DRUG PROPOSITION BACKERS WANT `BIASED' BALLOT, BOOKLET CHANGED

PHOENIX - Backers of the medical use of illegal drugs have gone to court to
block what they call biased descriptions of their latest ballot fight.

Attorneys for The People Have Spoken are asking a Maricopa County Superior
Court judge to revamp how their referendum drive is described both on the
November ballot and in pamphlets published by the Secretary of State's
Office. They contend the wording is designed to persuade people to vote to
repeal provisions of the law that they approved only two years ago.

No date has been set for a hearing.

In 1996 voters approved Proposition 200, which allows doctors to prescribe
otherwise illegal drugs such as marijuana to terminally ill patients if
they can show there is scientific research to back the use of the drug to
control pain.

Last year, the Legislature repealed much of the initiative, contending that
voters were misled. That legislation specifies that doctors cannot
prescribe controlled drugs unless either Congress or both the Food and Drug
Administration and the Drug Enforcement Agency specifically approve
marijuana for medical use.

Initiative backers then went back to the streets and gathered enough
signatures to hold up the repeal until the issue goes back to voters. It
will be on the ballot in November as Proposition 300.

Attorneys for the organization claim the Legislative Council violated state
laws requiring ballot measures be described impartially. They argue the
description of Proposition 300 is ``fatally flawed in its inaccuracy,
incompleteness and clear bias in favor of one result over another.''

For example, they note, while their original measure would affect more than
100 drugs, the description lists only a few ``that are most likely to
inflame the senses of some voters,'' including heroin and PCP, an animal
tranquilizer sometimes abused by addicts. Beyond that, they note, PCP isn't
on the list of drugs that would be affected by the law.

They also claim the description fails to point out that the original law
they want reinstated does not give doctors unlimited rights to prescribe
controlled substances. Instead, it requires not only scientific research
but a written second opinion from another doctor.

A separate lawsuit challenges descriptions drawn up by Secretary of State
Betsey Bayless, who is required by law to describe on the ballot the effect
of voting ``yes'' and ``no'' on various measures. Backers of medical use of
illegal drugs contend these descriptions are similarly flawed.

Both sets of descriptions have another problem - one caused by the
Legislature itself.

The original plan by lawmakers in 1997 was to remove the ability of doctors
to prescribe any of the now illegal controlled drugs. Only marijuana was to
be excepted, and only after federal approval.

A drafting error, however, said that if the federal government approves
marijuana, then doctors are free to prescribe any of the restricted drugs,
albeit still subject to the requirements for scientific research and a
second opinion. This drafting error, while part of the law, is not pointed
out to voters.

Checked-by: Mike Gogulski