Initiative would allow ill people to consume marijuana

By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Published/Last Modified on Saturday, January 12, 2008 3:05 PM MST


PHOENIX -- Arizona voters may get a chance this year to do what they thought they were doing in 1996: allow people who are ill to have and use marijuana legally.


 An initiative being crafted would spell out that individuals who are certified by their doctors as needing the drug would be able to possess small amounts -- the details are still being worked out -- without running afoul of state law. They also would be able to grow their own drugs.

 Backers, organized as the Arizona Medical Marijuana Policy Project, have until July 3 to get the 153,365 signatures necessary to put the measure on the November ballot.

 Financing for the initiative is coming from the national Marijuana Policy Project which bills itself as the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the country. It already has kicked in $10,000.

 That organization is no stranger to state initiatives: It also was behind a 2006 Nevada ballot measure to decriminalize marijuana and instead regulate and tax it. But that initiative picked up just 44 percent of the vote.

 Two years earlier, though, it financed a successful medical initiative in Montana.

 Dan Bernath, a spokesman for the national group, said it appears voters are more willing to allow people who are ill to use marijuana than to make its possession legal for everyone.

That has proven to be the case in Arizona, where by a 2-1 margin voters in 1996 approved a law allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana -- and various other illegal drugs -- to patients who are seriously or terminally ill.

That law was ratified again two years later by voters after state legislators attempted to partially repeal it.

 But a 2002 initiative, which included a provision to reduce the penalty for possession of up to two ounces to a fine, picked up just 43 percent of the vote.

 The new initiative comes because the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency effectively quashed the 1996 law by threatening to revoke all prescription-writing privileges of any physician who prescribed otherwise illegal drugs to their Arizona patients. The result is no Arizona doctor has written such a prescription.

 Alternate language for this measure, still being worked out, would allow doctors to "recommend'' marijuana.

That distinction is crucial: The U.S. Supreme Court, in a historic 2003 ruling, blocked the DEA from going after California doctors who, using that state's law, recommend a patient use marijuana.

The court, without comment, accepted the arguments that doctors have a constitutional right to discuss all options with their patients.

 That still leaves the question of how patients are supposed to get the drugs in the first place.

Courts have allowed agents to pursue suppliers. And some of the "dispensaries'' in California have been raided.

 Bernath said that is why states which have adopted medical marijuana laws since California allow patients or a "designated caregiver'' to grow a set amount of the drug. "This keeps it small enough that the federal government doesn't turn its attention to those kind of things,'' he said.

 That defeated 2002 initiative attempted to deal with the supply problem by allowing anyone with a doctor's recommendation to get up to two ounces of marijuana, free, each month from the state Department of Public Safety, which presumably would have obtained its supply from drugs seized from those who lack the necessary state permission.

 That initiative was opposed by Janet Napolitano, then the state attorney general and, at the time, a candidate for governor, despite her admission of having indulged. "I experimented in college a little bit and regret doing it,'' she said at the time. "When you're in college you do a lot of dumb stuff.''

Comments

    THunder wrote on Mar 25, 2008 12:32 AM:

    " maranol contin vs hawaiian afghani "

    Kathy wrote on Feb 2, 2008 11:58 AM:

    " In Washington State I am a Medical Marijuana Patient. In AZ
    I am a felon. Spent 24 days in Yuma county jail before I was released. Now with a public defender I have to prove myself innocent. I have all my authorizations from my doctors. While
    I was in AZ I felt as if I was in another country, other than
    the United States! Let's Legalize Marijuana, tax it and spend tax payer dollars on other more important issues, like health care, education etc.
    *medicine*fuel*Fiber*Food*Paper = Hemp reduce global warming plant hemp. "

    D.A. wrote on Jan 16, 2008 10:11 PM:

    " Hey, I split my time between AZ and OR. Here I'm patient, there I'm a felon.

    Nice..... "

    Carlos wrote on Jan 15, 2008 11:17 AM:

    " I as well truly believe that marijuana should be taxed and sold on a local business level. The old laws don't and didn't work, because the lack of information. Just because it is written doesn't mean that its absolute. Look up the facts from both sides of the story, historic and present. "

    Mary wrote on Jan 12, 2008 8:09 PM:

    " I have been ill with a crushed vertebrate L4. Since then I have came down with a lot of other diseases. I was last told to take morphine for my pain. I do not want to get on morphine because that is the worse drug you have to get off withdrawals. I have a body of a 80 year old person. If there is a disease for old age i have most of them. The marijuana drug should sell behind the counter at a drug store. Let the drug factories figure how to get it to the store. "

Write a Comment

Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. They review submitted comments periodically during the day for offensive or off-topic content before posting. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. The Douglas Dispatch is not liable for messages from third parties.

DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
* Personal Information (phone numbers, addresses, etc.)

Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in douglasdispatch.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Douglas Dispatch. The Douglas Dispatch does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Douglas Dispatch spokespersons.

Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
   









Contact Us

Email the Editor
530 11th Street (85607)
P.O. Drawer H
Douglas, AZ 85608
tel: 520.364.3424
fax: 520.364.6750