Election �98
The Vote for Medical Marijuana and Drug Policy Reform
Alaska � Arizona � Colorado � District of
Columbia � Nevada � Oregon � Washington
Report from the:
Drug Policy Foundation, 4455 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite B-500
Washington, D.C. 20008-2328
Ph: (202) 537-5005 � Fax: (202) 537-3007 � Email: [email protected]
� Web: www.dpf.org
For more information contact:
H. Alexander Robinson
Public Policy Director
Scott Ehlers
Senior Policy Analyst
Rob Stewart
Communications Director
The Drug Policy Foundation is a national non-profit
organization dedicated to creating reasoned and compassionate drug policies.
DPF members support comprehensive legislative and regulatory reform of
our nation's drug laws.
Additional copies of this publication are available at $5.00 each.
Table of Contents
Alaska
Proposition 8
Arizona
Proposition 300
Proposition 301
Colorado
Initiative 19
District of Columbia
Initiative 59
Nevada
Ballot Question 9
Oregon
Measure 57
Measure 67
Washington
Initiative 692
About the
Drug Policy Foundation
Introduction
Election �98 is shaping up as a test for drug policy reform efforts across
the nation. On November 3 citizens in Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon,
Washington, and the District of Columbia will vote on ballot initiatives
that will determine whether bdoctors in those states can prescribe marijuana
for seriously ill patients who would benefit from such treatment. In addition
to a medicinal marijuana referendum, Oregon voters will decide whether
to accept the legislature�s 1997 decision to recriminalize personal possession
of marijuana. And, in Arizona, voters will consider two ballot measures
that will determine if they accept the state legislature�s alterations
to a 1996 voter-approved drug policy reform initiative.
The following report has been compiled to provide an overview of the
problems arising out of current federal and state laws regarding marijuana,
the need for reform, and the state-led efforts to make marijuana available
to those patients who need it.
History
Marijuana has a long history of use in medicine, with the first recorded
evidence of use being in China approximately 5000 years ago. Its recorded
use in the United States dates back to the 1850s, and was used for a variety
of illnesses until it was effectively prohibited by the Marihuana Tax Act
of 1937.
The DEA Ignores the Science
In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act, which defined
marijuana as a Schedule I drug, a category of drugs deemed unsafe, highly
subject to abuse, and possessing no recognized medicinal value. In 1972,
the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) disputed
this classification by petitioning the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous
Drugs (now the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)) to reschedule marijuana
to Schedule II so that it could be prescribed by physicians. After 24 years
of legal maneuvering, the DEA finally held public hearings on the issue
in 1986 before chief DEA administrative law judge, Francis Young.
On September 6, 1988, Young ruled:
Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the
safest therapeutically active substances known to man.... One must reasonably
conclude that there is accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical
supervision. To conclude otherwise, on the record, would be unreasonable,
arbitrary, and capricious.1
Judge Young�s ruling would not stand for long, however. DEA Administrator
John Lawn rejected the opinion of his own administrative law judge, calling
claims of the medical utility of marijuana a "dangerous and cruel hoax."
Hypocrisy in High Places: The Federal Government�s Medicinal Marijuana
Program
Although the DEA refuses to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana, today
the federal government supplies eight patients with medicinal marijuana
through its Compassionate Investigational New Drug program (IND). The first
patient to receive marijuana under the federal program was Robert Randall
in 1976, and 12 others have received marijuana from the program since then.
Beginning in 1989, the FDA was inundated with applications from AIDS patients
seeking legal marijuana to relieve nausea. By 1992, 28 patients were on
the waiting list to receive medicinal marijuana from the federal government.
The increase in patients posed a dilemma for the Bush administration, however,
and in 1991 it announced that the program would be closed, claiming that
it "gives a bad signal." The Clinton administration appears to agree with
that reasoning, and has refused to reopen it.
The Federal Government Versus States� Rights
Between the 1970s and today, 35 states passed laws supporting the medicinal
use of marijuana. State legislation has proved largely futile, though,
because marijuana is prohibited and the federal government controls the
legal marijuana supply.
This changed somewhat in 1996, with the passage of California�s Proposition
215. Prop. 215 legalized the medical use of marijuana for patients with
the written or oral recommendation of a physician. It has proved to be
the most effective state-based effort at getting marijuana to patients
because it was instituted through the referendum process and it allowed
patients and caregivers to grow their own medicine. This has allowed, at
least temporarily, cannabis buyers� clubs to supply patients with marijuana
after passage of the initiative.
But even that effort is threatened by the federal government. In January
1998, the U.S. Department of Justice filed civil lawsuits against six Northern
California buyers� clubs to shut them down. Three have since closed, and
on October 13 U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ordered the Oakland club
to shut its doors.
Overview of the 1998
Initiatives
Despite the federal government�s attempts to thwart the will of the people
in regard to medicinal marijuana, more states are pushing to protect medicinal
marijuana patients from prosecution for using and growing their medicine.
