Homeless in Arizona

Maricopa County attorney Bill Montgomery also conveniently forgets to tell us that about 2.5% of his budget comes from money that his office gets from shaking down people accused of marijuana crimes.

When Maricopa County attorney Bill Montgomery offices forces people who are arrested for marijuana crimes to attend classes givens by TASC, then TASC, gives his office a $650 kick back for every person forced to attend the classes. Most of these people are arrested for victimless marijuana crimes. Those $650 kickbacks amount to about $2.5 million a year, or about 2.5% of the budget of the Maricopa County attorney's office.

I have said for years that the "War on Drugs" is a government welfare program government offices like police departments and prosecutors and these kick backs from TASC are a perfect example.

Sadly the kind of BS logic Bill Montgomery is using here to justify the "war on marijuana" and keeping the $650 from each person sent to the TASC program, we frequently see Kathy Inman use to justify Prop 205. It's all BS.

I am for complete total legalization of ALL drugs, not just marijuana.

But I am against Prop 205, because it doesn't really legalize marijuana. Prop 205 is mostly about making billionaires out of the 85 or so medical marijuana dispensaries that financed it, and 1% about ending the evil draconian marijuana laws.

Sadly Bill Montgomery loves the war on drugs because of the $$$ MONEY $$$ and power his office gets out of it. And of course many people suspect that Kathy Inman loves Prop 205, because she is hoping to get rich off of it.

Source

My Turn: Prop. 205 would cost the criminal-justice system more than it saves

Bill Montgomery, AZ I See It 8:44 p.m. MST October 30, 2016

The Arizona Republic visits a medical-marijuana grow site to find out how much marijuana adults would be able to legally carry, grow and use if Proposition 205 passes.

County attorney: Any “losses” from diversion of marijuana cases will be offset by the increase in other drug offenses.

It must be noted, too, that their feigned outrage at the fact that we divert and treat people instead of pursue convictions may be due to the number of customers they lose through counseling and treatment.

While citing the total fees paid to the Maricopa County Attorney's Office over the last 10 years, Ms. Cassidy missed an opportunity to share that almost 40,000 people have successfully completed treatment. These are substance-abuse success stories. Proponents of Prop. 205 probably view them as potential customers who can contribute to dispensary owners' profits. [That's about 4,000 people a year, and at $650 a person, that is $2.5 million a year or about 2.5 percent of the budget of the Maricopa County attorney's office]

How my office funds diversion

The program is authorized by Arizona law. County attorneys are charged with the responsibility to make decisions on whether to prosecute, defer prosecution or offer diversion, so they are responsible for overseeing the program.

The fact that substance abusers can participate in TASC even after a prior drug offense is a change created in 2012 by Arizona prosecutors in partnership with legislators. The statute was amended to give people a second chance at a diversion program to match the requirement for probation and treatment for their first two substance-abuse offenses.

Funding for diversion is authorized by ARS 11-363, and one source that can support the diversion fund is the county General Fund. Since TASC is set up to be nearly self-funding by participants paying fees based on a sliding scale matched to their ability to pay, I have never asked county leadership to fund this program. It would make no sense for the monies from TASC to go into the county General Fund only to be sent right back to my office.

There is no relationship between the future of TASC, which exists to mitigate the harms of substance abuse, and the fate of Prop. 205. But experiences in other states teaches that Prop. 205 will increase the harms from other substance abuse in our community. There is a much better chance of TASC reducing all substance abuse through treatment when voters reject Prop. 205.

TASC diversion also helps marijuana users who are involved with other drugs. In fact, 7 percent of marijuana users in the program also use cocaine, 3 percent methamphetamine, 3 percent multiple drugs and 2 percent opiates.

If Prop. 205 were to pass, we will see increased drug-use rates similar to what Colorado has experienced. TASC will not cease to treat all marijuana abuse, but it will likely see an increased focus on other drugs.

Shouldn't we remain a treatment-first state?

It is a curious argument at best to suggest that my opposition to Prop. 205 is conflicted based on my support of a program that seeks to minimize substance abuse. The two positions are in perfect harmony. I want to see a decrease in substance abuse in our community.

If Prop. 205 passes, we will most likely have more substance abusers of all types. The available evidence suggests that any “losses” from diversion of marijuana cases will be offset by the increase in other drug offenses. We will see added costs to the criminal justice system from drug-motivated crimes.

I am proud that Arizona is a treatment-first state when it comes to substance abuse, and I want it to continue to be a treatment-first state.

Ms. Cassidy’s article betrays the “financial incentive” that proponents of 205 have in the passing Prop. 205. Sadly, it also proves that they oppose any need for treatment for marijuana use.

Bill Montgomery is the Maricopa County attorney.