POT VOTE: A 'YES' MEANS NO

Confusing issue in marijuana measure: 'No' vote really means 'yes'

When it comes to the medicinal use of marijuana and other illegal
drugs in Arizona, just saying "no" actually means "yes."

Voters will encounter that upside-down logic Nov. 3 when they decide
on Proposition 300, one of the more controversial and confusing
measures on the general election ballot.

A "yes" vote on the proposition will mean "no" to the medical use of
such drugs as marijuana, LSD, heroin and PCP. A "no" will mean "yes."

Various polls, including one conducted for The Arizona Republic, have
yielded conflicting levels of support and opposition to the measure,
indicating a confused electorate.

"It's complicated, and it's highly emotional," said Stan Barnes,
chairman of Arizonans Against Heroin, which is opposed to the medical
use of illegal drugs.

"The danger is that people opposed to legalizing drugs will say, 'Oh,
I'll just vote no,' " Barnes said.

Proposition 300 is the second attempt at implementing a medical
marijuana law in Arizona.

The first try, an initiative passed overwhelmingly by voters in 1996,
allowed doctors to prescribe marijuana, LSD, heroin, PCP and other
"Schedule One" drugs to seriously or terminally ill patients. Before
prescribing such a drug, a doctor would have to produce scientific
proof of its medicinal properties and also would have to provide a
similar written opinion from a second physician.

The measure also called for diverting first- and second-time,
non-violent drug offenders into treatment programs instead of sending
them to prison.

But only months after voters approved it, the Legislature effectively
gutted the law by requiring that pot be authorized by the Food and
Drug Administration or Congress before doctors could prescribe any
Schedule One drugs in Arizona. Such authorization is considered
unlikely anytime soon.

Lawmakers also rendered the diversion program meaningless by instead
setting up special drug courts with the authority to send offenders to
jail.

Angry supporters of the medical marijuana law reacted by forming "The
People Have Spoken" and launching another petition drive to challenge
the legislative action, resulting in Propositions 300 and 301 being
added to the Nov. 3 ballot.

A "no" vote on 300 would reject the legislative changes and reaffirm
the original medical marijuana law. A "yes" vote would uphold the
legislative changes.

A "no" vote on 301 would reinstate the diversion program for drug
offenders, while a "yes" would uphold the drug courts enacted by the
Legislature.

Both of the original measures remain in effect pending the Nov. 3
vote.

Results of polls

An Arizona Republic poll conducted Oct. 3-6 found that 51 percent of
the respondents supported Proposition 300. Thirty percent were opposed.

The statewide poll of 811 registered voters had an error margin of
plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Another poll by Northern Arizona University yielded opposite results.
That poll, conducted Sept. 29-Oct. 7 with 402 likely Arizona voters,
found that 56 percent planned to vote "no" on the proposition.
Thirty-eight percent said they planned to vote "yes."

The poll, which had a margin of error of 5 percentage points, also
reported that 56 percent found the proposition confusing, and that
there appeared to be a "backlash" against the legislative tinkering
with the original law.

But the backlash doesn't stop with the pot measures. The same people
trying to overturn the legislative changes to the pot law also are
backing Proposition 105, which would restrict the Legislature from

changing future voter initiatives.

"There are a lot of people out there who are saying, 'Hey, we've had
enough,' " said Jack LaSota, a former state attorney general who is
legal adviser to the group backing Proposition 105.

"If the people put it in, the Legislature ought not to tinker with
it."

Debate intensifies

The debate over the pot issue has intensified in recent weeks, with
supporters of Proposition 300 accusing opponents of having a hidden
agenda: the ultimate legalization of all drugs.

"The real story, what this really is about, is street legalization,"
Barnes said, noting that some members of The People Have Spoken have
indicated their support for legalization.

"That's the end game," he said. "But they won't admit it because it is
on the wrong end of the political stick."

Barnes also criticized the group for raising most of its $1.4 million
in campaign funds from a trio of wealthy businessmen, two of them from
out of state.

The main contributor is John Sperling of Phoenix, chairman of the
Apollo Group and founder of the University of Phoenix. He has given
$660,000 to the group. Other major contributors are New York
billionaire George Soros and Cleveland insurance executive Peter
Lewis, each of whom have given more than $360,000.

"They are making a mockery of our state," Barnes said. "The whole
theme is anti-Legislature. What are they doing using our initiative
system for their own purposes?"

Legalization goal denied

Sam Vagenas, campaign consultant for The People Have Spoken, denied
that the group's goal is the legalization of drugs.

"Nobody supports full-blown legalization," Vagenas said. "Some people
in the group may have their own opinions about that issue, but that is
not what we are about. Drug abuse is not OK, it is a disease."

He said the group's main thrust has always been to push for more
treatment and less incarceration of drug offenders. That was the main
purpose of the original medical marijuana initiative in 1996, he said,
but intense publicity about a similar measure in California that year
overshadowed that goal.

"We became 'the other medical marijuana state,' " Vagenas said. "But
our real thrust was that the war against drugs is failing. The idea
was to provide an alternative to that failed policy, a medical
approach instead of a criminal approach."

He also accused Barnes and other opponents of medical marijuana of
trying to scare the public by constantly referring to heroin. He said
the original law included heroin and other Schedule One drugs in case
they are found to have medicinal value down the road.

"The idea was, hey, who knows, 10 years from now someone may determine
that heroin has medicinal value," he said. "Why should we have to go
through another initiative?"

That argument doesn't impress Rep. Mike Gardner, R-Tempe, one of the
main architects of the legislative changes to the pot initiative.

"I don't think people want to give doctors carte blanche to prescribe
heroin," Gardner said. "It gives way too much authority to two doctors
to say, 'Hey, you look like you need some heroin.' "

He added that he doesn't understand why backers of medical marijuana
are opposed to first requiring FDA approval, just like with other drugs.

"It should be treated just like Viagra and "fen-phen' and Tylenol,"
Gardner said.

Vagenas disputes the need for such authorization, pointing to the fact
that the medical marijuana law has been in effect for nearly two years
without causing any problems.

Checked-by: Rich O'Grady