FEDS WITHHOLDING MONEY FROM STATES WITH MEDICINAL MARIJUANA

Although voters in seven states have decided they want medicinal marijuana
use to be legal, some federal legislators are not very happy with those
constituents.

Legislation currently under review by a U.S. House committee would withhold
law enforcement money for states where medicinal marijuana is legal.

As it's now written, HR 2086 states "The [White House drug policy] Director
may direct the reallocation of up to 5 percent of funds available for a
fiscal year for the Program, from State and local law enforcement agencies
to Federal law enforcement agencies to assist in enforcement of Federal law
in high intensity drug trafficking areas containing States where State law
permits the use of marijuana in a manner inconsistent with the Controlled
Substances Act."

Federal law currently prohibits legalization for medicinal use, but voters
in California, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Maine, Alaska, and Nevada
approved referendums allowing the possession of pot for medicinal purposes.
In Hawaii, the state legislature enacted a legalization statute without a
vote of the people. All states require medicinal users-- usually cancer
patients who are undergoing chemotherapy treatment or glaucoma patients--
to have a doctor's prescription for marijuana.

The proposed federal legislation has some people concerned that the federal
government may be violating states' and citizens' rights to govern
themselves. But according to Tom Riley, spokesman for White House drug
policy director John Walters, marijuana is more dangerous than voters in
the states with legalized pot may realize.

"One of the duties of the drug czar is to oppose efforts to legalize
drugs," said Riley. "There's a concern in Congress that marijuana is more
harmful than most people perceive. They want to make sure this agency keeps
a focus on that."

Walters has traveled the country to speak out against easing marijuana
laws, but Riley said no issue-oriented ads have been planned. However, he
added, "We want as much flexibility as possible." The House Government
Reform Committee was expected to add language to the bill prohibiting ads
expressly advocating support or defeat of a candidate or ballot question.

Groups opposed to strict criminal enforcement of marijuana laws said more
than $11 million could be eliminated from state and local police budgets in
"high-intensity" drug trafficking areas. The money would go to federal law
enforcement officers because local police could not enforce all marijuana
laws in states that legalized the drug for medical use.

The House bill is sponsored by Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., chairman of the
House Government Reform criminal justice subcommittee. His staff director,
Chris Donesa, said the switch is needed because the federal government
would take on an added burden, but emphasized the money would be used in
the same high-intensity areas.

Donesa added that local and federal officers work together in those areas,
anyway, so there would be little practical effect.

Steve Fox of the Marijuana Policy Project said his group was especially
concerned about the possibility of huge advertising expenditures by the
White House in an attempt to influence elections.

"This leaves them free to run ads saying medicinal marijuana is a lie and a
ploy to legalize marijuana for all purposes," he said.

Many conservatives claim that, not only is marijuana not medically useful,
its legalization under the guises of medicine open the door for the
legalization of recreational marijuana.

"That argument just doesn't make sense to me," said NSU College of
Optometry professor Lynn Cyert. "Physicians have been able to prescribe
scheduled narcotics for many years, but that hasn't led to the legalization
of those scheduled narcotics; many of those drugs would be very desirable
and expensive on the street."

Cyert said some medical studies have shown marijuana to be useful to
patients who suffer from glaucoma, an increase of pressure inside the eye
than can lead to blindness. She has personally known cancer patients who
were undergoing chemotherapy, and who were prescribed synthetic marijuana
to increase their appetite.

Bill Piper of the Drug Policy Alliance called the potential issue
advertising "a shell game. It would take money from taxpayers, and most
taxpayers will see through it."

Piper said the reallocation of money to federal officers would move the
focus from heroin and cocaine trafficking to enforcement against medical
marijuana patients.

State Sen. Bernest Cain, D-Oklahoma City, authored a bill during the past
legislative session that would have eased some of the sentencing
requirements for those arrested for marijuana possession in Oklahoma. The
bill passed the Senate, but failed 84-13 in the House.

Cain said loss of federal funds wasn't a concern with that particular
legislation, but he wasn't surprised to hear of the U.S. House bill that
about the anti-medicinal marijuana provisions in HR 2086.

"They shouldn't do that; it's a really bad deal, but it's not uncommon,"
said Cain, who has served in the Senate since 1979. He said a similar
federal threat occurred when Oklahoma legislators changed the drinking age
in the state. At one time, women in Oklahoma could buy beer at a younger
age than men. When state lawmakers set out to change make the drinking age
uniform for everyone, the federal government strongly suggested making the
uniform drinking age 21, not 18.

"The feds came along and said, 'If you don't change the limit to 21, you
don't get your highway safety money,'" said Cain. "It's just one of the
ways they get involved in states' business."

Voters last November defeated a Nevada measure to legalize possession of up
to three ounces of marijuana; an Arizona initiative that would have made
pot possession equivalent to a traffic violation; and a South Dakota
initiative that would have legalized hemp farms.