As previously mentioned, medicinal marijuana ballot initiatives will be
considered in 1998 by voters in: Alaska, Colorado, the District of Columbia,
Nevada, Oregon, and Washington state. In Arizona, the future of medical
marijuana depends on the voters rejecting Proposition 300. If Prop. 300
is rejected, physicians will be allowed to prescribe marijuana (and other
Schedule I drugs) if two doctors agree that a patient would be effectively
treated with the drug, and if there is scientific documentation that supports
its use.
|
Comparison of Provisions in the 1998 Medical Marijuana Initiatives
|
|
|
Legal Defense or Exemption for Patients
|
Doctor's Written Approval Required
|
Eligible Medical Conditions
|
Marijuana Possession Limits
|
Patient Registry Requirement
|
Number of Caregivers Permitted
|
Permits Non-Profit Marijuana Suppliers
|
Statutory or Constitutional
|
|
Alaska
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
AMR Model*
|
AMR Limits**
|
Yes |
One |
No |
Statutory |
|
Arizona Prop. 300 ("No" vote)#
|
Yes
|
Written approval by 2 doctors and supporting scientific
documentation
|
"debilitating diseases" or "seriously ill or terminally
ill" patients
|
"receipt, possession or use ... pursuant to the prescription
of a doctor" is legal
|
No
|
Not Specified
|
No
|
Statutory
|
|
Colorado##
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
AMR Model
|
2 ounces; 6 plants w/ 3 flowering
|
Yes
|
One
|
No
|
Constitutional
|
|
D.C.
|
Yes
|
Written or Oral
|
HIV/AIDS, glaucoma, muscle spasms, cancer, and "other
serious or chronic illnesses"
|
"sufficient quantity" to treat illness
|
No
|
Four
|
Yes
|
Statutory
|
|
Nevada
|
Yes
|
"Advice required"; to be determined by legislature
|
AMR Model
|
To be determined by legislature
|
Yes
|
To be determined by legislature
|
Possibly; system to be determined by legislature
|
Constitutional
|
|
Oregon Measure 67
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
AMR Model
|
AMR Model
|
Yes
|
One
|
No
|
Statutory
|
|
Washington
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
AMR Model
|
60-Day Supply
|
No
|
One
|
No
|
Statutory
|
| * AMR Model includes: cancer, HIV/AIDS, glaucoma,
cachexia, seizure disorders (including epilepsy), spasticity disorders
(including multiple sclerosis), severe pain, and severe nausea.
** AMR Limits include: 1 ounce of marijuana and
6 plants, 3 of which may be flowering.
# Arizona�s Prop. 300: If Prop. 300 is rejected
by the voters, then the drug policy reforms contained in 1996�s Prop. 200
will go into effect. Doctors would be allowed to prescribe marijuana and
other Schedule I drugs if the doctor has scientific documentation supporting
its use for the patient�s condition and a second doctor agrees that the
use of the drug is appropriate.
## Colorado: It was unclear whether the Colorado
initiative had enough signatures to qualify for ballot status at publication
time. It will appear on the ballot, but if it is determined that there
was an insufficient number of signatures, votes for the initiative will
not be counted. |
Although there are many similarities among the 1998 medicinal marijuana
initiatives, there are some important differences as well. The above chart
compares the key elements of each of the initiatives:
-
Legal Defense or Exemptions for Medical Marijuana Patients and Caregivers
All of the state referenda include provisions that give patients and caregivers
either a legal defense in court or specifically exempt them from certain
controlled substances laws. Initiatives that would create patient registries
also have provisions that would protect non-registered patients and caregivers
if a doctor has advised a patient that marijuana would be beneficial in
his/her treatment.
-
Specifically Covered Medical Conditions
All of the initiatives being directed by affiliates of Americans for Medical
Rights (AMR) specify which medical conditions can be treated with marijuana,
but also allow for the addition of conditions. The Washington, D.C., initiative
lists specific medical conditions, but also covers "other serious or chronic
illnesses."
-
Patient Registries and Identification Cards
With the exception of the Washington state campaign, all of the initiatives
that are being directed by affiliates of Americans for Medical Rights contain
a provision that would establish a confidential patient registry and identification
card system. Such systems are designed to protect patients from being arrested
and give law enforcement a means of verifying whether a person is a legitimate
medical marijuana patient.
In Washington state, Washington, D.C., and Arizona, no patient registry
is required, but a doctor must recommend (in writing or orally in D.C.)
that a patient use the drug to treat a serious illness. Washington state
patients are required to present their documentation to a law enforcement
agent if asked to do so.
-
Marijuana Possession Limits
The AMR-affiliated initiatives are generally very specific in terms of
how much marijuana a patient is allowed to possess, but give a patient
a legal defense in court if he/she can prove that the greater amount of
marijuana was needed to treat an illness. The one exception is Washington
state, where patients are allowed to possess a two month supply.
In Washington, D.C., patients would be allowed to possess a "sufficient
quantity" to treat an illness.
For the most part, the AMR-affiliated initiatives do not contain provisions
that provide for a supply of medicinal marijuana, except that patients
are allowed to grow their own limited supply. The one exception is the
Nevada initiative, which requires the legislature to authorize "appropriate
methods for supply of the plant to patients�."
The Washington, D.C. initiative goes the furthest in its attempt to
supply marijuana to patients by allowing non-profit corporations to be
established to cultivate and distribute medicinal marijuana. It also requires
the eventual supply of "safe and affordable" marijuana to patients enrolled
in Medicaid- or Ryan White CARE Act-funded programs.
Shortcomings of
the Initiatives
Although the Drug Policy Foundation supports the passage of all of the
medicinal marijuana initiatives, there are some provisions that are potentially
problematic for medicinal marijuana patients after the initiatives pass.
Restrictive provisions were most likely included so that the initiatives
would receive voter support, and so some of the "loopholes" of the California
medicinal marijuana referendum could be closed. None of these problems
would exist if the federal government allowed marijuana to be prescribed
like other medications.
In the event that the initiatives pass, the following provisions are
cause for concern:
-
Confidentiality of Patient Registries Could Eventually Be Violated
The Drug Policy Foundation agrees with the intent of the patient registries
- to protect patients from being arrested and verify patients� legal status.
