING OF A SERIOUSLY ILL PATIENT 
OR TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT BEFORE PRESCRIBING THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE. 
	A MEDICAL DOCTOR PRESCRIBING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE INCLUDED IN 
SCHEDULE I OF SS36-2512 TO TREAT A DISEASE, OR TO RELIEVE THE PAIN AND 
SUFFERING OF A SERIOUSLY ILL PATIENT OR TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT, MUST 
OBTAIN THE WRITTEN OPINION OF A SECOND MEDICAL DOCTOR THAT THE 
PRESCRIBING OF THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IS APPROPRIATE TO TREAT A 
DISEASE OR TO RELIEVE THE PAIN AND SUFFERING OF A SERIOUSLY ILL PATIENT OR 
TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT.  THE WRITTEN OPINION OF THE SECOND MEDICAL 
DOCTOR SHALL BE KEPT IN THE PATIENT'S OFFICIAL MEDICAL FILE. 
	BEFORE PRESCRIBING THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE INCLUDED IN 
SCHEDULE I OF SS36-2512 THE MEDICAL DOCTOR SHALL RECEIVE IN WRITING THE 
CONSENT OF THE PATIENT.
	ANY FAILURE TO COMPLY WTH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION MAY BE 
THE SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATION AND APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINING ACTION BY THE 
BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS.

	Section 8.
	Title 41, Chapter 11, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding
SS4l-1604.15 to read as follows:
SS41-1604.15.  PAROLE ELIGIBILITY FOR PERSONS PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF
PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
	NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, IF A PRISONER HAS BEEN 
CONVICTED OF THE PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE 
AS DEFINED IN SS36-2501, AND IS NOT CONCURRENTLY SERVING ANOTHER 
SENTENCE, THE PRISONER SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE.
	ANY PERSON WHO HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT CRIME 
AS DEFINED IN SS41-1604.14, SUBSECTION B OR HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED, 
SENTENCED OR SUBJECT TO SENTENCING UNDER ANY HABITUAL CRIMINAL STATUTE 
IN ANY JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES, SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE 
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION.
	PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE PURSUANT 
TO THIS ACT SHALL NOT INCLUDE POSSESSION FOR SALE, PRODUCTION, 
MANUFACTURING, OR TRANSPORTATION FOR SALE OF ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE.
	WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT, THE 
DIRECTOR OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SHALL PREPARE A LIST 
WHICH IDENTIFIES EACH PERSON WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE PURSUANT TO THE 
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, AND DELIVER THE LIST TO THE BOARD OF 
EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY.

	Section 9.
	Title 31, Chapter 3, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding
SS31-411.01 to read as follows:
SS31-411.01.  PAROLE FOR PERSONS PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF PERSONAL 
POSSESSION OR USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE; TREATMENT; PREVENTION; 
EDUCATION; TERMINATION OF PAROLE 
	NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, EVERY PRISONER WHO IS 
ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SS41-1604.15 SHALL BE 
RELEASED UPON PAROLE, PROVIDED, HOWEVER THAT IF THE BOARD OF EXECUTIVE 
CLEMENCY DETERMINES THAT A PRISONER SO ELIGIBLE WOULD BE A DANGER TO 
THE GENERAL PUBLIC, THAT PRISONER SHALL NOT BE RELEASED UPON PAROLE.
	AS TO EACH PRISONER RELEASED UPON PAROLE PURSUANT TO THE 
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THE BOARD SHALL ORDER THAT AS A CONDITION OF 
PAROLE THE PERSON BE REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN AN APPROPRIATE DRUG 
TREATMENT OR EDUCATION PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY A QUALIFIED AGENCY OR 
ORGANIZATION THAT PROVIDES SUCH TREATMENTS TO PERSONS WHO ABUSE 
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.  
	EACH PERSON ENROLLED IN A DRUG TREATMENT OR EDUCATION PROGRAM 
SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR HIS OR HER PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAM TO 
THE EXTENT OF HIS OR HER FINANCIAL ABILITY.
	EACH PERSON RELEASED UPON PAROLE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF 
THIS SECTION SHALL REMAIN ON PAROLE UNLESS THE BOARD REVOKES PAROLE OR 
GRANTS AN ABSOLUTE DISCHARGE FROM PAROLE OR UNTIL THE PRISONER 
REACHES HIS OR HER INDIVIDUAL EARNED RELEASE CREDIT DATE PURSUANT TO 
SS41-1604.10.  WHEN THE PRISONER REACHES HIS OR HER INDIVIDUAL EARNED 
RELEASE CREDIT DATE, HIS OR HER PAROLE SHALL BE TERMINATED AND HE OR 
SHE SHALL NO LONGER BE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD.

