MARIJUANA GROUP TARGETS VT. LEGISLATORS

Montpelier - A national group pushing a bill to legalize marijuana for
medical purposes plans to target Vermont legislators next year who oppose or
don't actively support the measure.

The Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington, D.C., group that advocates
decriminalizing marijuana both for medical and recreational use, is
advertising for a state-wide political coordinator to help organize its
efforts here.

"What we've seen in Vermont, as well as some other states where we've been
working in the Legislature, is that our problem is not with public opinion,"
said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project.
"Polls nationally show about 80 percent of people support allowing people
who are seriously ill to use medical marijuana without fear of arrest. ...
So our problem is a disconnect between public opinion and what's happening
in the Legislature."

A bill legalizing medical marijuana easily passed the Democrat-controlled
Vermont Senate this year on a 22-7 vote, but has languished in the House,
which is under Republican control.

The bill, modeled closely after the one that passed the Vermont House last
year with tri-partisan support, requires a doctor's certification that the
patient suffers from one of several specified conditions or from such
diseases as AIDS and cancer.

Patients would be registered with the state Health Department; those who
were rejected could appeal to a panel of three doctors appointed by the
Medical Practice Board.

In addition, a person could register to be a patient's caregiver, and the
Health Department would keep the records confidential unless police needed
to verify the information.

Medical marijuana users would be allowed to use the drug only at home. They
or their caregivers could also grow medical marijuana in a locked indoor
facility and carry it in a locked container - an effort to allay police
fears about mistaken arrests.

But Republican Gov. James Douglas opposes the measure, and the bill's
prospects in the House are uncertain. It's a reversal from 2002, when
majority Republicans in the House joined Democrats and Progressives to pass
the bill, only to see it blocked in the Democratic Senate.

At the time the move was viewed as a political favor for then-Gov. Howard
Dean, who was courting gay groups in the early stages of his presidential
run. Dean opposed legalizing medical marijuana, but AIDS activists - a key
constituency in the gay community - were critical of his stance. Being
forced to veto such a bill would have made Dean unpopular with them.

That dynamic - political expedience on the issue - is one of the reasons the
Marijuana Policy Project is looking to influence elections, Mirken said,
primarily by educating voters about what's going on in Montpelier.

A poll commissioned by MPP in 2002 showed that 51 percent of Vermonters
"strongly supported" a medical marijuana bill, with another 24 percent
"somewhat supported" the measure and 22 percent opposed.

"I think the equation has been, because our side has not been particularly
well organized politically, that senators didn't see a real downside to
doing the governor's bidding last year," Mirken said.

"This is going to make it clear there is a downside, that their constituents
are going to know exactly what they did ... and if that makes some of these
legislators nervous, that's a healthy thing."

The group is offering the statewide coordinator a yearly salary of $50,000
to $70,000, including health insurance and an optional retirement plan. The
plan is to target 15 legislative races next fall, with an eye toward future
elections as well.

"By targeting 15 districts in 2004, the MPP Political Fund intends to send
the message that any legislator who opposes marijuana policy reform could be
targeted for defeat in 2006," the group's Web site said.

The effort is non-partisan: Any politician who favors medical marijuana
would be supported while opponents would be targeted, regardless of
political affiliation.

The Vermont coordinator would also build a political organization including
voter registration efforts, candidate recruitment, fund-raising and
political donations. The MPP has a separate political action committee, but
Mirken declined to say how much the group might be willing to spend on
Vermont elections.

"You can take the fact that we're hiring a full-time person at the salary
level you saw as an indication of how serious we are about this," he said.
"We will put in a level of resources that's necessary."

It's not the first time the group has been active in state races, but
Vermont will be an "experiment" in intervention at a statewide level, Mirken
said.

In 2002, the group spent about $4,000 on state campaigns in Maryland,
including $1,000 on radio ads against state Sen. Tim Ferguson, who opposed
the medical marijuana bill there. Another $6,000 in member contributions was
generated, and after Ferguson was defeated in a primary the bill was signed
into law this year.

Mirken didn't claim credit for the victory.

"It was not a huge effort, but we did a little," he said. "Nothing on the
scale of what we're looking at doing there (in Vermont)."

Professor James Gimpel, of the University of Maryland's Department of
Government, doubted MPP had much influence in the 2002 elections there.

"It was negligible," he said. "It was not on the radar screen."

Middlebury College political science professor Eric Davis questioned whether
the group could do much better here.

"My view on this is that a single-issue organization like this, that wants
to target ... incumbents who have voted the wrong way and attempt to defeat
them, the likelihood they'll be able to have a significant impact on the
makeup of the Legislature is small," he said.

"Most voters are not single-issue voters ... and this isn't an issue that
rises to the level of salience of health care, education financing or civil
unions," Davis said. "It's not an issue that's going to have widespread
impact across the state, and it's unlikely to mobilize intense political
participation."

Mirken said the group had no plans to target statewide officeholders at
present, but hoped that the current organizing effort would "educate"
officials like Douglas by its success.

The governor's press secretary, Jason Gibbs, said his boss "welcomes the
debate."

"Vermont has had a long history of thoughtful and determined consideration
of all public policy issues," Gibbs said. "The short-term impact of an
organization like this is questionable. We believe, frankly, that their
efforts and their resources would be better spent at the federal level to
address the concerns of the Food and Drug Administration. Without a decision
from the FDA and a change in federal law, any effort they make at the state
level is fruitless."

Officials at the state's three major parties had varying views on the
Marijuana Policy Project's plans.

"It's an issue candidates will deal with on a individual basis," said James
Barnett, chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, whose candidates are most
likely to face opposition from the MPP.

"As a party, we have great concern over the influence of illegal drugs in
Vermont," he said. "While we have great compassion for those suffering from
diseases, we also recognize that (decriminalizing) illegal drugs could open
up a Pandora's box, with many negative consequences."

"All of our candidates support that bill," said Chris Pearson, executive
director of the Vermont Progressive Party. "I think it's fair to say the
reason it passed the House two years ago was the hard work of one
Progressive representative, David Zuckerman (P-Burlington)."

Pearson added, "I think it's fair to say we would look for help from anybody
who is working on issues we care about. Medical marijuana is not on the top
of our list, but it's an important commonsense issue."

Jonathan Copans, executive director of the Vermont Democratic Party, said it
appeared the group's activities would largely end up targeting Republicans
for defeat.

"From that, you could infer it will be beneficial (to Democrats)," he said.
"But I think it's easy to overplay the impact. There are plenty of other
people who work on those types of issues."

Mirken said he understood that Vermont's two-year terms may make some
politicians more anxious about voting for medical marijuana, but said the
project hoped to educate them, as well, about public attitudes.

"It appears to us as if a lot of politicians have not left the 1980s, when
there was real political danger in appearing 'soft on drugs,'" he said. "The
assumption is still if you take a stand on medical marijuana it's
politically dangerous. That's not the case."