WEALTHY BENEFACTORS FUNDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA CAMPAIGNS

Washington, D.C., Six States Primed For Elections

A war against the ``war on drugs,'' fueled by millionaires, not
pot-smoking hippies, is taking place in six states and the District of
Columbia this month.

Voters in Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and the
District of Columbia will find initiatives on their November 3 ballots
allowing physicians, under defined conditions, to obtain and dispense
marijuana as a palliative to their patients. In Arizona, the medical
marijuana question is before the voters as part of a broader
referendum on decriminalizing a wide category of drugs.

Sponsors say they think they will win in every state, and opponents in
the law enforcement community, Congress and the Clinton administration
fear they might be right.

One reason for the optimism among proponents is the money that has
come in from three men: New York financier George Soros, Cleveland
insurance executive Peter B. Lewis and Phoenix entrepreneur John
Sperling, who are staunch critics of the anti-drug policies of
successive Republican and Democratic administrations.

The three are financing most of the $2 million campaign being run by
the Los Angeles-based Americans for Medical Rights, which is
coordinating the ballot drives everywhere but Arizona and Washington,
D.C. Sperling is the principal backer of the Arizona referendum, which
has raised $1.4 million so far.

Dave Fratello, spokesman for the national organization, said, ``The
goal is to change national policy, but we know we will have to win
more battles in 1999 and 2000 before that happens.'' California voters
approved a medical marijuana initiative in 1996, but state and federal
authorities have made a persistent effort to prevent people from
selling marijuana to individuals who obtain a doctor's prescription.
Nonetheless, some ``cannabis clubs'' are operating.

Proponents of the initiatives, such as Portland, Ore., physician
Richard Bayer, claim there are many cancer and AIDS patients for whom
marijuana is the most effective drug in relieving nausea and other
debilitating side effects. The Oregon campaign is using a multiple
sclerosis patient as a spokeswoman. A poll this month showed the
proposal with a 64 percent to 30 percent lead, but sponsors said they
expect it to narrow.

On the other side, the White House Office of National Drug Control
Policy is distributing talking points to community anti-drug
coalitions and urging newspapers in initiative states to editorialize
against these propositions. Its position papers contend that other
drugs can meet the medical needs of cancer and AIDS patients and urge
that marijuana not be legalized at least until the Food and Drug
Administration and the Institute of Medicine complete ongoing studies
on its safety and effectiveness.

Local law enforcement agencies have not mobilized major money or
strong grassroots opposition to the initiatives. Senator Jon Kyl,
R-Ariz., an opponent of the Arizona decriminalization effort, said,
``When it's everybody's responsibility, it's nobody's
responsibility.''

The Arizona battle might be the most significant because of the
breadth of the referendum. In 1996, Sperling, president of the Apollo
Group Inc., which owns, among other enterprises, the for-profit
University of Phoenix, initiated the ``Drug Medicalization, Prevention
and Control'' initiative, with financial backing from Soros and Lewis.

In addition to permitting marijuana prescriptions, it provided that
instead of jail, the first two possession convictions would result in
probation and participation in a drug treatment or education program.

He enlisted bipartisan support from Marvin S. Cohen, a Carter
administration chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board, and John
Norton, a deputy secretary in the Reagan administration Agriculture
Department. His big catch was former senator Dennis DeConcini, D-
Ariz., who said in a television commercial, ``As a former prosecutor
and U.S. senator I've spent my life fighting against drugs, and I can
tell you that the Drug Medicalization Act will strengthen our drug
policy.''

The TV spots in the 1996 initiative campaign stressed the provision
requiring those convicted of violent crimes while under the influence
of drugs to serve their full sentences, without parole. The ads also
argued that clearing prisons of people convicted of simple possession
would save money and make space for hardened criminals.

The measure passed with little opposition. It was only afterward, said
state Representative Mike Gardner, that legislators discovered it had
been written to include not just marijuana but 116 other ``Schedule
I'' drugs including LSD, heroin and PCP.

``We want to medicalize all of them -- and not be namby-pamby,''
Sperling said in an interview last week. ``Even though,'' campaign
coordinator Sam Vagenas interjected, ``we believe marijuana is the
only one that meets the (medical) standards today.''

Gardner, chairman of the state House Judiciary Committee, immediately
met with his state Senate counterpart, and they drafted and passed two
bills. One ordered jail time for anyone convicted of possession who
refused treatment, and the other suspended medical use of any of the
117 drugs, including marijuana, until it is approved by Congress or
the FDA.

No sooner were the bills signed than Sperling and his team, now
calling themselves ``The People Have Spoken'' coalition, rounded up
signatures to force Gardner's bills to referendum.

The conflict quickly escalated. Sperling's side filed a second
initiative for the November 3 ballot that would bar the legislature
from making anything other than technical changes in voter-approved
measures and require a three-fourths majority even for those. The
legislature replied with a countermeasure that would sunset
initiatives after five years and permit substantive amendments on a
two-thirds vote.

Sperling and his allies are running their campaign on a ``people vs.
politicians'' theme. Their first radio ad noted their 1996 initiative
``received approval of 65 percent of Arizonans. . . . But that didn't
stop the politicians from gutting it. They had the nerve to say that
voters were ignorant.''

Gardner said in an interview, ``The initiative was part of our
constitution when we became a state, because it was supposed to offer
the people a way of overriding special-interest groups. But it's
turned 180 degrees, and now the special-interest groups use the
initiative process for their own purposes.''

Checked-by: Patrick Henry