	Section 10.
	Title 13, Chapter 9, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding
SS13-901.01 to read as follows:
SS13-901.01.  PROBATION FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF PERSONAL POSSESSION 
AND USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES; TREATMENT; PREVENTION; EDUCATION
	NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, ANY PERSON WHO IS 
CONVICTED OF THE PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE 
AS DEFINED IN SS36-250.1 SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR PROBATION.  THE COURT SHALL 
SUSPEND THE IMPOSITION OR EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND PLACE SUCH PERSON 
ON PROBATION.
	ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF OR INDICTED FOR A VIOLENT 
CRIME AS DEFINED SS41-1604.14, SUBSECTION B SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR 
PROBATION AS PROVIDED FOR IN THIS SECTION, BUT INSTEAD SHALL BE 
SENTENCED PURSUANT TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF TITLE 13, CHAPTER 34.
	PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE PURSUANT 
TO THIS ACT SHALL NOT INCLUDE POSSESSION FOR SALE, PRODUCTION, 
MANUFACTURING, OR TRANSPORTATION FOR SALE OF ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE.
	IF A PERSON IS CONVICTED OF PERSONAL POSSESSION OR USE OF A 
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AS DEFINED IN SS36-2501, 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 ENROLLED IN A DRUG TREATMENT OR EDUCATION PROGRAM 
SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR HIS OR HER PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAM TO 
THE EXTENT OF HIS OR HER FINANCIAL ABILITY.
	A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN PLACED ON PROBATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS 
OF THIS SECTION, WHO IS DETERMINED BY THE COURT TO BE IN VIOLATION OF HIS 
OR HER PROBATION SHALL HAVE NEW CONDITIONS OF PROBATION ESTABLISHED IN 
THE FOLLOWING MANNER: THE COURT SHALL SELECT THE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 
IT DEEMS NECESSARY, INCLUDING INTENSIFIED DRUG TREATMENT, COMMUNITY 
SERVICE, INTENSIVE PROBATION, HOME ARREST, OR ANY OTHER SUCH SANCTIONS 
SHORT OF INCARCERATION.  
	IF PERSON IS CONVICTED A SECOND TIME OF PERSONAL POSSESSION OR 
USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AS DEFINED IN SS36-2501, THE COURT MAY 
INCLUDE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF PROBATION IT DEEMS NECESSARY, INCLUDING 
INTENSIFIED DRUG TREATMENT, COMMUNITY SERVICE, INTENSIVE PROBATION, 
HOME ARREST, OR ANY OTHER ACTION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.
	A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED THREE TIMES OF PERSONAL 
POSSESSION OR USE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AS DEFINED IN SS36-2501 
SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR PROBATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, 
BUT INSTEAD SHALL BE SENTENCED PURSUANT TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF 
TITLE 13, CHAPTER 34.

