Don't Be Fooled by I685
by Tracy Warner, Editorial Page Editor

If marijuana is legalized in this state, it will be the result of our
compassion. The image of a suffering terminally ill cancer patient gaining
some fleeting comfort by using marijuana is powerful enough to persuade
many, even those who are firmly antidrug.

That compassion for the sick and dying is what backers of Initiative 685
hope to tap. The measure on the Nov. 4 ballot will legalize the medical use
of marijuana. The terminally ill, those suffering through pain and nausea
in chemotherapy, will be able to turn to marijuana if their doctors
approve. Polls show most people would agree this is good. The trouble is,
that is not all the initiative will do.

What isn't mentioned often by proponents is this: the initiative virtually
will legalize many illicit drugs, including marijuana, make possession of
methamphetamines or cocaine a legally inconsequential matter, and free
felons from state prisons. The measure is far broader in scope than merely
legalizing marijuana for terminal cancer patients. It goes far beyond
encouraging treatment for drug abusers. The measure is backed by a trio of
outofstate millionaires whose interest in comforting the terminally ill
apparently is surpassed by their interest in the general legalization of
drug use.

Under the measure a physician could recommend the use of a Schedule 1 drug
"to treat a disease, or to relieve the pain and suffering of a seriously
ill patient or terminally ill patient." Schedule drugs include heroin, LSD,
and PCP. The law does not define what a "serious" illness might be. That
apparently would be left up to the physician. A person could legally
possess heroin if he is given "recommendations" from two compliant doctors.
Something as stringent as a prescription would be unnecessary.

Proponents of the measure sat there are safeguards that prevent abuse. The
recommendation of two physicians is required, and the doctors making the
recommendation must "document that scientific research exists that supports
the use of a controlled substance" for medicinal purposes.

This is little comfort. There are many physicians in this state. They are a
diverse group with varied attitudes about what constitutes treatment and
therapy and illnesses. It will not be difficult to find two willing to
provide recommendations. As for serious illness and "scientific"
justification, the proponents of the initiative say marijuana appears to be
useful in the treatment of such things as depression, arthritis, even
asthma. Heroin, they shamelessly contend, may be medically useful for
treating a serious disease called opiate addiction. Apparently the
initiative requires scientific evidence. It doesn't require that it be
reputable scientific evidence.

The initiative also would release from state prisons those convicted of
drug possession. It would not release convicted dealers, or those with a
history of violence. But still, state officials estimate up to 300 felons
would be released from prison if the initiative is passed.

Anyone familiar with Washington state's court system knows it takes extreme
persistence to be sentenced to prison for mere drug possession. The
penalties for beginners can't be categorized as harsh. Firsttime offenders
convicted of felony drug possession can receive a sentence of zero to 90
days in county jail and up to two years community supervision. It takes a
minimum of four felony drug possession convictions before a defendant is
considered for a prison term. In practice, it is probably more. Anyone in
prison for possession of drugs also possesses an extensive criminal record.

In the future, should I685 pass, those convicted of possession of drugs
will be sentenced to treatment. Incarceration will be forbidden. Drug
possession will effectively be decriminalized. Tax payers will pay for
treatment.

The initiative is a near duplicate of an initiative approved by Arizona
voters, and then dismantled by a hostile legislature that felt the public
was deceived. The ballot effort here is financed by New York billionaire
George Soros, the "Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization." Helping is Peter
Lewis, a Cleveland, Ohio, insurance executive; and John Sperling, a
Phoenix, Ariz., businessman. Together the campaign war chest exceeds $1
million.

The proponents of the measure are right about one thing. This state's
antidrug laws have been frustratingly ineffective. The socalled War on
Drugs has mostly failed, so far. But the failure is not because laws
against possession have been too strictly enforced. If the simple act of
drug possession received serious attention from the legal system, perhaps
some good might be done. Instead, possession has become so common that an
overwhelmed legal system frequently treats it as a trivial matter. If it is
drug use that worries us, Initiative 685 will only make matters worse.