DPF also understands that if marijuana were a legally prescribed medication,
patient registries would not be necessary. DPF is concerned, however, about
the possibility of confidentiality violations. There is a danger
that the legislature could open up the patient registry for purposes it
was not intended to address. There is also the possibility of violations
by employees of the state health departments and law enforcement, and,
though not as likely, potential seizure by the federal government.
For these reasons, it is of utmost importance that confidentiality be
strictly enforced and violators be prosecuted. The federal government should
also be assured that attempts to seize a patient registry would be resisted
by state government authorities.
-
Limits on Marijuana Cultivation, Possession Too Stringent
Although some of the initiatives allow patients to grow their own medicine
and possess up to an ounce of marijuana (two ounces in Colorado), some
of the legal limits are too stringent in DPF�s opinion. A six-plant cultivation
limit, with only three plants flowering, will not be sufficient for many
patients. Limiting patients to legally possessing only an ounce at a time
will force many patients to enter the black market too frequently if they
want to stay within the legal limits. Fortunately, there is an "escape
clause," whereby a patient has a defense if he/she can prove that the larger
amount of marijuana was necessary for medical treatment.
-
Inadequate Supply Mechanism
The final concern is that the supply mechanism for medicinal marijuana
is inadequate for many of the initiatives. Patients can supply themselves
if they cultivate their own medicinal marijuana, and will not be prosecuted
for acquiring medicinal marijuana, but they will still have to enter the
criminal market to buy their medicine.
Two of the initiatives do provide for a supply mechanism. The Nevada
initiative requires the legislature to authorize "appropriate methods for
supply" of marijuana. The Washington, D.C. initiative would allow for nonprofit
corporations to be established to cultivate and distribute medicinal marijuana.
DPF supports the efforts of these state campaigns to attempt to supply
marijuana to patients from a source outside of the criminal market.
Conclusions
While there are some imperfect provisions in some of the medical marijuana
initiatives, DPF fully supports their passage in all states. DPF also believes
that Arizona voters should reject the legislature�s attempt to overturn
key provisions of Proposition 200, the 1996 drug policy reform initiative.
Finally, DPF�s position on the larger marijuana issue is that adults should
not be subject to arrest for personal possession of marijuana. In that
light, DPF is opposed to Oregon�s Measure 57, which would recriminalize
marijuana if approved.
1. U.S. Department of Justice, Drug
Enforcement Agency, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition"
[Docket #86-22] (September 6, 1988), p. 57.
ALASKA
� Proposition 8 �
An Act Relating to the Medical Uses of Marijuana for
Persons Suffering from Debilitating Medical Conditions
Organizational Sponsor: Alaskans for Medical Rights
Contact(s): David Finkelstein, Treasurer (907) 277-2567
Website: http://www.alaskalife.net/AKMR
Key Provisions
-
Establishes a Confidential Medical Marijuana Patient Registry. The
Department of Health and Social Services must establish a confidential
registry of medical marijuana patients. Authorized state and local law
enforcement agents shall have access to the registry for the purpose of
verifying that a person in possession of a registry identification card
is a registered medical marijuana user. Authorized employees of the Department
of Health and Social Services (DHSS) shall have access to the registry
to perform official duties. (Sec. 17.35.010(a) and (b))
-
Defines What Debilitating Medical Conditions Qualify for Medical Marijuana
Treatment. Patients with the following "debilitating medical conditions"
can become registered medical marijuana patients with a doctor�s approval:
cancer; glaucoma; HIV/AIDS; cachexia; severe pain; severe nausea; seizure
disorders; spasticity disorders; or conditions that are later approved
by the DHSS. (Sec. 17.35.070(b))
-
Requires Written Documentation from a Physician and Other Information
to be a Registered Patient. Patients are required to submit the following
information to be a registered medical marijuana user: written documentation
confirming the patient has a debilitating medical condition and he/she
would benefit from medical marijuana; the name, address, date of birth,
and social security number of the patient; the name, address, and telephone
number of the patient�s physician; and the name and address of the patient�s
primary caregiver, if she/he has one. (Sec. 17.35.010(c))
-
Establishes a Registry Identification Card System. After verifying
all information submitted by a patient within 30 days, the DHSS must issue
to the patient within five days a "serially numbered registry identification
card," which contains the following information: the patient�s name, address,
date of birth, and social security number; a statement that the patient
has a debilitating medical condition that can be treated with medicinal
marijuana; the issuance and expiration date; and the name and address of
the patient�s primary caregiver. (Sec. 17.35.010(d))
-
Protects Patients Against Legal Action if the DHSS Does Not Process
Applications in a Timely Manner. If the DHSS does not issue a patient
a registry card within 35 days of his/her application, the patient�s application
is deemed approved until otherwise notified. The patient�s application
and proof of submission will have the same legal effect as a registry identification
card. (Sec. 17.35.010(e))
-
Requires an Annual Review Process for Patients. Patients must submit
updated written documentation on their medical condition on an annual basis
to retain their medical marijuana registration status. If a patient no
longer has a debilitating medical condition that requires the use of marijuana,
then he/she must return the registry identification card within 24 hours
of the diagnosis. (Sec. 17.35.010(g) and (h))
-
Limits the Amount of Marijuana a Patient is Allowed to Possess.
Patients may possess no more than one ounce of marijuana and may grow no
more than six marijuana plants, with no more than three flowering plants
producing marijuana. If a patient or caregiver possesses more than these
amounts, he/she must "prove by a preponderance of the evidence" that the
greater amount was necessary to treat the patient�s medical condition.
