VOTE COULD MANDATE POT TICKETS

INITIATIVE SEEKS $500 TOP FINE FOR 2 OUNCES

PHOENIX - Arizona voters likely will be asked to make the penalty for
possession of small amounts of marijuana little more than an expensive
traffic ticket.

An initiative effort that kicked off yesterday would make possession of up
to 2 ounces of pot punishable by a fine of no more than $500.

In fact, police officers could not arrest someone who showed valid
identification; they would instead be required to issue citations to appear
in court.

The measure would make Attorney General Janet Napolitano the state's
best-known drug supplier. She would be required to set up a registry of
patients who qualify for marijuana for medical purposes and provide them
with pot, either from a federal ``compassionate use'' program or from
marijuana that has been seized and tested.

It also would strip county attorneys and police departments of the money
they now get from selling items seized from drug traffickers. Instead, most
of that money would go to drug treatment programs.

The measure will be on the 2000 general election ballot if backers can get
the required 101,762 signatures by July 6.

That is not likely to be a problem. The measure is backed financially by
the same people who persuaded voters to adopt Arizona's first drug
medicalization act in 1996 and a 1998 law blocking legislators from
tampering with voter-approved initiatives.

Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall said that although she is troubled by
the proposal, the penalties for small-time drug users would be ``sort of
how we handle these cases now.''

Police officers and sheriff's deputies are empowered to issue misdemeanor
citations in possession cases involving small amounts of marijuana. In
fact, she said, many of these cases never come to court at all, with
offenders referred to diversion programs that erase the arrest from their
records if they complete required treatment.

But the proposed initiative fails to differentiate between first-time and
repeat offenders, and sends the wrong message, LaWall said.

``There are a lot of young people out there that hesitate and don't use
drugs because they know it is a felony,'' she said, adding that society is
already ``way too permissive.''

LaWall also said diverting the proceeds from asset seizures will hurt law
enforcement.

She said cities and counties are either unwilling or unable to provide
police with the tools they need. As a result, she said, the agencies depend
on other funds.

For example, she said, the computer terminals in sheriff's patrol cars are
funded through asset seizures, as are improved bulletproof vests for police
officers.

But Sam Vagenas, director of The People Have Spoken, said it makes more
sense to put the money into preventing drug abuse and treating offenders
than into arresting more people.

In fact, Vagenas said, the entire measure is based on the idea of getting
treatment for those in need.

The 1996 law specified that first- and second-time drug possessors could
not be imprisoned but were required to undergo counseling if convicted.

Vagenas said this still clogs up the courts. Worse yet, he said, treatment
beds have been filled by people busted for possessing a couple of joints,
leaving no space for people with serious addictions.

The 1996 measure allows doctors to prescribe otherwise illegal drugs to
seriously and terminally ill patients if another doctor consents. But no
doctor has so far been willing to go along because of threats by the Drug
Enforcement Administration to cancel the prescription-writing privileges of
any doctor who writes such an order.

Vagenas said the three big backers of this year's effort are the same three
who provided nearly $1.3 million of the almost $1.6 million spent on
getting the 1996 measure approved:

* John Sperling, president of Apollo Group and founder of the University of
Phoenix.

* George Soros, a New York City investor and longtime proponent of
reforming drug laws.

* Peter Lewis, an executive with Cleveland-based Progressive Insurance Co.