OUTSIDE INTERESTS FINANCE LOCAL PRO-MARIJUANA EFFORT

Initiative: Alaska Group Buys Ads With $550,000 From D.C.-Based Marijuana
Policy Project.

A group working to decriminalize marijuana in Alaska has been bankrolled by
an Outside organization to the tune of half a million dollars, making it
one of the best-funded ballot issue groups in state history, according to
reports filed with the Alaska Public Offices Commission.

Alaskans For Marijuana Regulation and Control has already spent most of the
$551,227 buying airtime for radio and television ads, mailing brochures,
paying staffers and conducting get-out-the-vote telephone pushes, according
to the group's 30-day pre-election campaign disclosure report filed Monday.

All but $510 of the money came from the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana
Policy Project, which is also funding pro-pot initiatives in other states
this year.

With 27 days to go until the Nov. 2 election, Alaskans For Marijuana
Regulation and Control has already outspent nearly all the ballot issue
groups in state and local elections dating back to 1997, APOC records show.
Only three groups since 1997 have spent more: the Alaska Family Coalition
spent about $617,000 in 1998 to push for a constitutional amendment banning
same-sex marriage; the Yes Committee spent $650,000 in 2002 on its campaign
for a new convention center in Anchorage; and the Vote Yes! Committee spent
almost $700,000 in 1999 to push for using part of the Permanent Fund to
balance the state budget. Only the same-sex marriage measure won voter
approval.

The fund raising is further evidence the legalization campaign this year is
more sophisticated than a similar, unsuccessful effort in 2000.

Alaskans For Marijuana Regulation and Control has about 55 times the amount
of money as the only organized opposition to Ballot Measure 2: Alaskans
Against the Legalization of Marijuana/Hemp.

That group, which fought against legalization efforts in 2000, has about
$10,000 in its coffers, according to its APOC report.

Matthew Fagnani, president of the local drug-testing firm WorkSafe Inc. and
chairman of the opposition group, declined to discuss his group's campaign
strategy. He said he's working with about half a dozen people to defeat
Ballot Measure 2, which he said would have "grave social ramifications" on
Alaska if it passes.

The initiative would make it legal under state law for people 21 and older
to grow, use, sell or give away marijuana. It would also allow for state
regulation and taxation of marijuana similar to alcohol or tobacco and for
laws limiting use in public and to protect public safety.

"I think Alaskans need to be aware that this initiative is clearly
supported and financed by Outside interests that have very little to do
with Alaska," Fagnani said in an interview Monday. "They're trying to make
Alaska a poster child for the rest of the nation."

Bruce Mirken, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, said if the
measure passes, "it could be a signal of larger changes to come around the
country." But even if it fails, he said, it's still a step in the right
direction for stimulating a discussion on marijuana policy that the nation
needs to have.

"This is nothing we came up with and got on the ballot," Mirken said. "This
was a totally homegrown campaign."

Mirken said his organization has about 15,000 dues-paying members,
including some in Alaska. One of those members is Ohio billionaire Peter B.
Lewis, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. This year Lewis
donated $485,000 to MPP, as well as $2.5 million to the anti-war, anti-Bush
online advocacy group MoveOn.org and about $3 million to a similar
organization, America Coming Together.

Mirken said a big part of what the MPP does "is support local activists who
have ideas but maybe not a lot of resources."

The Marijuana Policy Project has spent comparable amounts of money as in
Alaska on other statewide marijuana initiatives in Nevada, Oregon and
Montana, Mirken said, although he didn't have exact figures.

According to the Billings, Mont., Gazette, the MPP spent about $197,000 as
of mid-September on a campaign there to legalize the use of medical
marijuana -- something Alaska voters did in 1998.

The Statesman Journal in Salem, Ore., recently reported that the MPP spent
about $476,000 as of Sept. 16 on a campaign there to expand access to
medical marijuana.

It was not clear how much money the organization spent in Nevada. An
initiative there, similar to the one Alaskans will vote on next month,
failed to make it to the ballot after a signature snafu. Supporters are
already gearing up to get it on the 2006 ballot, Mirken said.

Mirken did not know how much money his organization contributed to the
failed legalization efforts in Alaska in 2000. "It certainly was not the
sort of sizable support we're doing this year," he said.

That initiative, which was turned down by about 60 percent of voters, also
aimed to decriminalize pot, but the age limit included in the measure was
younger: 18. It also wanted the government to set free some jail inmates
convicted of marijuana crimes and set up a commission to consider
restitution to them.

"It overreached a bit," Mirken said -- a sentiment expressed by people on
both sides of the issue.

This time around, proponents have stripped down their demands on voters to
make the measure more appealing. They also have some prominent figures on
their side: an associate biomedical professor, a former deputy commissioner
of corrections and a former attorney for the Republican Party of Alaska.

Some opponents of legalization have expressed worry about the professional
nature of the campaign, but Fagnani said he has faith the measure will fail
despite "misleading" ads by proponents.

Some of the ads -- there are four, two radio and two television -- portray
Ballot Measure 2 as a privacy issue, the argument being that Alaskans have
a constitutional right to use small amounts of pot in the privacy of their
own home and that despite this, the government still spends "millions" to
enforce prohibition.

"If the privacy of your home isn't respected now, then what's next?" one
radio ad asks. "Will they be at your door demanding to know if you have
cigarettes in your home? Or alcohol? Or guns? Don't let this be the future
for Alaska."

Other ads portray the measure as a public policy issue, saying the
government's drug war has failed, that too many kids can get their hands on
pot and that Alaska needs to try something new, like regulation.

Fagnani doesn't buy the arguments: "If this initiative passes, Alaska will
have more social problems than they currently have with alcohol or
tobacco," he said. "I would rely on the intelligence of the voters to read
the initiative very carefully and come to the conclusion that this is not a
good policy."

Alaskans For Marijuana Regulation and Control is working with two main
groups locally: Yes on 2 and Alaskans for Rights and Revenues.

Yes on 2 has raised close to $21,000 to date, according to its APOC report.
Most of those donations were nonmonetary covering such things as office
space and utilities. About $1,300 was in cash or checks from 21
individuals, all but two of them Alaskans.

Alaskans for Rights and Revenues has raised about $1,655, according to its
treasurer, Tim Hinterberger, an associate professor at the biomedical
program at the University of Alaska Anchorage. Most of those were
individual donations, he said. The largest single one, for $975, was from
the Texas-based Foundation for Constitutional Protection.

Alaskans for Marijuana Regulation and Control has already spent more than
$300,000 on radio and television spots.

David Finkelstein, a former state legislator and the paid treasurer for the
group, said that's probably it for the television ads, which are scheduled
to air through Election Day. But, he said, "We have a lot of potential for
expansion in print and radio."

There are no limits under state law on how much can be contributed to
ballot issue groups.

[sidebar]

TEXT OF BALLOT MEASURE 2

This bill would remove civil and criminal penalties under state law for
persons 21 years or older who grow, use, sell or give away marijuana or
hemp products. State or local government could not require a permit or
license for personal cultivation or distribution of marijuana, but could
regulate marijuana like alcohol or tobacco. It removes all existing state
restrictions on prescription of marijuana by a doctor for all patients,
including children. It allows for laws limiting marijuana use in public and
to protect public safety.