POT BACKERS LOSE PROP. 300 SUIT

Supreme Court OKs pamphlet analyzing bill

Promoters of medical marijuana have lost a court fight over notifying
people that their vote against Proposition 300 could legalize some other
drugs as well, including heroin, LSD and PCP.

The challenge to the Arizona Legislative Council ended when the state
Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Council's official analysis of
Proposition 300 is accurate.

The analysis, in a publicity pamphlet for the Nov. 30 general election, was
attacked in a lawsuit by a group called The People Have Spoken. The group,
then known as Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform, won passage of Proposition
200 in 1996.

The Legislative Council's analysis in the publicity pamphlet for the 1996
election mentioned only legalizing marijuana for prescription purposes and
did not inform the voters that other Schedule I drugs such as LSD, heroin
and PCP could be legalized.

The Legislature amended the initiative last year to halt the legalization
of Schedule I drugs for medical use in Arizona unless Congress or federal
agencies approve marijuana as medicine. The People Have Spoken responded
with Proposition 300, a referendum on the Legislature's changes.

The secretary of state began printing 1.3 million pamphlets on the ballot
issues Wednesday. By law, they contain analyses of the issues by the
Legislative Council.

The Council's analysis of Proposition 300 was rejected last week by
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Howe. By referring to heroin,
LSD and PCP, the Council was attempting to advocate for passage of its
limits on legalizing drugs in the referendum, the judge said.

Howe recommended that all Schedule I drugs should be listed as part of the
legalization attempt, not just the ones commonly associated with serious
abuse. Or, the judge suggested, no analysis of Proposition 300 should be
included in the publicity pamphlet.

A Supreme Court panel disagreed with the judge. Mention of heroin, LSD and
PCP does not misrepresent House Bill 2518, the subject of the referendum,
the court said.

Naming only the three street drugs "can be regarded as an attempt to
provide appropriate and necessary information to the voting public,"
according to the Supreme Court order upholding the Council's analysis.

Sam Vagenas, spokesman for The People Have Spoken, said he was disappointed
that the Supreme Court did not limit the Legislature's power to change an
initiative by the voters and then interpret the matter in an official
publicity pamphlet for a referendum on those changes.

"The same politicians, when they gut an initiative, are able to write the
language that's most beneficial to them," Vagenas said. "The voters know
what they were voting on in 1996. They will see through this ruse and vote
`no' on Proposition 300."

The only ruse was in 1996 when Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform said they
wanted to legalize marijuana for the sick and dying, Maricopa County
Attorney Rick Romley said. He favors Proposition 300 and opposes the
attempt to legalize marijuana or any other street drug.

"Once again, they tried to hide the ball," Romley said. "The Supreme Court
saw right through it."

The publicity pamphlets will be available at primary-election polling
places on Sept. 8. The information also is posted at
http://www.sosaz.com, the secretary of state's Web site.

Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson)