IF INITIATIVE DRIVE SUCCEEDS, NEVADA MAY EMERGE AS DRUG-WAR BATTLEGROUND

If the drive to force a medical-marijuana initiative onto Nevada's
November ballot succeeds, and if voters approve it, don't expect the Las
Vegas Valley's caliche to spawn thickets of autumn cannabis. And don't
bogart your breath awaiting the ribbon-cutting for the Fremont Street
Reefer-Buyers Club. This is Nevada, where constitutional amendments must
meet with voter approval in two consecutive elections.

Because the medical marijuana initiative would alter the constitution, the
Silver State wouldn't see legal cannabis until the millennium celebrations
have given way to the re-release of "2001: A Space Odyssey" -- that is,
assuming the pot medicalizers win every electoral battle and fend off any
legal challenges between now and the November 2000 elections.

Tuesday at 5 p.m. looms the deadline for backers of the initiative to
present their petitions to the secretary of state's office, which then has
25 days to verify that the requisite 46,764 John Hancocks have been
gathered from registered voters residing in at least 13 of Nevada's 17
counties.

If the measure's boosters and their pollsters are right, the concept of
legalized marijuana for sick people is so popular it will qualify for the
ballot handily and -- like similar 1996 initiatives in California and
Arizona -- meet with strong voter approval come Election Day '98. A
potential hang-up to the petition drive is that it was slow out of the
blocks, in part because of a ruling by the Nevada attorney general --
later neutered in District Court -- that no individual could contribute
more than $5,000 to an initiative campaign. And, if anything's driving the
medicalization initiatives in Nevada and other states, it's cash from very
wealthy men who seek to end the war on drugs or radically modify it.

If the Nevada marijuana medicalization petition qualifies for the November
ballot, expect fierce opposition to it from Nevada law enforcement. But so
far, no group has attempted to thwart the petition drive itself. The
movement does, however, have plenty of philosophical and financial suppor
t from out-of-state drug-war opponents, notably billionaire philanthropist
George Soros of New York; wealthy University of Phoenix founder John
Sperling of Arizona; and Peter Lewis, an Ohio insurance magnate.

Donations from these individuals and the organizations through which their
money is funneled animate the Nevada medical marijuana petition drive,
which is expected to cost about $150,000. "We're producing (signatures) at
a rate of several thousand a day statewide -- about 15,000 a week. We need
46,000 but we are shooting for 75,000," said Dave Fratello, communications
director and treasurer of Americans for Medical Rights, the Santa Monica,
Calif.-based group that organized the 1998 marijuana petition drives in
Nevada and several other states.

Fratello is also the day-to-day coordinator for those campaigns. AMR is
the main conduit for cash (from Soros and others) to initiatives aimed at
legalizing marijuana for therapeutic use in Nevada, Alaska, Washington,
Oregon, Colorado, Maine and the District of Columbia.

AMR has purchased the services of Progressive Campaigns Inc. (also of
Santa Monica), a savvy outfit with a strong track record and a reputation
for spotting efforts to sabotage petitions by loading them up with
duplictae names and invalid signatures. Progressive Campaigns was
instrumental in qualifying California's Prop 215. Angelo Paparella,
president of Progressive Campaigns, said Wednesday the Nevada initiative
has an "85 percent to 90 percent" chance of qualifying for the ballot, and
that similar campaigns in Colorado, Oregon and Washington "look very
good." (Progressive Campaigns got California's Prop 215 qualified.)

Does it matter to Nevadans that the $150,000 or so being spent on the
Silver State marijuana petition is being financed and coordinated almost
entirely by outsiders? Does it matter to the electorate that most of the
signature-gatherers -- about 70 of them, who must be registered Nevada
voters -- are piece-work professionals, earning $60 to $80 a day? Does it
matter that the medical pot campaign is bankrolled by out-of-state
millionaires?

"The opponents make a big deal about it," said Fratello, "but I'm not sure
how much it resonates among voters. It is only with their (Soros' and
others') support that we can get this issue before voters. So (voters)
tend to appreciate the fact that it's before them and not worry so much
about how it got there."

