DRUG WARRIORS CRUSADE AGAINST REFORM INITIATIVES

On drug policy, the voting public has proven ready to lead spaniel-like
politicians by the nose, voting for one liberalization measure after
another. But government, state and local officials have begun a crusade to
scuttle reform initiatives around the nation.

Three wealthy drug reform proponents have backed a string of successful
state ballot initiatives across the nation. Focusing initially on medical
marijuana measures out west, billionaires George Soros and Peter Lewis and
multi-millionaire John Sperling have won 12 of 13 ballot measures since
1996. Their handiwork also includes Proposition 36, which mandates treatment
rather than prison for low-level drug offenders and was passed
overwhelmingly in California in 2000. Other activists have similarly
outflanked the officials who lag behind public opinion, and the reform
movement as a whole has won 17 of 19 ballot measures -- much to the chagrin
of drug warriors.

Admitting to considerable surprise in 1996, Clinton drug czar Barry
McCaffrey drew a line in the sand, in part by initiating the White House
anti-drug media campaign. But all levels of government, from local district
attorneys to governors and the new federal drug czar John P. Walters, have
refined their counterattack on the drug reform movement.

The National Counter-Attack on Drug Reform

This year, the California-based Campaign for New Drug Policies, the main
agency of the wealthy trio's reform ambitions, consciously set its sights on
Republican-dominated states east of the Mississippi. It sought to put to
vote Prop. 36-style treatment amendments in Florida, Ohio and Michigan. A
cautious CNDP, which typically requires favorable poll ratings exceeding 60
percent before committing its resources to a reform initiative, proceeded
with some confidence. But it has since run into a Republican-led buzzsaw
(not that Democrats necessarily embrace reform more warmly), and only the
Ohio measure ran the full gauntlet to make it to the ballot.

In Ohio, the measure is becoming a victim of outrageous ballot language
promulgated by a Republican-led elections board. Its popularity is sinking
badly in the polls, currently losing by 20 points. The loaded ballot
language is part of the orchestrated, improper and possibly illegal
months-long anti-initiative campaign being orchestrated by Ohio Governor Bob
Taft. The Ohio effort has been so cutthroat and effective, CNDP political
director Dave Fratello admitted, "If we lose, it's a road map to show how to
beat us in subsequent states like Michigan and Florida."

Elsewhere, federal and state judges have stymied reform, in some cases by
simply refusing to issue timely rulings. A Michigan appeals court blatantly
let the clock run out on a Detroit medical marijuana measure, deigning to
hold a hearing only long after the deadline for printing ballots had passed.
In Florida, the state Supreme Court delayed holding a hearing for so long
that the CNDP has decided not to gather any more signatures; it has 300,000
valid signatures in the bank should it return to the fray in 2004.

And in Washington, D.C., a medical marijuana effort was shot down when a
federal appeals court tossed out a lower court ruling that stated, "There
can be no doubt that the Barr Amendment restricts plaintiffs' First
Amendment right to engage in political speech." The reference is to the
rider -- introduced by Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) -- now automatically attached to
the federal D.C. appropriations bills that prevents Washington from spending
a single dollar to enact any reduction of marijuana penalties. Alexei
Silverman, an associate with Covington & Burling who worked on the case on
behalf of the Marijuana Policy Project, said the appeals court basically
avoided the First Amendment issues and agreed with the feds' assertions that
the mechanical act of voting is part of the legislative process, not
exercising the right to speech. Barr applauded the ruling, "which recognized
the right and responsibility of Congress to protect citizens from dangerous,
mind-altering narcotics."

Going solo, Peter Lewis has boosted the funding of a dynamic, cheeky
upstart, the D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project, which in years past has
pursued reform largely in state legislatures. Now, in its first electoral
battle (apart from its support for the disqualified D.C. effort), MPP has
spent $1.7 million shooting for the moon in Nevada. It managed to qualify in
an audaciously short time a perhaps quixotic effort to legalize the
possession of up to three ounces of pot. Even if it passes this year and
again in 2004 as Nevada requires, the measure calls for the state to
establish legal distribution channels. And, no matter what statements drug
czar John Walters may have made in Nevada regarding federal respect for
states' rights, the feds aren't going to let that happen. This is the same
administration that's been busting medical dispensaries this fall all over
California, typically targeting the ones most above-board and publicly
strident in asserting their rights.

