Approve I685

Election:

Voters should seize chance to enact sensible policies to help addicts,
terminally ill.

People who suffer from debilitating diseases should be able to legally
obtain any drug that has been proven effective in treating their
condition. And people who are convicted for possessing drugs should be
given the opportunity to be treated for their addiction before they are
locked up. Voters should seize the chance to approve those reasonable and
longoverdue changes in state law by voting "yes" on Initiative 685.
Critics rightly point out that the measure has flaws. Most laws do
especially those that are revolutionary.

But those problems which will have to be addressed by state lawmakers if
I685 passes are outweighed by the measure's benefits. It's costly and
counterproductive to continue to fill our overcorwded jails with people who
are virtually certain to resume their illegal drug use when they get out.

Channeling them instead into drug treatment and education programs greatly
increases the odds that they will overcome their habit and related problems
it causes for them and society.

It would also save taxpayers a lot of money.

The average cost of incarcerating a drug user for a year in state jails is
$25,000 compared to the $15,000 cost of treating that same person in an
intensive inpatient facility or the $3,000 cost in an outpatient program.

Unfortunately, most lawmakers lack the political gumption to pass any
legislation that might be construed as "soft on drugs." As a result,
measures like I685 seldom get off the drawing board.

The bottom line is that I685 may be the only opportunity Washington voters
will ever have to lay a legal foundation for a more sensible system for
handling drug users and meeting the medical needs of some of the state's
most vulnerable patients. Its defeat is sure to tar any subsequent measures
with the fatal political blow "the people have spoken."

Given the misconceptions flying about, it's important to spell out what
I685 will and won't do.

I685 would allow doctors to recommend the use of marijuana, LSD, heroin and
dozens of other Schedule I drugs if research proves them effective in
treating a "seriously or terminally ill" patient. Two doctors must sign off
on the need for the drug.

At present, that would probably only open the door to the medicinal use of
marijuana, which mounting evidence shows is helpful in treating glaucoma and
the terrible side effects of chemotherapy. Proof that other Schedule I
drugs are medically beneficial is scant or nonexistent.

The measure also would grant probation and the opportunity for treatment to
people the first two times they have been convicted of personal possession
or use of a controlled substance. A third conviction could result in the
person going to jail.

Another provision would give judges the discretion to release nonviolent
inmates who are serving time for simple possession for Schedule I drugs into
courtsupervised drug treatment programs. About 300 people might be
affected.

One glaring problem with I685 is that it fails to set up a legalized supply
system for patients who obtain a prescription for marijuana. While it would
be legal to buy the frug, it would still be against the law for people to
sell it to them.

There also would be no control over the potency of the marijuana. Those
contradictions raise a host of potential legal, ethical, moral and health
problems.

However, there's little doubt that if I685 passes, the Legislature will be
forced to move quickly to create a statecontrolled supply and distribution
network. A recently completed state study lays out the framework for such a
system, using Washington State University as the supplier.

Critics also worry that unscrupulous doctors will write prescriptions for
people who don't need them. But that happens now with cocaine, morphine and
other drugs that are far more addictive than marijuana. Passage of I685
won't make the problem any worse. Lastly, some worry that the term
"seriously ill" is so general that it would open the floodgates to the use
of Schedule I drugs for everything short of the common cold. In reality,
doctors will be extremely cautious about prescribing illegal drugs, since
they are liable for the care they provide.

The quickest way to lose the malpractice insurance that allows them to stay
in business is to get careless and reckless with their prescription pads.

Yes, I685 may cause problems, but no worse than our current sad record in
battling drugs. The pluses of the measure more than offset any potential
drawbacks.

Voters should approve it.