Signing a petition to force the measure onto the November ballot, Fratello
added, does not imply an endorsement of the law itself. Gov. Bob Miller, a
former prosecutor, declined to comment directly on the initiative drive.
His spokesman Richard Urey said Miller "has nothing to say except to
restate his core beliefs -- that any initiative that makes (drugs) more
available sends a wrong message to youth" and that marijuana medicalizati
on tends to undermine educational programs aimed at combatting drug use.

Janine Hansen, the Sparks-based president of the conservative,
3,000-member Nevada Eagle Forum, said her group has taken no stance on the
petition drive -- but it will formulate a position if the measure
qualifies for the ballot. "We have serious concerns about illegal drugs
and this might be one avenue to lessen that -- one avenue to break down
the barriers to illegal drugs," Ms. Hansen said.

As for Attorney General Frankie Sue del Papa, her spokesman Bob Harmon
said the state's chief law enforcement officer wants "to wait to see if it
does qualify and assess it at that time to see what we need to do."

But fierce opposition to the measure is certain to arise from Nevada law
enforcement, particularly from officers on the front lines of the drug war.

Metro Lt. Steve Gammell, who serves as vice president of the Nevada
Narcotics Officers Association, vehemently opposes medicalization of pot
and sees the campaign as an attempt to cloak the drive for drug
legalization in the rhetoric of medicalization. "My opinion is I have zero
tolerance for any unlawful drugs," Gammell said. Marijuana is, "far and
away the most abused drug we have."

In the 15 months between January 1997 and March of 1998, Metro's Narcotics
Section alone seized 8,051 pounds of narcotics, including 5,165 pounds of
marijuana. Dave Fratello, of AMR, contends one reason Nevada was targeted
for a medicalization drive was that the state marijuana "law is so harsh."

That was true when possession of even one seed of dope was treated as a
Class E felony and could earn the offender a minimum one year and a
maximum of four years in state prison (plus a $5,000 fine). But those days
are long gone. Indeed, said Gammell, small-time possession cases -- a
joint or two found on a first-time offender, for example -- are for all
practical purposes never prosecuted in Nevada. Nevada Department of
Prisons spokesman Glen Whorton backs up that assertion, saying simple
possession -- now handled through drug courts or probation -- lands nobody
in the state slammer these days. Said Whorton, "A guy has to work at it to
come to prison in that regard."

Gammell said Nevada -- where one has to possess more than 100 pounds of
marijuana before he can be hit with even the lowest-level trafficking
penalties and must possess more than five tons before he's treated as a
mid-level trafficker -- needs much tougher drug laws, not softer ones.
Legalizing marijuana for medical purposes, he argued, would communicate a
malignant message to young people who have been taught at school, at home
and through the DARE program that illegal drugs are evil and dangerous.
"It's counterproductive to every household -- to every household that
teaches children not to use drugs. 8A It tells kids you're talking out of
both sides of your mouth." Plus, said Gammell, research by the California
Narcotics Officers Association turned up plenty of links between
drug-legalization groups such as NORML (National Organization for the
Reform of Marijuana Laws) and marijuana medicalization outfits such as
Americans for Medical Rights.

"That's really the point behind this: To legitimize marijuana; and full
legalization would be the next goal. 8A There is very much of an
underlying motive here," Gammell said. Legalization groups, he contends,
don't really care about sick people but rather use them as props in the
propaganda war against drug prohibition. "It's just a scam to legalize
dope -- that's all it is," he said.

Undermining the drug war and ending drug prohibition are, indeed, the
goals of some in the marijuana medicalization movement, and they make no
secret about it. Rob Stewart, spokesman for the Drug Policy Foundation --
a leading Washington-based think tank on drug-legalization and
medicalization issues (also launched with the help of Soros' money) --
said some on the foundation's staff support outright legalization of
prohibited drugs while others argue that medicalization is the way to go,
especially because public opinion polls show strong support for medical
marijuana but heavy opposition to legalization.