Meanwhile in Arizona, John Sperling has backed a decriminalization measure,
Proposition 203. It states that personal-use possession of marijuana will be
punishable by a $250 civil fine. It also eliminates mandatory minimum drug
sentencing and requires parole for possession of any drug unless the
individual is a danger to the public. And it increases sentences for violent
crimes committed under the influence of drugs. Sporting its own bit of
distribution audacity, it would sidestep Arizona doctors' timorous refusal
to write marijuana prescriptions by directing state police to distribute
seized marijuana free of charge to certified patients.

Seeking, it would seem, to sow confusion among voters, Maricopa County
attorney Rick Romley -- who touted his candidacy for drug czar following
President Bush's selection -- got the curiously numbered Proposition 302 on
the ballot. With no real money or much public support, he turned to the
legislature to put it on the ballot; the numbering mirroring Sperling's
measure may be its greatest asset. If passed, it allows for the option of
incarceration rather than 203's mandatory parole for simple possession. And
it allows for jailing addicts who fail in treatment. If both measures pass,
whichever has more votes goes into effect.

Arizona, Nevada and Ohio, the main remaining battlegrounds, have all been
graced by Walters' campaign appearances, who was in Nevada twice. A member
of Bush's cabinet, he rails against the initiatives while dismissing
criticism about publicly funded federal interference in state elections.
What's more, the federal government has worked overtime issuing reports
demonizing drugs, particularly marijuana. This September, the White House
launched a new, taxpayer-funded ad campaign that maintains smoking pot leads
to either the slaughter of innocent bystanders or, in a second ad, mere
crippling for life. Though Walters told Congress in May such ads don't keep
kids from drugs, they do poison the well for drug reform.

"There's a certain irony in all this that the state and federal governments
have learned how to beat back democracy," said Allen St. Pierre, executive
director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
Foundation.

Changing Ballot Language In Ohio

Turning to specifics, though several states vie for the crown of most
unabashed electioneering, Ohio trumps all comers. A concerted effort by
Governor Taft, the federal government and private activists to defeat the
treatment-not jail initiative in Ohio bore only mixed results: until
recently, polls favored the measure. But it may be defeated by a single
wordy paragraph - the crucial summary at the top of the ballot, all that
many voters read - that's promulgated by the Republican-controlled Ohio
Ballot Board, led by Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican.

This ballot summary emphasizes the measure's $247 million seven-year cost,
and it discusses the sealing of offenders' records and the 90-day maximum
sentences. The state-approved summary doesn't mention the likely overall
savings, nor indicate that drug dealers or violent criminals are excluded.
In fact, said Fratello, until threatened with a lawsuit, the ballot board
wanted to obscure even the fact that the $247 million stretched over seven
years. "It's clear they're trying to skew the ballot language," he charged.
"There's no talk in the summary of treatment, job training, court monitoring
or jail if they fail. They just focus on the dismissal of charges, a prison
limit of 90 days and especially the $247 million. That could be the whole
ball of wax."

In late August, the official summary then unavailable, the Columbus Dispatch
found the proposal favored by 43 percent to 37 percent. Using the summary,
in mid-September, the Cleveland Plain Dealer found 55 percent opposed, and
only 30 percent in favor. Rather than read a long explanation, the paper
asserted that, "Most [voters] are expected to read a one-paragraph preamble,
which includes elements that appear to favor the 'no' side." An
anti-initiative spokesperson admitted that the ballot language was a main
cause of the steep slide in support.

A subsequent Dispatch poll using the summary found 51 percent against, 31
percent in favor. The paper noted, "The specific ballot language and
forceful opposition from Gov. Bob Taft and a number of statewide
organizations apparently made a big difference with Ohioans." It added that
the ballot language "does not detail any potential savings accrued because
treatment costs about one-sixth the cost of incarceration." The Ohio CNDP
asserts that, even including the cost of treatment ($3,500 a year, rather
than prison's $22,000), the measure would save the state $21 million
annually. In far-bigger California, according to a study sponsored by the
National Conference of State Legislatures, Prop. 36 saves the state $40
million annually.

