IN D.C., MARIJUANA DISPUTE HITS A RAW NERVE

The Issue, Some Say, Is Not Whether Smoking Pot Helps The Sick But Home
Rule For City Residents.

WASHINGTON -- When Wayne Turner finally managed, after years of sidewalk
activism, to gather enough signatures in August for a referendum here on
the medical use of marijuana, he felt a sense of accomplishment.

His domestic partner, Steve Michael, whose weight had dropped from 185 to
110 pounds as a result of AIDS, had started smoking marijuana in a
last-ditch attempt to stimulate his appetite. Last May, just before he
died, Michael asked Turner to keep up the fight.

But Turner's joy in getting the issue on the November ballot soon turned to
frustration.

Three weeks before the election, after the ballots had been printed,
Congress passed legislation barring district officials from carrying out
the election. Sponsors of the bill said they feared that the referendum
would legalize the recreational use of marijuana -- an outcome that Turner
said was not his intent.

The election went forward, and, according to one exit poll, the measure was
approved. But city officials have declined to release the results, saying
that to do so would violate the restrictions Congress passed.

The controversy over whether the outcome should be made public has opened
old wounds among Washington residents who have long chafed at Congress'
power, established by the Constitution, to manage district government. Many
say the matter has less to do with the medical use of marijuana than with
the rights of district residents to govern themselves.

'Huge Resentment'

"There is huge resentment over this," said Eleanor Holmes Norton, the
district's nonvoting member of Congress. "The taking away of [ a ] vote is
one of those insults that is felt from the poorest communities to the
richest. This was a gratuitous election-year stunt."

In August, Norton pleaded with Rep. Bob Barr (R., Ga.), the sponsor of the
bill in Congress, to drop the measure as he prepared to offer it as an
amendment to the budget bill. She failed. The measure was soon approved by
a voice vote. Barr, who said he had not been convinced that there were
medical benefits to using marijuana, said district residents must accept
such congressional oversight in exchange for the money the federal
government spends on the city.

"The majority of the taxpayers who provide these dollars are opposed to
efforts to legalize mind-altering drugs," Barr said. "This is nothing more
than a thinly veiled attempt to legalize a frequently abused [ drug ] ."

City officials, saying Barr's law violates the First Amendment rights of
district residents, have joined with the American Civil Liberties Union in
a suit asking the federal District Court here to reverse Congress and let
the vote count be made public.

Proponents acknowledge that the Constitution probably does give Congress
the right to overturn the election results, even if the court eventually
rules that they should be made public and certified. But they say Congress
does not have the authority to prevent an election that gives district
residents a chance to be heard on the issue.

Critics Want To See Limits

The ballot question, called Initiative 59, would allow marijuana to be
used, under a physician's direction, in the treatment of AIDS, glaucoma,
muscle spasms, cancer, and "other serious illnesses." What troubles some
critics is that it places no limits on how much a person may possess,
simply saying patients are entitled to have "sufficient" amounts for the
treatment of their illnesses.

The medical community is divided over the benefits that smoking marijuana
can provide to seriously ill patients.

Turner, president of the local chapter of ACTUP, the gay activist
organization, was supported in his campaign by the Whitman Walker clinic in
Washington, which treats up to 5,000 AIDS patients a year. For a small
number of patients, said clinic associate director Patricia Hawkins,
marijuana helps stimulate the appetite and moderate the effects of
chemotherapy.

"We believe it is a decision that ought to be left up to the patient and
the physician," she said.

Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona passed initiatives in
November legalizing the medical use of marijuana. Only the District of
Columbia, with its unique relationship to the federal government, was
stopped from having its votes counted.

"You can't get a more glaring example of congressional interference," said
Mark Plotkin, a Washington radio commentator. "This is just a punitive and
embarrassing attempt to humiliate us."

The battle is the latest in a long-standing conflict between district
residents and the federal government over how the district should be
governed. Some constitutional scholars say the conflict dates back to 1783,
when a band of former Revolutionary War soldiers marched on Independence
Hall in an attempt to force the Pennsylvania legislature to pay them back
wages.

Congress, which also was meeting in Philadelphia at the time, grew alarmed
by the disturbance and blamed Pennsylvania authorities for failing to
control the situation. When the Constitution was adopted several years
later, the framers, some of them citing that incident, gave Congress
authority over all matters in the national capital.

Congress has not been shy in using that power. It wasn't until 1961 that
the 23d Amendment to the Constitution was approved giving district
residents the right to vote in presidential elections. A few years later,
in 1974, Congress permitted district residents to elect their own mayor and
council.

But district residents have no voting representatives in the House or
Senate. Moreover, Congress periodically steps in to veto laws that it deems
objectionable. That was the case several years ago when Congress overturned
legislation passed by the City Council establishing a needle-exchange
program.

Checked-by: Richard Lake