	Section 11.
	Title 13, Chapter 9, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding
SS13-901.02 to read as follows:
SS13-901.02.  DRUG TREATMENT AND EDUCATION FUND
	THERE IS HEREBY CREATED A SPECIAL FUND WHICH SHALL BE CALLED THE 
DRUG TREATMENT AND EDUCATION FUND IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF 
SUPREME COURT.
	FIFTY (50) PERCENT OF THE MONIES DEPOSITED IN THE DRUG TREATMENT 
AND EDUCATION FUND SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF 
THE SUPREME COURT TO THE SUPERIOR COURT PROBATION DEPARTMENTS TO 
COVER THE COSTS OF PLACING PERSONS IN DRUG EDUCATION AND TREATMENT 
PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY A QUALIFIED AGENCY OR ORGANIZATION THAT 
PROVIDES SUCH PROGRAMS TO PERSONS WHO ABUSE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.  
	SUCH MONIES SHALL BE ALLOCATED TO SUPERIOR COURT PROBATION 
DEPARTMENTS ACCORDING TO A FORMULA BASED ON PROBATION CASELOAD TO BE 
ESTABLISHED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE SUPREME COURT.
	FIFTY (50) PERCENT OF THE MONIES DEPOSITED IN THE DRUG TREATMENT 
AND EDUCATION FUND SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE ARIZONA PARENTS 
COMMISSION ON DRUG EDUCATION AND PREVENTION ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO 
SS41-1604.16.
	THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE SUPREME COURT SHALL CAUSE TO BE 
PREPARED AT THE END OF EACH FISCAL YEAR AFTER 1997 AN ACCOUNTABILITY 
REPORT CARD THAT DETAILS THE COST SAVINGS REALIZED FROM THE DIVERSION 
OF PERSONS FROM PRISONS TO PROBATION.  A COPY OF THE REPORT SHALL BE 
SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE, AND A COPY OF THE 
REPORT SHALL BE SENT TO EACH PUBLIC LIBRARY IN THE STATE.  
	THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE SUPREME COURT SHALL RECEIVE 
REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE DRUG TREATMENT AND EDUCATION FUND FOR ANY 
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IT INCURS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACT.

	Section 12.
	Title 42, Chapter 12 is amended by adding SS42-1204.01 as follows:
SS42-1204.01.  LUXURY PRIVILEGES TAX; PURPOSE; DRUG TREATMENT AND 
EDUCATION FUND; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS REVOLVING FUND 
	NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, SEVEN (7) PERCENT OF 
THE MONIES COLLECTED BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1997 AND DECEMBER 31, 1999, 
PURSUANT TO SS42-1204 SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 1, AND EIGHTEEN (18) 
PERCENT OF MONIES COLLECTED BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1997 AND DECEMBER 31, 
1999, PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPHS 2, 3, AND 4, SHALL BE DEPOSITED 
IN THE DRUG TREATMENT AND EDUCATION FUND ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO 
SS13-902.02.
	NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, THREE (3) PERCENT OF 
THE MONIES COLLECTED BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1997 AND DECEMBER 31, 1999, 
PURSUANT TO SECTION SS42-1204 SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 1, AND SEVEN (7) 
PERCENT OF MONIES COLLECTED BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1997 AND DECEMBER 31, 
1999, PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPHS 2, 3. AND 4, SHALL BE DEPOSITED 
IN A SEPARATE REVOLVING FUND OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FOR 
PAYMENT OF THE EXPENSES OF IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF SS31-411.01, 
AND SHALL NOT REVERT TO THE STATE GENERAL FUND IF UNEXPENDED AT THE 
CLOSE OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
	NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, TEN (10) PERCENT OF THE 
MONIES COLLECTED AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1999 PURSUANT TO SS42-1204 
SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPH 1, AND TWENTY FIVE (25) PERCENT OF THE MONIES 
COLLECTED AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1999 PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION A, PARAGRAPHS 
2, 3, AND 4, SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN THE DRUG TREATMENT AND EDUCATION FUND 
ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SS13-902.02. 

	Section 13.  Severability
	If any provision of this Act, or part thereof, is for any reason held to be
invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining sections shall not be affected
but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions
of the Act are severable.


*************************************
END OF PROP200
*************************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following are commentaries from various groups and individuals:


ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
(In compliance with A.R.S. section 19-124)

	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% 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 on parole 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 or terminally ill patient.  The doctor must be
able to document that scientific research supports 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.  50% 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% 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.


ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 200

During my service in the Reagan Administration, I was able to participate
directly in their efforts to reduce the size of government.  This
philosophy has broad appeal today and politicians of both parties are
searching for ways to make government more efficient.
However, one area that politicians seem reluctant to examine is that of our
failed drug policies.  We are spending billions for prisons to incarcerate
low level drug users.  In the federal prison system, 61 Percent of the
inmates are in for drug offenses.  Of the drug offenders serving in state
prisons, 38 Percent of them are in for simple drug possession.  Nationally,
the cost to build a new prison bed averages $40,000 and the cost to
maintain it averages $30,000 per year.
The results would be different if prison was a disincentive to using drugs.
But most wardens say that it is impossible to eradicate drugs from the
prison system.  A friend of mine in law enforcement once told me that the
prisoners would take the "do drugs, do time" bumper stickers and slice them
in half to more accurately read "do time, do drugs."  HBO recently issued a
documentary which featured veteran prisoners in the prison teaching younger
prisoners how to manufacture methamphetamine.
I am supporting the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act
because I believe we must reform our drug policy.  The Act mandates that
first and second time offenders convicted of simple possession or use will
receive treatment and probation as an alternative to incarceration.
Treatments costs 1/8 of the cost of  prison time and is certain to have a
better result than incarceration during which  many addicts continue to use
drugs at public expense.  Most importantly, the money saved on the prison
spending can be invested in drug prevention for our youth.

John Norton
Former U. S. Deputy Secretary of Agriculture
Chairman, Arizonans for Drug Reform
Paradise Valley

Paid for by Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform: John Norton, Chairman


ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 200

When John Kennedy was elected President, he asked Stewart Udall,
Congressman from Tucson, to be his Secretary of the Interior.  Stewart
brought a small cadre of Arizonans to work for him in Washington.  I was
lucky enough to be in the group--as Special Assistant to the Solicitor.
Young people serving in the Kennedy Administration met twice a month in an
informal group called the New Frontier Club.   I remember at one meeting
having an extensive discussion about our drug laws.  There was general
consensus that the criminalization of narcotic drug use was not working --
just as prohibition didn't work.  We were concerned that the Government was
spending a lot of money and the situation was only getting worse.  I
thought that the laws would be reformed soon since their failure was so
obvious.  That was 34 years ago!
Today, the failed drug war continues.   At the state level drug control
spending is over $16 billion with 80% going to the criminal justice system,
and 20% Percent to education and treatment.   We need to reverse these
priorities so that we spend at least the same amount on treatment and
education to what we spend on enforcement and prisons.
The Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act seeks to equalize the
spending on treatment and education.   Rather than wasting money on prison
for  minor drug users, the Act invests in treatment for users and
prevention for our youth.
There is strong evidence that this approach will be more effective.    A
Rand Corporation study in 1994 found that treatment is much more effective
than enforcement and prisons in reducing cocaine use.  It is time to adopt
rational, cost-effective measures that deal with drugs in ways that benefit
rather than harm society.

Marvin S. Cohen
Former Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board
Treasurer, Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform
Phoenix

Paid for by Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform: John Norton, Chairman



ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 200

Marijuana has been known for decades to help in treating the terminally and
seriously ill patient.  Because of the value of marijuana as a drug, the
American Medical Association vigorously opposed the Marijuana Tax Act of
1937 which made it impossible for doctors to prescribe this drug for their
patients.  Modern research shows marijuana helps cancer patients undergoing
chemotherapy; treats glaucoma; prevents convulsions; arrests severe muscle
spasms in patients with neuromuscular disorders; stimulates appetite in
AIDS patients. Last year the American Public Health Association urged the
"Administration and Congress to move expeditiously to make cannabis
available as a legal medicine where shown to be safe and effective."  In
1988, the Drug Enforcement Agency's own administrative law judge, Francis
L. Young, declared marijuana fulfilled the legal requirement of currently
accepted medical use in treatment, adding it was "one of the safest
therapeutically active substances known to man."
Yet today, doctors still cannot help patients for whom all other medicines
have failed and marijuana may have scientifically-proven benefit.  The
edicts that tie their hands are not passed down by physicians or research
scientists, but by government bureaucrats and political appointees.
The Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act of 1996 lets doctors
help their seriously and terminally ill patients for whom all other options
have failed, by prescribing marijuana as a medical therapy in those
situations.  It does this judiciously and responsibly.  The prescribing
doctor must obtain a second physician's opinion.  Prescription and drug use 
must follow accepted medical standards under the purview of the Arizona
Board of Medical Examiners.  There must be documented scientific evidence
of potential benefit.
The Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act of 1996 is a moderate,
well-reasoned proposal that enhances the physician's ability to help
suffering patients.  It deserves our strong support.