(Sec. 17.35.020)
-
Protects Non-Registered Medical Marijuana Patients and Caregivers from
Prosecution. A patient or caregiver who is not in the patient registry
cannot be "penalized in any manner" for an offense "related to the medical
use of marijuana" if he/she: has been diagnosed by a physician as having
a debilitating medical condition; has been advised that medical marijuana
would be beneficial; and does not possess excessive quantities of marijuana.
(Sec. 17.35.030(a))
-
Protects Registered Medical Marijuana Patients and Caregivers from Prosecution.
Patients and caregivers who are legally in possession of a registry identification
card cannot be arrested, prosecuted, or penalized for the medical use of
marijuana. (Sec. 17.35.030(b))
-
Protects Doctors Who Recommend the Medical Use of Marijuana from Prosecution.
Physicians cannot be penalized for advising a patient or providing
written documentation to a patient saying that he/she might benefit from
the medical use of marijuana. (Sec. 17.35.030(c))
-
Prohibits the Non-Medical Use of Marijuana. No person, including
a patient or primary caregiver, may possess, buy, cultivate, or sell marijuana
for non-medical purposes. (Sec. 17.35.030(d))
-
Protects the Property of Medical Marijuana Patients and Caregivers.
Property associated with the medical use of marijuana "shall not be harmed,
neglected, injured, or destroyed" while in possession of state and local
law enforcement. Property associated with medicinal marijuana cannot be
forfeited. A patient�s marijuana and paraphernalia shall be immediately
returned if it is determined (by a decision not to prosecute, dismissal
of charges, or acquittal) that the patient is in lawful possession. (Sec.
17.35.030(e))
-
Places Various Restrictions on Patients� Use of Medical Marijuana. Registered
patients are prohibited from: using medical marijuana "in a way that endangers
the health or well-being of any person"; using marijuana in public; and
selling or distributing marijuana to persons who do not possess or are
not eligible to possess a registry identification card. Patients who are
"found by a preponderance of the evidence" to have willfully violated these
provisions are ineligible from using a registry identification card for
one year. (Sec. 17.35.040(a) and (b))
-
Does Not Require the Accommodation of Medicinal Marijuana Use in a Variety
of Circumstances. Insurance companies are not required to reimburse
medical marijuana patients for their marijuana purchases and medical marijuana
use does not have to be accommodated in: places of employment; correctional
facilities; on or within 500 feet of school grounds; at or within 500 feet
of a recreation or youth center; or on a school bus. (Sec. 17.35.040(c)
and (d))
-
Establishes Special Guidelines for the Medical Use of Marijuana by Minors.
A patient who is a minor must get the written consent of his/her parent
or guardian to become a registered medical marijuana patient, and the parent
or guardian must serve as the patient�s primary caregiver. The parent or
guardian of the minor must control the acquisition of marijuana, as well
as the dosage and frequency of its use. (Sec. 17.35.050)
-
Provides for the Addition of Medical Conditions that Qualify for Medical
Marijuana Treatment. By June 1, 1999, the DHSS must establish regulations
for adding medical conditions that qualify patients for medical marijuana
treatment. The regulations must allow physicians and patients to petition
the DHSS to add new medical conditions to the list of covered illnesses,
and the DHSS must make a ruling on such petitions within 180 days. (Sec.
17.35.060)
ARIZONA
� Proposition 300 �
Referendum on H.B. 2518
Organizational Sponsor: The People Have Spoken
Contact: Sam Vagenas (602) 222-6639
Endorsements ("For" State Legislature�s Revisions)
Arizona Pharmacy Association
The Center for Arizona Policy
Arizona Christian Coalition
Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police
Opponents ("Against" State Legislature�s Revisions)
The People Have Spoken
Grant Woods, Arizona Attorney General
John A. "Jack" LaSota, Former Attorney General
Judge Rudolph J. Gerber, Arizona Court of Appeals
Background
In 1996, 65.4 percent of Arizona voters approved Proposition 200, the "Drug
Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act of 1996." One of the provisions
of that ballot initiative was that physicians would be allowed to prescribe
marijuana and other Schedule I drugs (heroin, LSD, MDMA, and others) if:
(1) the docator had scientific documentation that the drug was useful in
the treatment of a seriously ill patient, and (2) the physician had the
written opinion of a second doctor that use of the drug was appropriate.
In reaction to the passage of that initiative, the Arizona state legislature
enacted H.B. 2518 and S.B. 1373, which nullified key provisions of Proposition
200. H.B. 2518 required that the federal government approve the medical
use of marijuana before Arizona doctors would be allowed to prescribe it
and other Schedule I drugs.
Because the passage of H.B. 2518 and S.B. 1373 was seen as being undemocratic
and an attempt to "thwart the mandate of the voters," a signature drive
was started by The People Have Spoken to let the voters determine if these
two bills should become law.
A "Yes" vote for Proposition 300 indicates that a voter wants the legislature�s
revisions to become law. A "No" vote indicates that a voter wants the legislature�s
revisions to be rejected and for the original provisions of Proposition
200 to take effect. If Proposition 300 is rejected, Arizona doctors can
prescribe marijuana and other Schedule I drugs without the federal government�s
approval of the medical use of marijuana.
Key Provisions
-
Requires Federal Approval of Medicinal Marijuana Before It and Other Schedule
I Drugs Can Be Prescribed in Arizona. If Proposition 300 passes, physicians
will be allowed to prescribe Schedule I drugs only after the U.S. Congress
"authorizes the medical use of marijuana" or after the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration authorizes the medical use of marijuana and the Drug Enforcement
Administration reschedules the plant to a non-Schedule I substance. (Sec.
5)
-
If Medical Marijuana Receives Federal Approval, Arizona Physicians May
Prescribe All Schedule I Drugs Under Certain Circumstances. Once marijuana
is rescheduled by the federal government and allowed to be prescribed under
federal guidelines, then it and other Schedule I drugs may be prescribed
by Arizona doctors if the following criteria are met:
-
the patient being treated has "a debilitating disease" or the Schedule
I drug is needed to "relieve the pain and suffering of a seriously ill
patient or terminally ill patient";
-
the physician documents that scientific research exists that supports the
use of the Schedule I drug to treat the patient�s medical condition;
-
the physician obtains the written opinion of a second physician that prescribing
the Schedule I drug is appropriate for the treatment of the patient; and
-
the physician obtains the written consent of the patient.
ARIZONA
� Proposition 301 �
Referendum on S.B. 1373
Organizational Sponsor: The People Have Spoken
Contact: Sam Vagenas (602) 222-6639
Endorsements ("For" Legislature�s Revisions)
John Kaites, State Senator
Opponents
The People Have Spoken
Grant Woods, Arizona Attorney General
John A. "Jack" LaSota, Former Attorney General
Judge Rudolph J. Gerber, Arizona Court of Appeals
Background
In 1996, 65.4 percent of Arizona voters approved Proposition 200, the Drug
Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act of 1996. One of the provisions
of that ballot initiative was that persons convicted of the "personal possession
or use of a controlled substance" for the first or second time could not
be incarcerated, but rather were required to undergo treatment as a condition
of their probation. Second-time offenders and probation violators could
have additional sanctions imposed, such as "intensified drug treatment,
community service, intensive probation, [and] home arrest," but they could
not be incarcerated. Persons who had previously been convicted of a violent
offense were not eligible for probation under Proposition 200, but a person
previously convicted of a felony drug offense (i.e. sales) was still eligible.
In reaction to the passage of that initiative, the Arizona state legislature
enacted H.B. 2518 and S.B. 1373, which nullified key provisions of Proposition
200. Under S.B. 1373, persons with a previous non-violent, non-possession,
felony drug offense (i.e. sales) can be imprisoned for a subsequent personal
possession charge, whereas Prop. 200 required probation for such an offender.
Persons who are placed on probation under S.B. 1373 can be imprisoned for
testing positive for drug use or for a subsequent drug possession charge.
Under Prop. 200, additional sanctions could be instituted in such cases,
but the person could not be incarcerated.
Because the passage of H.B. 2518 and S.B. 1373 was seen as being undemocratic
and an attempt to "thwart the mandate of the voters," a signature drive
was started by The People Have Spoken to put these two bills on the ballot
and let the voters determine if they should become law.
A "Yes" vote for Proposition 301 indicates that a voter wants the legislature�s
revisions to become law. A "No" vote indicates that a voter wants the legislature�s
revisions to be rejected and for the original provisions of Proposition
200 to take effect. If Proposition 301 is rejected, persons who violate
their parole by testing positive for drug use cannot be imprisoned for
violating parole, and persons previously convicted of drug sales could
not be imprisoned for a subsequent drug possession charge.
Key Provisions
-
Mandates Jail Time for Certain Persons Convicted of Drug Possession.
Persons who have: two prior non-possession felony drug convictions;
a conviction for a violent offense; or a conviction for the use or "threatening
exhibition" of a deadly weapon, are not eligible for probation. (Sec. 13-901.01.A)
-
Mandates Probation for Persons Convicted of a First or Second Drug Possession
Offense. Persons who have zero or one prior felony conviction for drug
possession shall be placed on probation unless the person prefers to go
to jail. (Sec. 13-901.01.B)
-
Mandates Drug Treatment or Education for Persons Placed on Probation
Under this Act. Persons convicted of possession or use of drugs under
this act are required to participate in "an appropriate drug treatment
or education program." They are also required to pay for treatment if they
can afford it. (Sec. 13-901.01.C)
-
Requires Additional Sanctions for Probation Violators, Possibly Incarceration.
Probation violators (including persons who test positive for drugs)
will receive new conditions of probation, including: "intensified drug
treatment, community service, intensive probation, home arrest, or any
other sanctions." (Sec. 13-901.01.D)
-
Requires Additional Sanctions for Persons Convicted of Drug Possession
While on Probation, with the Possibility of Incarceration. Persons
who are convicted of drug possession while on probation will receive new
conditions of probation, including: "intensified drug treatment, community
service, intensive probation, home arrest, or any other action within the
jurisdiction of the court." (Sec. 13-901.01.E)
-
Establishes that the Provisions Do Not Apply to Persons with Two or
More Previous Drug Convictions. The provisions pertaining to mandatory
probation do not apply to persons convicted two or more times of drug possession.
(Sec. 13-901.01.F)
-
Institutes Various Forfeiture Reforms. Property owners may
not have their property forfeited if they were unaware that certain illegal
acts, including certain drug crimes, were taking place on their property.
A person�s vehicle cannot be forfeited if another person, who is in illegal
possession of the vehicle, uses the car to commit a drug crime. Property
cannot be forfeited for drug possession that did not involve financial
gain. (Sec. 13-4304)
COLORADO
� Initiative 19 �
The Colorado Medical Marijuana Initiative
Organizational Sponsor: Coloradans for Medical Rights
Contact: Luther Symons, (303) 394-0440
Website: http://www.medicalmarijuana.com
Background
Coloradans for Medical Rights (CMR) submitted 88,815 signatures on July
7, with 54,242 being required. On August 6, after using a random sampling
technique, Secretary of State Vikki Buckley ruled that only 47,960 signatures
were valid. CMR appealed that decision after an independent review found
that Buckley�s sampling technique was flawed, a fact that she later conceded
in court.