Stewart also conceded that some of the "medicalizers" see Nevada-type
initiatives as "a good first step toward decriminalization." Of the
successful marijuana drives in California and Arizona, Stewart said: "I
think its (the drug war's) image as a black and white political issue is
falling apart." Is it possible that the drug war, as a result of
state-by-state de-escalation, will simply and suddenly collapse like
communism? "The prediction is right," Stewart said. "The time frame is the
impossible part."

Lawrence Matheis, executive director of the Nevada Medical Association,
said his group's general position on the marijuana issue is (1) it opposes
recreational use of the drug, and (2) strongly encourages the federal Food
and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health to conduct
scientific studies on the possible medical uses of the drug.

He stresses the need for clinical tests to determine marijuana's efficacy
in treating maladies. If the NMA participates in the discussion over
medicalization, its role will be to provide good information. "Our
concern," said Matheis, "is that the government has laws based on whether
something is popular or unpopular.

Now, it is less a matter of science and more a matter of personal opinions.
It's a slippery slope when government says what can be offered or
supplied and what cannot be" based on politics rather than science. Matheis
questioned the very concept of using the political process to settle a
scientific argument.

He asked: "Is this really a question of finding a medical excuse for
legalizing marijuana use? Is this a freedom issue? If it's really about
freedom to use, that should be confronted head-on. (The medicalization
movement) is not largely being driven by physicians. 8A It's driven from
the demand side."

From a marketing point of view, Matheis said, it makes sense for marijuana
legalizers to frame the debate as a medical issue if they lack popular
support for outright legalization. The problem with addressing the
marijuana question through the initiative process, he said, is that "it
forces a medical conclusion" in a field where there is no scientific
consensus. "It either has to be studied more or we have to admit that we
are really trying to decriminalize the possession and use of a substance,"
Matheis said.

Some strict libertarian intellectuals, such as Thomas Szasz, professor
emeritus of psychiatry at the State University of New York in Syracuse,
actually oppose both the drug war and the medicalization of illegal drugs
on the grounds that individuals have an absolute right to ingest whatever
chemicals they want -- without interference from government, cops or
doctors who, he contends, have forged "a satanic pact with the state."
Szasz wrote: "The advocates of medical marijuana have embraced a tactic
that retards the repeal of drug prohibition and reinforces the legitimacy
of prevailing drug policies.

Instead of steadfastly maintaining that the war on drugs is an
intrinsically evil enterprise, the reformers propose replacing legal
sanctions with medical tutelage, a principle destined to further expand
the medical control of everyday behavior." Szasz said doctors who stand
between adults and the drugs they need -- or simply want -are no more than
policemen in white coats. Public statements such as those -- advocating
full-blown legalization for any use whatsoever -are what got Dennis Peron,
the originator of the California initiative, blackballed by the AMR,
Fratello said.

Although there are legalizers within the ranks of the AMR, the group's
stated goal is to move marijuana from the Drug Enforcement
Administration's Schedule 1 to Schedule 2. Schedule 1 drugs, which include
marijuana, heroin and LSD, are illegal in the United States (except for
highly restricted research purposes) because they are deemed to have no
accepted medicinal use and possess a high potential for abuse.

Federal law prohibits doctors from prescribing Schedule 1 drugs, and their
possession and sale can net heavy prison sentences. Schedule 2 drugs, on
the other hand -- while they can be addictive in the extreme -- are legal,
medically useful, and can be prescribed. Schedule 2 drugs include
morphine, cocaine and dilaudid (a painkiller several times more potent
than morphine).

Also included on Schedule 2 is a drug whose brand name is Marinol, which
contains delta-9-THC, the compound in marijuana that produces a high and
is used (although rarely) in treating nausea and vomiting associated with
cancer chemotherapy. Many advocates of medical pot (in smokable form)
contend Marinol is so potent it alters consciousness and renders patients
far more "stoned" than smoked marijuana.

The Physicians' Desk Reference, the doctor's "drug bible," warns that
Marinol can produce panic, paranoia, hallucinations and other nasty side
effects. Peter Barcus, chief executive officer of Nathan Adelson Hospice
in Las Vegas, which cares for terminally ill patients, said Marinol, with
its potential side effects, is very seldom requested by or prescribed for
hospice patients -- and that requests from dying patients for smokable
marijuana are also very rare.

