WAR OF WORDS HEATS UP ON STATE'S DRUG PROPOSITION

PHOENIX (AP) - Supporters of a medical marijuana initiative adopted two
years ago accuse state officials of trying to mislead voters in an upcoming
referendum.

Defending the wording approved for the about-to-be-printed official voter
publicity pamphlet, one legislative leader said initiative supporters are
``trying to have us accept their spin as the official spin.''

The initiative, Proposition 200 on the 1996 ballot, would authorize
physicians to prescribe otherwise illegal drugs such as marijuana. However,
the Legislature in 1997 promptly amended the voter-passed law to, instead,
bar medical use of the drugs without federal authorization.

Federal officials have said such authorization won't be forthcoming.

Initiative supporters, who have bankrolled similar ballot measures in
several other states, responded to the 1997 law by collecting enough
signatures to force a referendum drive this year on the 1997 law adopted by
the Legislature.

The referendum is Proposition 300 on the state's Nov. 3 general election
ballot. The 1996 ballot measure also included other drug-law changes, but
those are not included in the current dispute.

Two lawsuits filed last week by initiative supporters assert that wording
drafted by state officials for the official voter publicity pamphlet and
the ballot itself is inaccurate or unfair.

The lawsuits asked for court orders blocking the state-drafted wording from
being used.

A legislative housekeeping committee agreed yesterday to make many changes
in the wording of the pamphlet's analysis of Proposition 300, but refused
to delete its partial list of affected drugs. Those listed were heroin,
LSD, marijuana and variations of PCP.

Selecting only ``those few that are most likely to inflame the senses of
some voters'' from among the more than 100 affected drugs was an attempt by
the initiative's opponents to garner votes for Proposition 300, one of the
lawsuits argued.

``That sows a level of confusion,'' said Jack LaSota, a lobbyist for the
initiative supporters. He suggested referring to the drugs involved as
``otherwise illegal drugs'' or ``otherwise illegal substances.''

Legislators balked, saying they have a constitutional duty to provide clear
explanations of ballot measures and that voters would not understand that
more than marijuana is involved.

``They would not have the foggiest idea what that means,'' said Sen. Tom
Patterson, a Phoenix Republican who is a physician.

``They're trying to have us accept their spin as the official spin, as the
all-inclusive spin,'' said Senate Majority Whip Gary Richardson, R-Tempe.

A hearing on the lawsuit on the pamphlet's analysis was scheduled tomorrow
in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Checked-by: Mike Gogulski