On September 10, Denver District Judge Herbert Stern agreed that sampling
errors were made and ruled that the initiative should be placed on the
ballot without the need for a line-by-line signature count. Buckley appealed
Stern�s decision to the state Supreme Court, which ruled on October 5 that
the initiative should not automatically receive ballot status and that
the Secretary of State should perform a line-by-line signature verification.
On October 17, Buckley ruled that there were only 51,904 valid signatures,
falling short of the required number. At publication time, CMR was exploring
other legal avenues to appeal the decision. The initiative will appear
on the ballot, but if it is determined that there was an insufficient number
of signatures, votes for the measure will not be counted.
Key Provisions
-
Amends the Colorado Constitution. The Colorado Medical Marijuana
Initiative amends Article XVII of the Colorado state constitution to allow
for the medical use of marijuana by persons suffering from debilitating
medical conditions.
-
Establishes a Confidential Medical Marijuana Patient Registry. The
governor must designate, by March 1, 1999, a public health agency charged
with establishing a confidential registry of medical marijuana patients.
Operating guidelines for the registry and application forms for persons
seeking to be in the registry must by available by June 1, 1999. Authorized
state and local law enforcement agents shall have access to the registry
for the purpose of verifying that a person in possession of a registry
identification card is a registered medical marijuana user. Authorized
employees of the state health agency shall have access to registry to perform
official duties. (Sec. 14(1)(h), Sec. 14(3), Sec. 14(7), Sec. 14(9))
-
Defines What Debilitating Medical Conditions Qualify for Medical Marijuana
Treatment. Patients with the following "debilitating medical conditions"
can become registered medical marijuana patients with a doctor�s approval:
cancer; glaucoma; HIV/AIDS; cachexia; severe pain; severe nausea; seizure
disorders; spasticity disorders; or conditions that are later approved
by the state health agency. (Sec. 14(1)(a))
-
Requires Written Documentation from a Physician and Other Information
to be a Registered Patient. Patients must be Colorado residents and
submit the following information to become a registered medical marijuana
user: written documentation confirming the patient has a debilitating medical
condition and he/she would benefit from medical marijuana; the name, address,
date of birth, and social security number of the patient; the name, address,
and telephone number of the patient�s physician; and the name and address
of the patient�s primary caregiver, if she/he has one. (Sec. 14(3)(b))
-
Establishes a Registry Indentification Card System. After verifying
all information submitted by a patient within 30 days, the state health
agency must issue a patient within five days a "serially numbered registry
identifacation card," which contains the following information: the patient�s
name, address, date of birth, and social security number; a statement confirming
that the person has a debilitation medical condition and is a certified
medical marijuana user; the issuance and expiration date of the card; and
the name and address of the patient�s primary caregiver. (Sec. 14(3)(c))
-
Protects Patients Against Legal Action if the State Health Agency Does
Not Process Applications in a Timely Manner. If the state health agency
does not issue a patient a registry card within 35 days of his/her application,
the patient�s application is deemed approved until otherwise notified.
The patient�s application and proof of submission will have the same legal
effect as a registry identification card until the patient receives notice
that his/her application has been denied. (Sec. 14(3)(d))
-
Limits the Frequency of Application Submissions by Patients Who Have
an Application Denied. Persons who have their application denied by
the state health agency may not resubmit an application for six months
following the date of denial. Such persons may not use their application
as a registry identification card. (Sec. 14(3)(e))
-
Requires an Annual Review Process for Patients. Patients must resubmit
updated written documentation on an annual basis to retain their medical
marijuana registration status. If a patient no longer has a debilitating
medical condition that requires the use of marijuana, then he/she must
return the registry identification card within 24 hours of the diagnosis.
(Sec. 14(3)(f) and (h))
-
Limits the Amount of Marijuana a Patient is Allowed to Possess.
Patients may possess no more than two ounces of marijuana and may grow
no more than six marijuana plants, with no more than three flowering plants
producing marijuana. If a patient or caregiver possesses more than these
amounts, he/she "may raise as an affirmative defense" that possession of
the greater amount was necessary to treat the patient�s medical condition.
(Sec. 14(4))
-
Protects Non-Registered Medical Marijuana Patients and Caregivers from
Prosecution. A patient or caregiver who is not in the registry and
has been charged with violating a law related to the patient�s medicinal
marijuana use establishes an "affirmative defense" if he/she: has been
diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition; has
been advised by a physician that medical marijuana would be beneficial;
and does not possess excessive quantities of marijuana. (Sec. 14(2)(a))
-
Protects Registered Medical Marijuana Patients and Caregivers from Prosecution.
It is an "exception from the state�s criminal laws" for patients and
caregivers who are legally in possession of a registry identification card
to "engage or assist in the medical use of marijuana." (Sec. 14(2)(b))
-
Protects Doctors Who Recommend the Medical Use of Marijuana from Prosecution.
Physicians cannot be penalized for advising a patient or providing
written documentation to a patient saying that he/she might benefit from
the medical use of marijuana. (Sec. 14(2)(c))
-
Prohibits the Non-Medical Use of Marijuana. No person, including
a patient or primary caregiver, may possess, buy, or sell marijuana for
non-medical purposes. (Sec. 14(2)(d))
-
Protects the Property of Medical Marijuana Patients and Caregivers.
Property associated with the medical use of marijuana "shall not be
harmed, neglected, injured, or destroyed" while in possession of state
and local law enforcement. Property associated with medicinal marijuana
cannot be forfeited. A patient�s marijuana and paraphernalia shall be immediately
returned if it is determined (by a decision not to prosecute, dismissal
of charges, or acquittal) that he/she is in lawful possession. (Sec. 14(2)(e))
-
Places Various Restrictions on the Use of Medical Marijuana. Registered
patients are prohibited from using medical marijuana "in a way that endangers
the health or well-being of any person"and from using marijuana in public.
Patients who are found to have willfully violated these provisions are
ineligible from using a registry identification card for one year. (Sec.
14(5))
-
Does Not Require the Accomodation of Medicinal Marijuana Use in a Variety
of Circumstances. Insurance companies are not required to reimburse
patients for their marijuana purchases and medical marijuana use does not
have to be accomodated in places of employment. (Sec. 14(10))
-
Establishes Special Guidelines for the Medical Use of Marijuana by Minors.
To qualify as a registered medical marijuana user, a patient who is
a minor must have: two physicians diagnose him/her as having a debilitating
medical condition; the written consent of each parent residing in Colorado
to allow the minor to use medical marijuana; and a parent in Colorado willing
to serve as the patient�s primary caregiver. The parent of the minor must
control the acquisition of marijuana, as well as the dosage and frequency
of its use. (Sec. 14(6))
-
Requires the General Assembly to Enact Implementing Legislation by April
30, 1999. The Colorado legislature must pass the necessary legislation
to implement the medical marijuana registry identification system. The
legislature must also criminalize various acts associated with the registry,
such as: fraudulent representation of a medical condition to obtain a registry
identification card or avoid arrest; fraudulent use or theft of a registry
identification card to carry out a marijuana offense; counterfeiting registry
identification cards; and breach of confidentiality of registry information.
(Sec. 14(8))
-
Provides for the Addition of Medical Conditions that Qualify for Medical
Marijuana Treatment. Beginning June 1, 1999, the state health agency
must begin accepting petitions from patients and doctors who wish to add
new medical conditions to the list of covered illnesses. The agency must
make a ruling on such petitions within 180 days. (Sec. 14(9))
Prospects for Passage
58% in favor, 40% against
source: Denver Post poll, October 17
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
� Initiative 59 �
Legalization of Marijuana for Medical
Treatment Initiative of 1998
Organizational Sponsor: Washingtonians for the Legalization
of Medical Marijuana
Contact: Wayne Turner, Campaign Treasurer (202) 547-9404
Website: http://www.actupdc.org
Endorsements
National Black Police Association
Whitman-Walker Clinic
Anthony Williams, Democratic nominee for mayor
Carol Schwartz, Republican nominee for mayor
John Gloster, Statehood Party nominee for mayor
Background
ACT UP-DC�s first attempt at getting a medical marijuana initiative on
the ballot was 1997�s Initiative 57. This initiative was submitted in the
wake of the passage of the medical marijuana initiatives in California
and Arizona in 1996. Failing to gather enough signatures, ACT UP submitted
slightly different wording in its next effort, Initiative 59.
On July 6, the campaign submitted over 32,000 D.C. voter signatures
to the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics. At least 5 percent of the total
number of D.C. registered voters (16,997) must sign a petition to put it
on the ballot, including at least 5 percent of voters in five of the District�s
eight wards.
After the Board disqualified over 4,600 signatures from one petitioner
and ruled on August 5 that the number of verified signatures (17,092) was
"statistically insufficient," Initiative 59 organizers challenged the signature
count in D.C. Superior Court.
On September 2, the Board admitted that it had erred in the signature
count, including not counting the signature of Steve Michael, the original
campaign director of Initiative 59 who died from AIDS on May 25. D.C. Superior
Court Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle ruled on September 3 that thousands of
signatures that were previously disqualified should be counted, opening
the way for Initiative 59�s placement on the November 1998 ballot.
Key Provisions
-
The initiative affirms the right of patients with "HIV/AIDS, glaucoma,
muscle spasms, cancer, and other serious or chronic illnesses" to "obtain
and use marijuana for medical purposes" if a licensed physician has determined
that marijuana is "medically necessary" and recommends its use. (Sec. 2)
-
Defines Who Can Be a Patient�s Caregiver. Patients are allowed to
"designate or appoint a licensed health care practioner, parent, sibling,
spouse, child, or other close relative domestic partner, case manager/worker,
or best friend" to be their primary caregiver. Up to four persons may be
designated as a primary caregiver. (Sec. 7)
-
Protects Patients and Caregivers with the "Written or Oral Recommendation"
of their Doctor from Being Prosecuted. Patients and caregivers cannot
be prosecuted under D.C.�s Uniform Controlled Substances Act (D.C. Law
4-29; D.C. Code 33 501 et seq.) for possessing, obtaining, or cultivating
medical marijuana if the patient has the "written or oral recommendation
of a licensed physician."
-
Allows Patients to Grow a "Sufficient Quantity" of Marijuana to Treat
Their Illness. Patients or caregivers can grow "a sufficient quantity
of marijuana" to assure a patient�s medical supply without interruption
in treatment. (Sec. 3; Sec. 6a)
-
Does Not Allow Medical Marijuana Use to Be a Defense for Harmful Offenses.
Affirms that medical marijuana use cannot be a defense in a "crime of violence,
the crime of operating a motor vehicle while impaired or intoxicated, or
a crime involving danger to another person or to the public�." (Sec. 4a)
-
Prohibits Marijuana Distribution to Non-Medical Users. Distributing
marijuana intended for medical use to persons who are not medical marijuana
patients is prohibited. (Sec. 4b)
-
Protects Doctors Who Recommend the Medical use of Marijuana from Prosecution.