Jeffrey A. Singer, MD, FACS
Phoenix

William J. Rice, MD
Phoenix

Mark R. Mathews, MD
Scottsdale

Ross Levatter, MD
Phoenix

Walter Koppenbrink, MD
Paradise Valley

Charles Goldstein, MD, DIP.ABEM
Paradise Valley

Jeffrey D. Steier, MD
Paradise Valley

Linda B. Benaderet, DO, FACOI
Phoenix

Thomas J. McNaughton, MD 
Phoenix

Tali Arik, MD, FACC, FACP
Scottsdale

Guy M. Kezirian, MD, FACS
Scottsdale

Michael Lubin, MD
Phoenix

Barbara J. Merz, MD
Phoenix

Lawrence Liebmann, MD
Phoenix

James T. Carver, PhD
Phoenix

Raymond C. Malone, MD
Green Valley

Joel E. Colley, MD
Scottsdale

David L. Elliott, MD
Phoenix

Mark L. Williams, MD
Scottsdale

Charles T. Williams, MD
Phoenix


ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 200

	As a former prosecutor and U.S. Senator, I have spent my life fighting
against drugs.  I am supporting the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and
Control Act because it will help strengthen Arizona's drug control.
	By placing small, personal drug users into treatment and probation, the
Act will clear up prison space for violent criminals and drug dealers.  The
Act also creates a Parents Commission on Drug Education and Prevention.
This Commission will seek more drug education for parents and greater
parental involvement in drug prevention.
	The Act requires violent drug offenders to serve 100 Percent of their
sentence and has a three-strikes-and-you're-out clause.  I urge you to vote 
Yes on the Drug Medicalization Prevention, and Control Act.  It's a better
way.

					Dennis DeConcini
					United States Senator (Ret.)
					Bethesda, Maryland



ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 200

As a former cop, I have seen the failure of our drug policies on the street.
As a former U.S. Attorney, I have seen the failure of our drug policies in
the courts.
And as a parent, I am afraid that if we don't do something different, my
children might be the next victims.
That's why I am backing the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control
Act which is a new and effective way of controlling drugs.  The Act adopts
a get tough, get smart approach.
The Act gets tough on dangerous, violent drug offenders.  It requires them
to serve 100% of their sentence.  In addition, judges may be more likely to
sentence these offenders to longer sentences because the people have
identified them as a menace.
That Act will also have an impact on other violent and dangerous offenders.
Arizona suffers from an immense prison crisis.  This overcrowding has had
a chilling effect on sentencing.  The Act will free up needed prison space
for violent offenders and drug dealers.
The Act gets smart by investing money in prevention programs, not wasting
it on prison for minor drug users.  It creates the Arizona Parents
Commission on Drug Education and Prevention.   The Commission will fund
programs for parent drug education and develop drug prevention programs
which will increase parental involvement.  After all, if we parents don't
get involved, we're never going to reduce drug abuse among our children.
So I urge you to vote yes on the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and
Control Act, it's a new and better way of dealing with our drug problem.

Steve Mitchell
Former Asst. U.S. Attorney and Law Enforcement Officer
Phoenix

Paid for by Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform: John Norton, Chairman


ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 200

	The "Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act" deserves support.
Drug abuse is a public health issue.  We need to medicalize our drug policy
and put more emphasis on drug prevention and treatment.  The current
approach to drug policy is not working.  The most recent government numbers
show that marijuana use among our youth (12-17) increased by several
hundred Percent over the last couple of years.  We need to invest more
money on drug treatment and prevention for our youth and spend less money
on prisons for simple, nonviolent drug users.  This Act will free up more
prison space for drug dealers and violent offenders.
	This initiative also has medical benefits.  Medicalization means that we
treat drug abuse as a public health issue.  Drug abuse is a disease;
throwing heavy prison sentences at users does not solve their problem.
This Act calls for mandatory, court-supervised treatment and probation as
an alternative for non-violent drug users.  It provides expanded drug
prevention programs.  It will also allow doctors to prescribe controlled
drugs such as marijuana for seriously and terminally ill patients.
	This reform is not decriminalization.  This Act only applies to people who
are convicted of personal possession or use of a controlled substance.
Dealers would continue to be rigorously prosecuted and incarcerated, and
persons who commit violent crimes while on drugs would receive tougher
penalties, up to 100% of their sentence.  Drug users would still receive
criminal penalties, probation, and mandatory court-supervised treatment.
	This Act only applies to non-violent drug offenders.  Offenders with a
violent criminal history would be ineligible.
	This initiative will save money and, more importantly, help break the
cycle of "do drugs - do time- do drugs" by a more crime-effective approach
to drug users.  As a judge, I feel it deserves support.

