FIGURING OUT DRUG INITIATIVES A TRICKY PROPOSITION

Voters will make measure stick or let it drop

Have Arizona voters followed Alice through the looking glass?

``A yes vote means no, a no vote means yes'' is the confusing take-home
message on Propositions 300 and 301.

But these measures aren't about Wonderland.

They're about legislation voters approved by a two-thirds majority in
the 1996 general election.

The so-called Medical Marijuana Law said physicians should be allowed to
prescribe marijuana and other illegal drugs - known as Schedule 1 drugs,
under Food and Drug Administration classification - to relieve pain and
nausea in patients with cancer, AIDS and other serious or terminal
illnesses.

The law also prescribed treatment rather than prison for first- and
second-time drug offenders.

Now here's where it gets confusing.

A no vote on Propositions 300 and 301 would uphold the 1996 law as
voters approved it.

A yes vote would overturn the law, upholding instead the Legislature's
1997 vote to repeal the 1996 voters' decision.

Proposition 300 says doctors should not be able to prescribe marijuana
to seriously ill and dying patients - unless the federal Food and Drug
Administration first allows such prescribing.

The measure gets tougher on other Schedule 1 drugs such as heroin, LSD
and PCP, which are generally considered more dangerous than marijuana.
It says under no circumstances should doctors be able to prescribe those
drugs.

Proposition 301 would remove the portion of the 1996 law that precludes
prison sentences for first- and second-time drug offenders. It would
make it more difficult for those offenders to avoid jail time and get
into treatment.

But the debate over Propositions 300 and 301 focuses as much on voters'
rights as it does on the pros and cons of the medicinal use of an
illicit substance.

It is the voters' rights aspect of the debate that has prompted Attorney
General Grant Woods to oppose 300 and 301.

``The Legislature threw away the vote of 65.4 percent of the voters,''
said Sam Vagenas of The People Have Spoken, the group leading
oppositionto 300 and 301.

``In 1996 we had a referendum on our failing war on drugs,'' Vagenas
said. ``This year it's a referendum on our failing politicians.''

But groups supporting the propositions say Arizona's medical marijuana
law sends the wrong message to children and threatens government
anti-drug efforts.

``As medication experts, pharmacists know the dangers associated with
prescribing Schedule I substances and the potential for forgery of
signatures,'' said pharmacist Ken Cross, president of the Arizona
Pharmacy Association.

Both Arizona and California passed medical marijuana laws in 1996,
sparking a huge national debate. California's somewhat tamer law allowed
doctors to recommend the use of marijuana and other drugs, and patients
to possess such drugs for their own use.

But they were not the first states to legalize marijuana for medicinal
purposes. Virginia passed a law in 1979 allowing doctors to prescribe
marijuana for patients with cancer and glaucoma, an eye disease
characterized by increased pressure within the eye; marijuana reduces
the pressure.

Connecticut passed a similar law in 1981. And according to the National
Conference of State Legislatures, 23 states and the District of Columbia
have laws that somehow authorize the medical use of marijuana.

Early last year, the National Institutes of Health convened a panel of
experts to review the scientific literature on possible therapeutic uses
of marijuana.

``There are varying degrees of enthusiasm to pursue smoked marijuana for
several indications,'' the panel noted. ``This enthusiasm was tempered
by the fact that, for most of these disorders, effective alternative
treatments are already available.''

The panel worried that prolonged use of marijuana could lead to lung and
immune-system impairment. The panel concluded that more research was
needed to evaluate marijuana's potential therapeutic use.

But political pressures have prevented such studies from being
conducted, said Dr. Kevin Carmichael, a Tucson family practice physician
who specializes in HIV infection and AIDS.

``I think there's probably some medical use for marijuana, and I resent
the fact that more research hasn't been done on it,'' Carmichael said.

For AIDS patients who have no appetite, Carmichael prescribes an
FDA-approved drug called Marinol, a synthetic version of the active
ingredient in marijuana.

The drug helps some patients improve their nutrition, but most don't
like the drug, Carmichael said. ``It often just makes them feel
strange,'' he said.

Other experts, including Dr. Sydney Salmon, director of the Arizona
Cancer Center, have noted that effective and legal - albeit expensive -
treatments for cancer pain and chemotherapy-induced vomiting are
available.

A recent poll by Northern Arizona University's Social Research
Laboratory showed that most Arizonans are confused about Propositions
300 and 301.

But after having the measures explained to them, 56 percent of those
surveyed said they would vote no on both propositions, upholding the
1996 voters' decision.

Support for the 1996 law increases to 65 percent among those aged 36 to
55.

``We are seeing a generational effect,'' said Fred Solop, the survey's
director. ``Baby boomers are more comfortable recognizing the medicinal
effects of certain drugs.''

Checked-by: Rolf Ernst