CNDP's backers spent some $1 million gathering nearly 800,000 signatures to
qualify for the Ohio ballot. Given the polling, the three wealthy backers
gave serious consideration to cutting their losses by skipping any big,
last-minute ad buy, which have been key to CNDP's many successes. But
feeling that voters who understood the measure supported it, one source
said, "There'll be a solid two weeks' full-court press." This source
estimates that would entail $500,000 or more of television ad time pushing
the measure.

The ballot summary is perhaps just the last fatal blow of a concerted effort
by Taft and his administration to subvert Ohio's electoral process. Details
have emerged in the Ohio press as well as in my report published by the
Washington think tank, the Institute for Policy Studies. Taft, his wife, his
chief of staff, two Ohio 'cabinet' members and numerous other officials
conceived and directed an anti-initiative campaign at taxpayer expense. They
were aided by Mary Ann Solberg, the nominee for the position of Office of
National Drug Control Policy's deputy director, as well as a senior U.S.
Senate staffer (who hosted a strategy session in the U.S. Capitol building
itself), the drug czars of Florida and Michigan and a senior DEA agent.
Betty Sembler, a controversial private treatment maven who is married to the
former finance chair of the Republican National Committee, also
participated, as did four top executives from the supposedly apolitical
Partnership for a Drug-Free America. The PDFA ended up producing no ads for
the Taft effort, but documents indicate its overt willingness to help with
ads touting Ohio's current policies.

The Taft effort involved hundreds of hours of state-paid staff time,
including weekly strategy sessions, some in the governor's residence. State
funds paid for out of town trips and overnight lodging, and at one point
Ohio officials even proposed diverting U.S. Dept. of Justice crime-fighting
grants to fund polling, focus groups and advertising. The documents
detailing all these expenses cover only 2001. Since then, terming the
initiative "seductive, deceptive and dangerous," Taft sent out on his
letterhead a plea for donations ranging up to $25,000 to defeat it. For his
part, John Walters took his show to Columbus in mid-October to blast the
treatment initiative, saying "It will weaken the tools that the courts have
to help get people into treatment." The Toledo Blade quoted him saying it
would also "weaken the ability of society to use 'compassionate coercion' to
help nonviolent drug offenders."

Walters Takes On Nevada

Walters was relatively restrained in Ohio compared to his pronouncements
during two trips to Nevada. In July he warned the state against becoming a
"center for drug tourism." And he said the initiative would "feed the
criminal organizations that are a dangerous threat to democratic
institutions in the Western Hemisphere." During his mid-October visit,
employing a bit of mangled syntax almost worthy of his boss, he said, "By
stimulating the use of drugs, we make all other institutions of society more
difficult to carry out." And he was quoted in the Reno Gazette-Journal as
saying, "More crimes are stimulated by people under the influence of drugs,
who become more violent, dangerous and paranoid."

Walters recognizes the impropriety of what he's doing. He told the Las Vegas
Review-Journal "his office 'would not spend money or dedicate any resources'
" to fighting the measure. Does that mean private funds pay his and his
security detail's travel expenses? On a trip this week to Chicago, he told
The Chicago Tribune that he campaigns against the initiatives only
"reluctantly." But after being "contacted repeatedly," by prevention
professionals, he agreed to appear. But, he said, "I certainly understand
the dangers of federal officials, a White House official, coming to a state
and talking about a state ballot issue. We didn't use to do this." With a
flair for irony, he added, "There's a kind of reefer madness-madness going
on here." Remarkably enough, given the DEA hammer raining down in
California, Walters also told the Review-Journal, "People have the right to
make their own decisions. I don't believe you'd see federal officials coming
into Nevada to enforce possession laws."

But his own ONDCP spokesman, Tom Riley, stated this August that the feds
"would not allow the state to tax and sell marijuana. The sale of marijuana
is a violation of federal law, and there is nothing that a state referendum
can do to change that." Walters might want to coordinate with the DEA before
floating his hands-off claims. A DEA spokesman told the Chicago Tribune, "We
will respond to this in a way similar to the approach used for the cannabis
buyers clubs [in California]. This is still against federal law."