					Rudolph J. Gerber, Judge
					Court of Appeals
					Phoenix

Paid for by Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform: John Norton, Chairman


ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 200

Drug abuse is not just a criminal justice problem, it is first a public
health problem.  Addiction to controlled substances is a disease.  If our
drug policy was really a "War" as some claim, we would demand a new
strategy or court-martial the general.  Polling shows that over 90% of
Arizonans believe we are losing the War on Drugs.  Perhaps this is why our
new Drug Czar, General McCaffrey, has said, "war" is the wrong metaphor and
that the drug problem is a "cancer."
Sending minor drug users to prison draws resources from society and does
nothing for the addict.  There are drugs in the prison system.  Often,
prisoners simply continue their addiction in prison and are released back
into society.
Minor drug users are the fastest growing group in Arizona prison, out
pacing even violent offenders and drug dealers.  Between 1994 and 1996, the
number of mere users in Arizona prisons increased by 658.  The cost of each
new prison bed in Arizona is $35,000 and it costs $18,000 to maintain it.
So the net cost of these new addicts to the state over the last two years
is $46.7 million, not to mention the cost to maintain the 1300 existing
beds taken up by drug users.
I urge your support for the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control
Act of 1996.  The Act offers first and second time offenders who are
convicted of personal possession or use of a controlled substance drug
treatment and probation.  This treatment costs one-eighth that of prisons.
Most importantly, drug users who can work while under treatment remain
taxpayers and are not severed from their families who can offer vital
support in recovery.  The Act will also invest resources in drug prevention
for youth which emphasizes parental involvement.

Dr. John Sperling
President, Apollo Group Inc.
Phoenix



ARGUMENT "AGAINST" PROPOSITION 200

	This proposition sounds deceptively appealing, but it gives less freedom
with the one hand than it takes away with the other.
	Proposition 200 contains some libertarian-sounding provisions that would
restore a measure of freedom that has been denied by current drug laws --
such as allowing the medical use of controlled substances to alleviate pain
and suffering, and treatment instead of incarceration for non-violent drug
users. Cost reductions in our prisons sound good, too.
	But, on balance, this proposition is anti-freedom -- and certainly
anti-responsibility.
	Proposition 200 creates another tax-hungry government entity (a Parents
Commission) and creates compulsory business for the lucrative (and highly
ineffectual) "drug abuse treatment" industry.  Convicted drug users must
undergo treatment as a requirement of Proposition 200 (whether they need it
or not). If they can't pay for their own treatment, we, the taxpayers, pick
up the tab.
	It's high time government stopped treating responsible adults as children.
	If you care about the suffering of patients who are denied the medical
benefits of controlled drugs...
	If you care about the lives wasted in prison for the mere possession of
recreational substances...
	If you want real, meaningful drug reform...
	... then stop prosecuting people for using drugs. Control the sale of
drugs just as we now control the sale of alcohol and tobacco.
	Suddenly there will be room in our jails for truly violent offenders.
	Suddenly there will be far fewer violent crimes, when drugs are no longer
worth fighting over, stealing for, or pushing on our children.
	Vote "NO" on 200.


Kent B. Van Cleave
Libertarian Candidate for
State Representative
District 25
Phoenix

Scott Grainger
Libertarian Candidate for
State Representative
District 21
Mesa

Robert Anderson
Libertarian Candidate for
U.S. Congress
District 6
Phoenix

John Williams
Libertarian Candidate for
State Senate
District 25
Phoenix

Rickie Duncan
Libertarian Candidate for
State Senate
District 20
Phoenix

Ted Louis Glenn
Libertarian Candidate for
Pima County Supervisor
District 4
Tucson

Ernest Hancock
Libertarian Candidate for
State Representative
District 18
Phoenix

John Wilde
Libertarian Candidate for
State Representative
District 20
Phoenix

Maricopa County
Libertarian Party
Steering Committee
Mesa

Donna Hancock
Libertarian Candidate for
State Senate
District 18
Phoenix






----------------------------------
AZ4NORML                      
PO BOX 50434                  
Phoenix Arizona 85076         
http://www.amug.org/~az4norml 
----------------------------------