Doctors, he said, already have access to a wide a range of powerful
analgesics, such as morphine, to treat caner pain. As to the medical
marijuana initiative, Barcus said, "I don't think it's an urgent, burning
issue that the hospice industry is clamoring to have passed."

Don Campbell, the Las Vegas lawyer who successfully challenged the
attorney general's ruling that campaign contributions to initiative drives
be limited to $5,000, and who helped draft the language of the Nevada
marijuana initiative, said, "I've always thought that having marijuana in
Schedule 1 was insane -- that marijuana was in the same schedule as heroin
was goofy." Campbell, who served as chief of the Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force for Nevada from 1981 to 1986, said he personally
believes marijuana belongs on Schedule 4, along with low-level
prescription drugs such as Valium and Darvon.

While Campbell sees eventual medicalization of marijuana is "a certainty,"
he added: "Given my experience with the federal government, I don't think
the government is going to go gently into the night on this." Indeed, top
federal and state officials campaigned mightily to defeat the Arizona and
California pot petitions and intensified the fight even after voters had
spoken.

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno threatened to yank the prescription
powers of doctors who recommended pot, thus ruining their careers;
national Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey condemned the initiatives as frauds --
as "stalking horse(s) for legalization" and called Prop 215 "a cruel hoax
that sounds more like something out of a Cheech and Chong show." Former
Presidents George Bush, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford condemned the
measures.

Several state and federal officials insinuated that California and Arizona
voters were too stupid to realize what they had just done at the ballot
box. Notably silent in the cacophony following the victories of Props 200
and 215 was President William Jefferson ("I didn't inhale") Clinton.
Despite the rhetorical artillery barrage from D.C., Arizonans passed Prop
200 with 65 percent of the vote; in California, Prop 215 won with 56
percent. But the Arizona Legislature neutralized the law by requiring the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve any drug before it could be
recommended by Arizona doctors. (The FDA doesn't recognize Schedule 1
drugs as useful for anything.) And while a handful of cannabis clubs,
which fill pot "prescriptions" for patients, still operate in California,
others have been shut down through various legalistic mechanisms employed
by federal and state drug warriors.

The AMR and other proponents of medical pot learned from their mistakes in
Arizona and California. The Nevada initiative language is designed to
short-circuit interference from federal and state authorities and
addresses other issues that came to light in 1996:

- -- The Nevada initiative would amend the state constitution, making it
difficult or impossible for the Legislature to nullify or weaken it.

- -- The Nevada measure would allow a patient afflicted with certain,
specified diseases to use marijuana "upon advice of his physician,"
meaning doctors would not risk having their prescription privileges
yanked.

- -- Unlike the California law, which allows patients to use marijuana
"for any illness for which marijuana provides relief"

- -- an open-ended provision that could mean pot for boredom or backache

- -- the Nevada law would permit cannabis use only to treat symptoms of
specific diseases such as cancer, AIDS and glaucoma. (The Legislature
could add to the list.) -- Unlike the Arizona law, the Nevada version
would legalize for medical uses only cannabis

- -- not heroin, LSD or other Schedule 1 drugs.

- -- Unlike either the Arizona or California law, the Nevada constitutional
amendment specifies that medical pot cannot be used in public. (Even if
you're an AIDS patient, no firing up a bong at Wet 'n' Wild.)

- -- The Nevada law, unlike its California counterpart, contains strict
provisions for medical use by minors (written authorization by a doctor;
parental consent and parental control of the acquisition and use of the
plant).

- -- The Nevada law also sets up an official registry of patients and
their attendants authorized to posssess marijuana. Police -- but nobody
else

- -- would have access to the list if a question of legal possession arose.

- -- In Nevada, it will be the job of the Legislature to authorize methods
by which eligible patients can be supplied with marijuana (perhaps by
licensing private pot farms, allowing counties to sell permits as they do
for rural brothels, or distributing pot confiscated from illegal
traffickers).