FEDERAL OFFICIALS REACT MORE MILDLY THAN IN PAST TO PASSAGE OF MEDICAL
MARIJUANA INITIATIVES

WASHINGTON -- In the face of medical marijuana initiatives that sailed
through in five states Tuesday, federal authorities seem to be backing
off the fire-and-brimstone rhetoric they used to attack similar
measures two years ago.

Although they are still debating how to respond, federal officials
said Wednesday they have never prosecuted minor marijuana possession
and probably will not start now, although several states no longer can
prosecute it under certain circumstances.

Federal drug officials reacted so mildly in part because they are
skeptical that physicians will recommend marijuana to their patients
in large numbers.

``I think the doctors have been scared by the science,'' said Jim
McDonough, strategy director for federal drug czar Barry McCaffrey.
``They are not willing to put their name on marijuana and say, `This
is medicine.' If something happened, they would be so liable it would
make your head spin.''

This is a far cry from the federal government's stern warnings of just
a week ago, and from its fierce reaction in 1996 when California and
Arizona passed medical marijuana initiatives.

At that time, top administration officials, including Attorney General
Janet Reno and Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala,
condemned the measures and announced a crackdown against doctors who
recommended marijuana. A court temporarily blocked authorities from
going forward with the crackdown, and a lawsuit is pending over the
matter.

No big lawsuits are planned this year, at least so far, and no
sweeping enforcement actions are expected against doctors or patients.
That could change if members of Congress begin pressuring the
administration to take action, and it is not yet clear if that will
happen.

``It is virtually impossible for me to give you the coordinated, `This
is what the federal government is going to do,''' McDonough said.

The approval of laws in a total of seven states, covering a fifth of
the population, that directly contradict federal drug laws creates a
novel situation. Voters in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Nevada and
Colorado, as well as the District of Columbia, passed the referendums
Tuesday, joining California and Arizona. In the District of Columbia
and Colorado, exit polls showed voter approval, but the actual results
were withheld pending legal challenges.

The situation is even murkier because the measures protect certain
patients who buy marijuana, but selling the drug remains illegal.

Under the initiatives, a patient can get certified that he has one of
five diseases -- AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis or
epilepsy -- and that he or she would benefit from marijuana. If so,
the state must issue the patient a card authorizing him to possess and
use marijuana.

``If the federal government wants to intervene and block enforcement
of these initiatives, they will have to sue and take legal action
against the states,'' said Bill Zimmerman, director of Americans for
Medical Rights, which coordinated several of the initiatives. ``It
remains to be seen what the federal government will do.''

In three of the jurisdictions that approved medical marijuana
measures, they will not take immediate effect.

Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., inserted a measure in a large federal spending
bill forbidding the District of Columbia from spending any money on
its initiative, and his action has been challenged in court. In
Colorado, a dispute over the validity of petition signatures is also
in court.

In Nevada, the state constitution requires voters to pass any
amendment twice, so the marijuana initiative there will not be final
until 2000.

Checked-by: Patrick Henry