Other transcripts

Transcripts

September 26, 2002

Host: Michael Grant
Topics:
Proposition 203, marijuana decriminalization;
Proposition 302, legislation - drug treatment enforcement.
· Learn more about Prop 203 and Prop 302 on the Election 2002 Web site
In-Studio Guests:
Dr. Jeffrey Singer, who opposed 302, supports 203

>> Michael: Tonight on "Horizon," marijuana back on the ballot this year in the forms of propositions 203 and 302. We'll tell you more about those two measures. Good evening, I'm Michael Grant. When medical marijuana was approved by voters in 1996 and then again in 1998, one of the provisions was to provide drug treatment instead of jail time for users and possessors of small amounts of marijuana, but some prosecutors and judges say there's no "stick" in the laws to enforce the treatment. Proposition 302 is placed on the ballot by the legislature to provide that stick. Mike Sauceda tells us more about proposition 302.

>> Reporter: In 1996 and in 1998 voters in Arizona approved ballot measures to allow for the use of medical marijuana. One of the provisions of the law prohibited jail time for possession of marijuana if no violence is involved on the first offense. He says people are ignoring the treatment.

>> Rep. Russell Pearce: Other prosecutors throughout the state say they have a significant problem.

>> Reporter: Former judge Rudolph Gerber disagrees.

>> Judge Rudolph Gerber: If you look at the Arizona Supreme Court's port on proposition 2000 that came out last November, roughly two thirds of people on probation for possession and use of drugs without any other convictions are successful.

>> Reporter: He says the voter approved marijuana law lacks teeth.

>> Rep. Russell Pearce: when the judge sentences them to treatment and if they thumb their nose at the court the law is truthless. They can tell the judge to pack sand, not go and I suppose you could bring in through contempt or violation there's no teeth in the law to do anything about his non-compliance with what the law said if you don't go to jail, you gotta go to treatment.

>> Reporter: To enforce treatment, the state legislature put on the ballot proposition 302 which would: Allow jail time if the offenders violation probation, allow probation offers to revoke probation if they fail to participate in a drug treatment program and would allow jail time. Allow jail time, a convicted drug offender refused treatment. If a person is not eligible under our laws, it would be permitted if the person qualifies otherwise for probation. 302 is not needed. There are other ways to enforce.

>> Judge Rudolph Gerber: That stick exists in a number of different ways in the present law. First of all, the conditions of probation can be ratchet up dramatically even to the point of house arrest.

>> Rep. Russell Pearce: We're playing smoke and mirrors here with the law. If the treatment is really one for small amounts, in the end the judge already had the authority to do that in the past. The law is unnecessary. It created an environment that is absolutely and everybody knows it's unenforceable.

>> Judge Rudolph Gerber: A second thing that is available, and that many judges don't do very often because they are not familiar with the procedures, is to hold the offender in contempt of court. A Contempt of court proceeding is in my opinion preferable to putting people in jail or prison for violating probation. It is a faster proceeding. It Can be done in a summary fashion and the offender stays in jail for violation of court order just long enough to indicate a desire to cooperate.

>> Michael: The other measure dealing with marijuana we'll vote on this year is proposition 203, which was placed on the ballot through the initiative process. Proposition 203 would do many things but two of the major things would decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana and have the DPS distribute the drug. Mike Sauceda tells us more about the measure.

>> Reporter: Mary Jane, weed, GANGA, wacky tabacky. Some of many slang names for marijuana. Since 1996 marijuana ballot measures have proliferated in great numbers. This year one of two ballot measures is proposition 203.

>> Rep. Russell Pearce: Here we go again. This has nothing to do with any legitimate purpose. It's simply another attempt to legalize drugs, all kinds not just marijuana.

>>Josh Burner: That the biggest crock. I can't even imagine it. I think the Sioux Indians up in South Dakota call that UMPA. you gotta be careful not to step in UMPA.

>> Reporter: What would it do? Decrimialize possession of less than two ounces of marijuana or two or fewer marijuana plants if it is for personal use. Criminal charges will be replaced by a fine for a first or second offense Or $750 for violations there after. It would require the department of public safety to provide for three not more than two ounces every 30 days for each person with a recommendation from a doctor. A state registry would be set up for those with a doctor's recommendation. A person with a registration card could possess up to two ounces. In some cases those under 18 would be allowed to have a registry card if their parents consented. Prop 203 with increase. It abolish the minimum mandatory sentence or fine the the measure would require parole or community supervision for those already in prison. Finally, 203 would prohibit the seizure of property unless the person was convicted of a drug offense and it was the instrument of committing that crime. Besides whether it is legalization of marijuana, one of the major bones of contention is having the DPS distribute the drug.

>> Josh Burner: There was compassionate marijuana on the books back in the 1980s and the DPS provided confiscated marijuana without a problem.

>> Rep. Russell Pearce: I would be embarrassed that I would be the largest drug distributor, the largest dope dealer in the state of Arizona. I agree it's embarrassing. It's a shame. I don't know that it would happen but just because we have federal laws that would usurped the ability. Just of the thought of it. I may go to jail before I would do it.

>> Reporter: He says it would be tough to handout safe marijuana.

