INITIATIVE WOULD RAISE MARIJUANA PENALTIES

Marijuana. Just say the word and the debate ignites.

Is it a gateway to harder drug use? Are its negative social and health
effects exaggerated? Should users face harsh punishment, or a small fine?
Do tough pot laws make economic and social sense? What message should
society send to children?

The questions go on. The debate rages.

Ever since Oregon eased up on marijuana penalties 24 years ago, becoming
the first state to decriminalize possession of a small amount, political
forces have been at work to reverse that decision.

After drug use surveys showed increasing use among youths, marijuana
opponents found the issue they needed to get the Oregon Legislature to
approve a law making marijuana possession a Class C misdemeanor punishable
by up to 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

To give the prohibition more teeth for juveniles, the law imposes a
six-month driver's license suspension for first-time offenders who fail to
complete a court-ordered diversion program aimed at halting use of the drug.

Even more quickly than the Legislature passed the law, activists for
marijuana law reform collected twice the number of signatures needed to put
the new law on hold until voters have their say on the Nov. 3 ballot.

If approved, Ballot Measure 57 would make possession of less than an ounce
a misdemeanor. If it's defeated, possession would remain a violation -
carrying a fine of $500 to $1,000 and no possibility of a jail sentence.

While no formal polling has been completed, Measure 57 opponents believe
one-third of voters support the measure, one-third don't and one-third
haven't decided.

"The only thing I have heard is that it is close," said Terry Miller,
director of NORML, a branch of the National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws.

Reflecting the state's ambivalence, Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber expressed "a
good deal of reluctance" when he signed the bill July 3. He said his chief
concern is the "delicate balance" between public safety and civil liberties
of individuals.

Kitzhaber noted that elevating the possession of marijuana to criminal
status affords police more power to search and seize potential evidence.
Opponents envision more property forfeitures.

"(I)f it is used for such purposes as harassment rather than for legitimate
law enforcement objectives, then it should be repealed and we should return
to the current law," Kitzhaber said in July. "In the long run, we cannot be
successful unless we are willing to put our resources behind efforts to
resolve the conditions that lead to drug use in the first place."

For the record, Measure 57 opponents say they are not "pro-marijuana."
Instead, they say they are anti-marijuana prohibition and want drug laws
that protect children, respect adults and reduce harm done by drug use and
abuse.

The semantics of the debate don't interest Molalla Police Chief Rob Elkins,
the 34-year-old co-chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Oregon
Association of Chiefs of Police. The hard reality of drug abuse is Elkins'
bottom line.

Elkins said he grew up in "a dysfunctional family" and watched his seven
brothers get into drugs. Four of them went to prison, a couple more than
once.

Reducing drug use will greatly reduce the property thefts that so many
addicts use to support their habit, he said.

As Elkins sees it, Oregon sends mixed messages to children. Anti-drug
education programs discourage use of marijuana, but state law makes
possession less of a crime than speeding in some cases, he said.

"The focus of this bill truly was youth-oriented," Elkins said. "Kids'
belief about whether a drug is harmful has a direct correlation with
whether they use."

Elkins acknowledges one of the complaints about recriminalizing marijuana:
The tougher new law won't be enforced evenly around the state.

The state Elections Division estimates that the law will produce 6,000
additional arrests, half of which will be charged as misdemeanors.

Half of all arrests will result in one day of county jail time, according
to the estimate.

"This law is not going to lock people up," Elkins said. "It's going to
allow us to have a deterrent."

To people such as Floyd Landrath, Elkins' thinking is just more of the same
old prohibition mentality that hasn't reduced drug use, only respect for
the law.

"I'm not getting the feeling that most people think what we're doing right
now is really working," said Landrath, who works for a coalition of groups
fighting Measure 57.

All the money spent on enforcement and punishment would be better directed
toward treatment for users who want to stop but who face a lack of
affordable programs, Landrath said.

"We've been on a drug law binge now for 20 years, adding more prisons. Look
what we have to show for it," Landrath said. "Prohibition does nothing to
control these drugs. If it stops 10 percent, we're lucky. We're pushing
these people into a criminal environment. It costs way less for treatment
than to incarcerate."

Classifying marijuana on the same scale as harder drugs puts marijuana
users, including youths, in contact with sellers of hard drugs such as
cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine, he said.

"The best thing we could do for our kids and ourselves is to separate
marijuana from the hard drugs," Landrath said.

"We don't need to get tougher on drugs, we need to get smarter on drugs."

MEASURE 57

Elevates possession of less than an ounce of marijuana to a Class C
misdemeanor. Under current statute, possession is a violation. Estimated
cost for the biennium: $2.4 million.

THE PROS

Tougher law would send a message to youths not to use marijuana.

Reducing drug use reduces other crimes.

Tougher law will reduce drug use among youths.

THE CONS

Current prohibition does not reduce drug availability.

Money would be better spent for treatment, not enforcement.

Tough pot laws put youths in contact with hard-drug pushers.

Other stories related to the November 1998 election

Copyright (c) 1998 The Register-Guard