"Hot Potato" is a game that is frequently thought of as a child’s game. My four year old daughter absolutely loves this game. A group of us will sit in a circle and pass a ball from person to person while music plays in the background. The ball is passed until the music randomly stops. You do not want to be the person stuck holding the hot potato when the music stops. When explaining the game to my four year old, I told her that she should pretend that the ball is a really hot potato, fresh out of the oven, and that if the music stops while has the ball, then she is holding the “hot potato.” She is really good at this game, to the point that she will hardly even touch the ball as it comes to her. In fact, she sometimes just bounces it off her hands to the next person and is never actually in possession of the ball at all.
It is interesting to see how frequently those of us who call ourselves “grown ups” actually mimic our children’s play. The Arizona Legislature frequently plays the game “Hot Potato” with whatever the trendy political issue happens to be. The hot political issue usually involves crime, because politicians know that most Arizonians pride themselves on being really tough on crime. Now, the rules to “Political Hot Potato” are slightly different, but the concept is the same. Politicians recognize that there is more than one hot potato issue being passed around the legislature at any given time, so they don’t want to get caught holding the biggest, hottest potato. In Arizona, the “soft on crime” hot potato is generally the most feared potato. As a result, many politicians push for illogical consequences simply because such conduct will portray them as being tough on crime.
For example, in the past, DUI was the big potato. Consequently, Arizona now has some of the toughest DUI laws in the country, including MANDATORY jail time for those guilty of a first time misdemeanor DUI, even though there are several felonies in Arizona that do not even require mandatory jail time! Another highly-charged political issue has been child pornography. Now, I’m not saying this isn’t a serious problem, or that we should be soft on child porn, but in Arizona if you are caught with a single pornographic image in your possession, you just bought yourself a minimum of 3,650 days in an Arizona prison. Those who view or distribute child porn should be punished, but should the punishment for possessing one picture of child pornography be greater than the punishment for second degree murder? A person convicted of second degree murder may be eligible to be released from prison after only 8½ years, compared to the ten year minimum for possession of one child porn picture. Watch out if there are multiple pictures because each count for child porn must run consecutive to any other count. That means that if you are convicted for possessing 10 pictures, you will go to prison for a minimum of 100 years.
The Current Hot Potato. The most recent “soft on crime” hot potato to be passed around the legislature deals with users of methamphetamine, also known as “meth.” On November 7, 2006, Arizona voters passed Proposition 301 (that was referred to the voters by the Arizona Legislature). This proposition will go into effect as early as January 2007. With the passage of Prop 301, meth users who get caught are no longer entitled to the same treatment as other drug users. To truly understand the significance of what this new law actually does, you need to understand some of the history of drug laws in Arizona.
In 1996, Arizona voters passed Proposition 200. Prop 200 mandated persons charged with “simple possession” (not drug dealers) to be placed on probation, if they wanted treatment for their drug addiction. This mandatory probation was contingent on the defendant having no prior convictions for violent crimes and less than three prior drug convictions. Don’t get the wrong idea; probation is no walk in the park. Probationers are required by the court to attend drug treatment and counseling, and are also subject to frequent drug testing. If the probationer comes up dirty on his drug test, then he or she goes to jail. Arizona voters realized that people who were drug addicts needed to get counseling and treatment rather than lock up. We understood that putting a junkie in jail but failing to treat them for the addiction was like giving a heart attack victim some asprin without treating the underlying cause of the heart attack. The damage of the first heart attack may be mitigated, but nothing is being done to prevent a subsequent heart attack.
As a result of Prop 200, many Arizonians have been able to obtain the counseling and treatment they so desperately needed. Today, more and more kids are trying meth because of the widespread availability of the drug and its rumored “upsides.” Meth is such a nasty drug because you get hooked the very first time you try it. It is relatively inexpensive to make and widely available to our children. As a result, more people are becoming addicted to meth at younger ages. These people need treatment for their addiction.
When I was working for the United States Attorney’s Office, meth dealers were prosecuted with a vengeance. Why? Because meth dealers are destroying the bodies and minds of they people they entice into using meth. Have you ever seen a picture of a person before they took meth and another picture of the same person after they got hooked? It is chilling. Prop 200 has been a great program for meth addicts because the meth addict has the chance to get treatment and counseling. If a meth addict is simply locked in jail, they “pay their debt” to society, but when they get out, they are still addicted to meth, and are right back where they started!
Recently-passed Prop 301 now takes away the meth addicts’ guaranteed opportunity for probation. Judges now have the discretion to send the meth addict directly to jail, not let them pass Go, and not let them collect $200. In essence, the courts may now deny meth addicts the same legal protections that are given to addicts of heroin, crack, cocaine, ecstasy, Oxycontin, and other drugs. What is the legal justification for treating meth addicts so differently? I have seen no arguments that jail magically cures meth addicts, but fails to do so for other types of addicts or that meth addicts are more dangerous to society than other types of addicts. Simply put, there is no valid argument that would justify treating meth addicts differently.
Most of the people who are addicted to drugs wish they were not. Most are trying on their own to best their personal demons. Drug addicts need treatment and counseling to beat their addiction. The politicians of Arizona should not have played hot potato with the lives of those hooked on meth. Why should we deny meth addicts the same chance for treatment that we give to cocaine and heroin addicts?
If you are dependent on drugs or alcohol, please seek help. One option is The National Alcohol and Substance Abuse Information Center at 1-800-784-6776. If you are arrested for a drug offense, make sure the person who represents you understands the consequences of Arizona’s drug laws.
If you have any questions concerning criminal law please call Rowley Chapman Barney & Buntrock at (480) 833-1113 and ask for Keith Nelson
