MARIJUANA DEBATE SHOULD NOT BE PUSHED ON ARIZONA BY OUT-OF-STATE GROUP

Louis Brandeis famously said that the states are the laboratories of
democracy. Arizona is fortunate to have been in the waiting room while
the medical marijuana experiment has played out in 14 other states.

Rather than blindly follow their lead, which is what Proposition 203,
the so-called "medical marijuana" initiative on the November 2 ballot
would do, Arizona's voters can benefit from our neighbors' experiences
and decide if this is the direction we really want to go.

As the Yavapai County Attorney and co-chair of MATForce, our substance
abuse coalition, I have done the research. As a parent and concerned
citizen, I will be voting "no" on Proposition 203. I recommend that
each voter do their own review and suspect that many will come to the
same conclusion.

Consider these statistics from states who have adopted laws to
"decriminalize marijuana for terminally ill patients": 97-98 percent
of medical marijuana cardholders are aged 17 to 35 and suffer from
"chronic pain" while only 2-3 percent of cardholders suffer from
cancer, glaucoma, HIV and other debilitating illnesses. Under
proposition 203, a "cardholder" is entitled to 2.5 ounces of marijuana
every two weeks amounting to 140 marijuana joints (10 joints per day).

These large amounts of unmonitored and unregulated marijuana are
grown, harvested and consumed in the community. The California medical
marijuana experience provides ample evidence of trashed neighborhoods,
drug cartels disguised as medical marijuana dispensaries, increased
armed robberies, burglaries, murder and organized crime.

The National Institutes of Health estimate that smoking five marijuana
cigarettes per week has the same health effects as smoking a full pack
of tobacco cigarettes every day. The THC content of marijuana in the
1960s averaged about 1 percent; today, it averages 9 percent.

The 35-page Proposition 203 contains a number of provisions patterned
after the existing laws:

A physician-medical/osteopathic doctor, naturopath, homeopath - may
provide a "written certification" (not a prescription) to a patient
with any chronic or debilitating condition that causes "severe and
chronic pain." An in-person exam is not required.

"Dispensaries" to grow and sell marijuana would exist completely
outside existing regulation for public health protection with one for
every ten pharmacies; a patient who lives more than 25 miles from a
dispensary may grow up to 12 plants for personal use. Although there
are many variables that affect production, on average one 4 ft. plant
can yield anywhere from 112 to 252 joints with each quarterly harvest.
(In California, pot farmers are growing 16-foot plants.)

Rather than highly trained, licensed pharmacists, any adult without
a violent or recent (10 years) drug felony conviction may be licensed
to grow, harvest and sell marijuana for "medicinal purposes."

The only cultivation restriction is that it must take place in "a
closet, room, greenhouse or any enclosed area equipped with locks."

Any parent/guardian may obtain certification for their child of any
age, and control the dosage. A cardholding child can acquire the same
2.5 ounces every two weeks. (This, despite the fact that research
indicates that marijuana use severely hampers a child's learning
ability and brain development.)

Cardholders become a protected class under the law as landlords,
schools and employers cannot "discriminate" against them solely
because of cardholder status. It would be illegal to refuse to rent to
a potential tenant or terminate a lease, or hire, discipline or
terminate an employee, based solely on the status, or solely on
marijuana-positive drug test. A cardholding parent cannot be denied
custody or visitation solely on their status.

Cardholders, including commercial drivers, will be allowed to drive
with the marijuana metabolites in their system, contrary to current
state law.

Probationers, not currently allowed any substance use including
alcohol, will be allowed to use "medical" marijuana.

The use of marijuana should be debated in a democratic forum to
thoroughly consider all the facts, not pushed upon us by an
out-of-state group such as the Washington D.C.-based Marijuana Policy
Project, this initiative's sponsor.

Remember, a 3/4 "supermajority" vote of the legislature is required to
repeal or change laws enacted through the initiative process. I
encourage you to thoroughly review this issue in your preparation for
the November election.