>> Rep. Russell Pearce: These drugs are sometimes laced with other drugs in them, poison, sometimes watered down with horse manure and other stuff. Dopers are creative to get more profit out of their illegal market.

>> Josh Burner: You can tell if it's been whatever. And you can tell the difference, just about what country it comes from, et cetera. You gotta remember this is done on the street. I have purchased up to a pound at a time, but you usually end up at south Phoenix at 2:00 in the morning with a total stranger.

>> Reporter: He has two prescriptions for medical marijuana and has not had any for several days and that means his nausea from recent treatments is out of control.

>> Josh Burner: I could throw up in your lap right now but I won't.

>> Rep. Russell Pearce: There are drugs on the market that will do everything their argument says they want from marijuana, legal drugs.

>> Reporter: He says this is another attempt by millionaires to legalize drugs in the state.

>> Rep. Russell Pearce: This the third attempt to influence the Arizona voters and they call it medical marijuana a good soundbyte sounds like it may be necessary. They'll show you a clipping of someone who is crippled or in need, but the problem is they have drugs on the market already that take care of that.

>> Reporter: He says the placing of another measure dealing with the marijuana on the ballot is all about politics.

>> Josh Burner: This war on drugs is ridiculous. This proposition 302 calling itself "don't buy the lie the battleground Arizona," The reason they have to call it "battleground Arizona" is because they are all in their holes just like in fox holes, they are hiding out. They won't debate.

>> Michael: Maricopa County attorney Rick Romley and the institution opposing were invited to be on "Horizon" but declined. This is part of a letter they wrote : (Cleared for letter)

>> Michael: The entire letter is available on our web site at www.kaet.asu.edu. Here now to talk about proposition 302 and 203 is Dr. Jeffrey Singer who opposed 302, supports 203. Dr. Singer, nobody wants to appear with you.

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: I think, first of all, I need to answer some of those charges in the letter.

>> Michael: Sure.

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: Dr. Sperling is right now an 81-year-old man who is recovering from knee surgery in San Francisco. That's why he can't be here. I'm the spokesman and the co-chair and the people have spoken. I don't see what is dishonest about me representing the people. I think I have an idea as to why the county attorney's office refused to appear. It's probably because they are under legal scrutiny. Our attorney Paul Eckstein has a six year public records request out because we have reason to believe in evidence that he has been misusing his office and abusing tax pair funds on various ballot initiatives including prop 203 and 302. That's probably cast a chilling effect and the made him not interested in coming here.

>> Michael: Let's go to the issues themselves. Why has John Sperling spent and others -- but John Sperling certainly mostly -- several hundred thousand dollars, millions of dollars over the past three out of four election cycles on this issue?

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: I can't speak for John Sperling, but I know from talking to him that he's a wealthy man who feels very strongly about this viewpoint. He feels a war on drugs has created more casualties at home than anything else and he would like to basically have his legacy be that he has done something to reform drug policy.

>> Michael: Would you agree that as it unusual for people to spend large amounts of their own personal fortunes on public policy issues?

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: unfortunately. It's unusual. There are people who do this from corporations to think tanks. Paul Newman, as I understand, is financially keeping afloat the left leaning magazine "the nation." There are people of means who feel strongly about it and want to support things. I think that's great.

>> Michael: Jeff, proposition 203 is really more about decriminalizing marijuana than it is about medical marijuana, agreed?

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: that's correct. It's a comprehensive drug policy reform initiative that is an update of initiative that the people overwhelmingly passed in 1996 and then in effect had to repass overwhelmingly again in 1998 when the legislature resisted. It deals with many aspects of the way we deal with drug crimes and if there's anybody who is making this all about medical marijuana it's this group called "battleground Arizona." That's what you see in their signs and what they talk about.

>> Michael: I'll get to that in a minute. Let me give you some of arguments against decriminalizing marijuana. First, it's a gateway drug. If you decriminalize it, you're using the path to more serious or dangerous drugs. What is your response?

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: I take issue with that. The national Institute or drugs in the 1990 and the Institute on medicine have both said there's not evidence -- convincing evidence that it's a gateway drug. Besides that, if you were concerned about getting people introduced into harder drugs the best way to do that is to drive them underground. When you are forced to go to illegal drug dealers in back alleys they are more than happy to introduce you to products they are willing to sell. If marijuana is shown to be a gateway drug, it's so because of the fact that people who get it get it from the people who are wanting to sell them harder drugs.

>> Michael: Regardless of that fact, marijuana is not good for people and by decriminalizing, it society sends a message it's not only okay to use it but invites them to use it?

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: it's not sending that message. It still makes it a civil offense. People found in possession of two ounces or less of marijuana in Arizona if prop 203 passes will be given a fine. It's not giving a green light this is saying that as far as the public is concerned they disapprove of this. The point is 11 states have decriminalized marijuana. for example, Ohio decriminalized four ounces or less. We're talking about half of that amount. Most of the developed world has decriminalized it. We learned that the united kingdom has decided they are not going to arrest people for a minor offense of smoking one of softer illegal drugs such as marijuana. Italy, Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands and Spain. Now Canada is entertaining the same thing. The Supreme Court of Canada ordered the Canadian health care system to provide marijuana for medical use for all patients who qualify. It's time for us to join the rest of the free world. This is a main stream idea. This is about not wasting valuable law enforcement resources particularly in a country on such a minor thing as arresting kids for smoking pot.