Officials might also want to get on the same page regarding the amount of
pot involved. Nevada cops blast the initiative's three ounces as an amount
that would produce 250 joints. But still in soft-sell mode, Walters told NPR
back in August that the amount is "quite small. Usually, there's no federal
enforcement of possession amounts at that level, especially for marijuana."
Speaking in Reno, however, Walters also used the '250 joints' estimate.

Similarly, when he visited Tucson and Phoenix on October 9th to voice his
opposition to the Arizona measure, joined by both major-party gubernatorial
candidates, Walters told a group of elementary students and senior citizens
that the Arizona measure is "a stupid, insulting con," according to The
Arizona Republic.

Local Nevada law enforcement officials have also been working overtime to
oppose legalization. And a highly partisan state board of health hearing in
early October featured not one proponent's testimony. Not surprisingly, the
board voted unanimously against the measure. At that hearing, the then
spokesman for the opposition, Clark County Deputy DA Gary Booker, alleged
that George Soros backed drug cartels in South America, and that he had
contributed to MPP. According to the Review-Journal, Booker based his
accusation on the say-so of Democratic gubernatorial candidate, state
senator Joe Neal, who had lifted it from a publication owned by Lyndon
LaRouche. Soros has not been linked to drug cartels and has not supported
MPP's effort in Nevada.

As to public officials' opposition in general, the initiative's campaign
manager Billy Rogers said, "We haven't made a big issue out of it. They can
get away with it, so they do it. Part of it is the arrogance of power, but
there's not a lot we can do to stop them. An old hand in politics once told
me: Figure out what reality is in a campaign and deal with it." Rogers said
over the summer he tried to raise questions about the sheriff department's
politicking using marijuana obtained from the official evidence vault, but
it didn't faze them, and the media wasn't interested. "There's a good old
boy network, and they do what they damn well please," he said. Rogers
probably won't achieve much more traction with his complaints about the
opposition including Las Vegas police department letterhead on a press
release or the fact that Booker's replacement as spokesperson is also the
police department's spokesperson. (The letterhead didn't appear on a
subsequent release.)

Last week, Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa came out against
legalization, hypothesizing about potential large-scale civil liabilities if
smokers of state-distributed marijuana subsequently got cancer. Rogers
blasted the notion, noting that sellers of cigarettes and alcohol incur no
liability.

Michigan Loses Out

The anti-initiative effort in Michigan did not achieve the rarefied heights
of official state support it enjoys in Ohio, while the campaign has centered
on local district attorneys. One highlight was a meeting at Detroit DEA
headquarters in late August where White House deputy drug czar Mary Ann
Solberg addressed some four-dozen judges, sheriffs, prosecutors, state
police, DEA agents, the drug czar of Michigan and private drug policy
professionals from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Georgia. According to the
formal invitation, printed on DEA/U.S. Dept of Justice letterhead,
participants were to: "share their ideas and strategies and possibly combine
resources in combating drug legalization proposals." (Opponents invariably
refer to treatment rather than jail initiatives as 'legalization.')

The meeting also intended to "provide presentations on how the DEA can
assist state leaders in this battle." Solberg lectured these high-powered
individuals on the Bush Administration's new anti-marijuana TV advertising.
Judge Brian W. MacKenzie, a Michigan district judge, said Solberg "talked of
the federal government's new initiative with regard to marijuana." He said
she described it as a new nationwide ad campaign geared to educate the
public about marijuana's dangers, and that it was Solberg's main focus. In
fact, MacKenzie added, one attendee asked her about the possibility of the
new ad campaign targeting or emphasizing Michigan and Ohio, but she replied
that wasn't possible.

Detroit's own Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) disseminated the basic details of the
DEA's late-August confab following his letter to DEA Director Asa Hutchinson
demanding an investigation of "possible misuse of federal funds without
proper authorization by Congress and in contravention of existing law.
Replying, Hutchinson referred to the DEA "educat[ing] the public about the
dangers of drugs." He stated that the meeting was called to evaluate the
initiative's impact and to "carefully consider how we should respond."