>> Michael: One of the other major steps that 203 takes is to abolish mandatory minimum sentences for other kinds of drug possession. First off, what other kinds of drugs are we talking about?

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: We're talking about possession of illicit drugs for use, not for sale.

>> Michael: Cocaine?

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: That's correct, not for sale.

>> Michael: Possession only, why is it a good idea to abolish minimum sentences for those much harder drugs?

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: first of all, it's important to emphasize that doesn't prevent harsh sentences if We increase sentences for violent crimes. Having mandatory minimums not only has been counterproductive, but it goes counter the American heritage of justice. Most judges are frustrated and rightfully so. Every individual case is an individual case. Every person's story is a unique story. Judges would like the opportunity to be able to sometimes make adjustments in sentences to fit the particular circumstance but they can't. They are barred from using flexibility. We want to put the flexibility back to the judge's hands.

>> Michael: But Jeff, these are dangerous drugs we're talking about. We hear about deaths and other tragedies associated with crack cocaine, cocaine and a variety of other drugs frequently. Why isn't it appropriate for society to send a strong message saying don't do that and if do you at a minimum give this person three years or five years, to reinforce the message that it's dangerous and don't do it?

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: I think the voters of Arizona decided in 1996 that we do not believe that drug abuse, personal drug abuse, is a problem that needs to be addressed by incarceration. We believe that this is a personal problem, it's a health problem and the best way to deal with the problem is to referred to people for rehabilitation.

>> Michael: Do you think they made that call for only marijuana?

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: I think they made that call in general. When we had to go back and do it again, there was a separate initiative that death with -- dealt with non-incarceration. They decided drug abuse is a health problem, not a criminal problem, and this is not a way to deal with it.

>> Michael: In 1998 there was a fair amount of discussion about how broad that proposition cast its net, and I also seem to recall proponents saying we're not trying to legalize harder drugs.

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: This is not about legalization. These drugs are still illegal. We're talking about decriminalizing which is not legalizing marijuana and the rest of drugs addressed in prop 2000 n 1996, nothing changes.

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: There these people are referred to rehabilitation and placed on probation. It's treated as a felony.

>> Michael: Let me go to the medical marijuana aspect of prop 203 and one of its most controversy aspects. It makes the department of public safety, a law enforcement agency, a distribution arm, a lot of people have a lot of trouble getting their arms around that, Jeff?

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: It may at first sound unusual or strange, but what is really strange or absurd, actually is our federal prohibition on medical marijuana. We have a situation today where patients who are using medical marijuana are forced to get to back alleys and drug dealers, doctors are under threat sanctions of their practice. We have no choice today until the federal government relaxes its rules but to have some agency distribute marijuana to legitimate patients. What better agency than the DPS? If this sounds strange to you, guess what we got the idea from? In 1980 the legislature of Arizona passed a law requiring the DPS to take confiscated marijuana and give it to the U of A medical school for research on marijuana patients. That law existed until 1989. That's where we got the idea from. This is not an unusual concept.

>> Michael: That was a controlled setting Primarily for research?

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: No, with patients. We think that DPS supervising the distribution of this drug makes perfect sense.

>> Michael: What about the DPS chief raised a couple of points in opposition. He said I'm going to take op cops off the street to supervise a distribution program that's not a good whid?

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: I don't see how he has to. If we're not longer arresting an prosecuting people who are small amounts of marijuana for personal use that will save law enforcement budget money. That frees up a lot law enforcement people and take a couple of people away from argue teenagers from smoking pot and get them distributing marijuana to legitimate patients, they'll still come out ahead. The budget committee as recognized by law did an analysis said it will only cost $16 5,000 to set this whole program up.

>> Michael: He said the marijuana we seize could have any number of things in it. Sure that testing would be an additional element but if someone gets marijuana laced with PCP, are we liable for that?

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: When we giving the seized marijuana to patients at U of A they had no problem screening for this. Liability wasn't an issue. Until we do this, guess what we have patients who are terminally ill who are wasting away from aids and other illnesses who have to get possibly laced marijuana.

>> Michael: Almost out of time, no other drugs that can address this issue?

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: this is the situation where all the other drugs legally available have been tried and are not working. Every doctor will say there are other drugs.

>> Michael: Thanks for coming.

>> Dr. Jeffrey Singer: I wish I could have spoken to somebody else.

>> Michael: To view a transcript of show visit our web site at www.kaet.asu.edu. You can click on the election 2002 emblem and that will take to you transcripts as well as more information on the ballot mesh shoes we talked about tonight. You can find out more about the propositions on our web site. In addition, you can register to vote, find out what district you live in, and request an early ballot. Tomorrow, join us for the Friday journalist's roundtable addition. We'll discuss President Bush's visit for gubernatorial candidate Matt Salmon. Thanks for joining us for this edition of "Horizon" I'm mike Grant. Have a great one. Good night.