For her part, Solberg, who advised President Clinton on the disbursement of
federal anti-drug funds and has served on the board of the Community
Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, launched her opposition to the Michigan and
Ohio treatment initiatives long before this August meeting. Upon her July,
2001 nomination to the ONDCP deputy directorship, she received an e-mail
from Ohio First Lady Hope Taft requesting assistance. Solberg referred Taft
to Michigan's drug czar, Craig Yaldoo, rather than a private individual more
suited to run a political campaign. She wrote: "I met with Craig last week,
and he is very interested in taking up the fight and appears to be on top of
the Soros people and their movements in Michigan. I suggested he form a
partnership with you to fight the prop[osition]. Solberg herself worked to
form the Michigan anti-initiative Committee To Protect our Kids. James
Halushka, an Oakland County Deputy Prosecutor, told me she was the
committee's "godmother." He added, "The spark came from Mary Ann - no
question." That spark flared months after President Bush publicly nominated
her to her post. As to Solberg's current involvement, Halushka said, "She
has continued to be of help. She has continued to help with connections to
people and data."

Michigan's powerhouse Republican governor, John Engler, did his part, as
well. This summer he vetoed $845 million in state revenue-sharing funds
headed to local governments. He publicly promised to restore the crucial
funding if voters rejected the treatment measure along with two other
initiatives he decried as fiscally unsound. The Michigan legislature
over-rode his veto, thrashing him with a combined vote of 141 to 2.

As of now, the DEA need host no further meetings on the Michigan initiative.
Due to CNDP's lawyers' mind-boggling mistake in misnumbering the petition,
it was disqualified.

The Never-Ending Campaign

Opponents slam wealthy reform backers for bamboozling the public with slick
advertising. True, the rich trio and others can spend a couple of million
bucks in a single state. But that pales before the taxpayers' own $150
million and more a year. Take the White House's national ad campaign which
is clearly aimed at defeating the various initiatives. In one ad, the
protagonist buys some pot. As events inevitably unfold in the ONDCP world
view, the ad describes the chain of distribution, ending with: "And this is
the family that was lined up by Dan's cartel and shot for getting in the
way." Boston University School of Public Health professor William De Jong
consulted with a White House contractor on the media campaign's initial
design. Interpreting Solberg's remarks, he said, "Their true motivation is
being revealed: to influence referenda, though they will claim otherwise."
De Jong added, "They're trying to use the campaign to present information
that might influence the outcome of voter referenda." Dr. David Duncan, an
associate professor of medicine at Brown University, helped design a study
of the ads' efficacy for an ONDCP consultant. His interpretation: "It's
pretty obvious they are hoping the ads will shade people's opinions on drugs
in general, and that that will spill over to their views on the
initiatives."

According to AdAge.com, various anti-marijuana ads will occupy $60 million
worth of advertising between this September and January, 2003. It's all part
of a second five-year media campaign that Congress authorized this year at
$762 million despite Walters' admission that it did not actually lower teen
drug use. With the media required to sell its time and space to ONDCP on a
two-for-one basis, after expenses, there'll be approximately $1.3 billion of
anti-drug advertising over the next five years. Half will likely be directed
at adult voters, and all of it will tend, however indirectly, to poison the
drug-reform well.

As I disclosed on Salon in July, 2000, the initial five-year media campaign
was engendered at a meeting Barry McCaffrey convened in Washington nine days
after the 1996 passage of the first two medical marijuana initiatives. Some
forty officials and private sector executives met to discuss the use of
taxpayer-funded messages to thwart other potential initiatives. They
included two White House officials, the head of the DEA, representatives of
the FBI, Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Treasury and
Education, along with state law enforcement personnel and the Partnership
for a Drug-Free America. One private participant was quoted in the meeting's
minutes as saying, "We'll work with Arizona and California to undo it and
stop the spread of legalization to [the] other 48 states."

Daniel Forbes ( ddanforbes@aol.com )writes on social policy. His recent
report (http://www.ips-dc.org/projects/drugpolicy/ohio.htm )on state and
federal political malfeasance geared to defeat treatment rather than
incarceration ballot initiatives was published by the Institute for Policy
Studies. Much of his work, including his series in Salon that led to his
testimony before both the Senate and the House, is archived at The Media
Awareness Project ( http://www.mapinc.org ).