Physicians cannot be "punished or denied any right, privilege, or registration�"
for recommending the use of medical marijuana to their patients. (Sec.
5)
-
Allows Medical Marijuana to Be Sold Through Certain Non-Profit Corporations.
Residents of the District of Columbia can operate non-profit corporations
to cultivate, purchase, and distribute medical marijuana to patients and
their caregivers. Non-profit corporations shall comply with the District�s
non-profit corporation laws, and pay any applicable fees to the Department
of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. (Sec. 8)
-
Requires a Parent to Consent to a Minor�s Medical Marijuana Use. The
distribution of medical marijuana to a minor (under 18) is prohibited unless
the minor�s parent or legal guardian provides consent. (Sec. 9)
-
Requires a Plan for Medical Marijuana to be Provided to Patients Receiving
Funds From Medicaid and the Ryan White CARE Act. The Director of the
Department of Health of the District of Columbia is required to submit
a plan within 90 days to the city council to provide for the "safe and
affordable distribution of marijuana" to all patients enrolled in Medicaid-
or Ryan White CARE Act-funded programs who need medical marijuana. (Sec.
10a)
-
Requires the Mayor to Recommend that the Federal Government Establish
a Medical Marijuana Distribution System. The Mayor of the District
of Columbia must deliver to the President and Congress within 30 days a
copy of the passed initiative to express the sense of the people of the
District that the Federal government must develop a legal medical marijuana
distribution system. (Sec. 10b)
-
Requires Congress, by Federal Law, to Review and Approve the Initiative.
If passed, the initiative will take effect after a 30-day period of Congressional
review.
NEVADA
� Ballot Question 9 �
A Constitutional Amendment to Make
Medicinal Marijuana Available to the
Citizens of Nevada
Organizational Sponsor: Nevadans for Medical Rights
Contact(s): Dan Geary or Dan Hart, (702) 259-0300
Endorsements
Las Vegas Review Journal
Background
This ballot initiative would amend Nevada�s constitution if voters approve
it this year and again in 1999. Nevadans for Medical Rights (NMR) submitted
74,466 signatures to the Secretary of State, out of a minimum requirement
of 46,764. The campaign was initially found to be seven signatures short
in Lyon county and 36 names short in Nye county, but on August 3 the Secretary
of State determined that signature-counting errors had been made and that
the initiative would be on the ballot.
Key Provisions
-
Permits Certain Patients to Use Marijuana for Medicinal Purposes. Requires
the legislature to pass a law that permits certain patients to use marijuana
for medicinal purposes upon the advice of a physician. Specifically, patients
with cancer, glaucoma, AIDS, nausea or cachexia resulting from "chronic
or debilitating medical conditions," epilepsy and other seizure disorders,
multiple sclerosis and other spasticity disorders, or "other conditions
approved pursuant to law for such treatment." (Sec. 38.1(a))
-
Establishes Restrictions on Minors� Medicinal Use of Marijuana. Minors
who wish to use medical marijuana must obtain written authorization by
a physician, parental consent, and have "parental contol of the acquisition
and use of the plant." (Sec. 38.1(b))
-
Prevents Forfeiture of Marijuana Plants and Property. Legitimate
medicinal marijuana patients� property and marijuana cannot be forfeited
unless they are guilty of a marijuana offense not authorized by law. (Sec.
38.1(c))
-
Establishes a Patient and Caregiver Registry. A confidential registry
of medical marijuana patients will be created so that law enforcement agents
can verify that a person is an authorized medical marijuana patient or
"attendant." (Sec. 38.1(d))
-
Creates a Medical Marijuana Supply for Patients. Requires the legislature
to authorize "appropriate methods for supply of the plant to patients�."
(Sec. 38.1(e))
-
Continues Prohibition on Non-Medical and Public Use. If passed,
this constitutional amendment would not authorize the non-medical possession
and use of marijuana, as well as public use and possession.
-
Does not require insurance companies to reimburse patients or employers
to accommodate medical marijuana use in a place of employment.
Prospects for Passage
47% in favor, 44% against
source: Mason-Dixon poll, conducted on behalf of the
Las Vegas Review Journal, October 4.
OREGON
� Measure 57 �
Referendum on H.B. 3643,
Recriminalization of Marijuana
Organizational Sponsor: No on 57
Contact(s): Jeff Sugarman or David Smigelski, (503) 371-6222
Endorsements
ACLU � Oregon
Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon
Democratic Party of Oregon
Opponents
Oregonians Against Drugs
Background
Citizens for Sensible Law Enforcement submitted over 90,000 signatures
to the secretary of state�s office on October 3, 1997 to have a statewide
vote on H.B. 3643, which recriminalized marijuana in Oregon. The state
was the first in the nation to decriminalize marijuana in 1973, when it
made marijuana offenses a non-criminal violation, punishable by a fine
of $500 to $1,000. H.B. 3643 would have made the personal possession of
marijuana a class "C" misdemeanor punishable by up to 30 days in jail,
a $1,000 fine, and loss of a driver�s license.
The legislature estimated that it could cost the state up to $1.5 million
per year in jail, court, and attorney costs. It also estimated that approximately
6,000 marijuana offenders would be arrested under the new law, half of
which would spend a night in jail and pay a fine.
Because the legislation was put on the ballot, marijuana has not been
recriminalized in Oregon at this time, but will take effect if the voters
approve of Measure 57. If voters vote "no" on Measure 57, marijuana will
remain a non-criminal violation.
Key Provisions
-
Makes the personal possession of marijuana a class "C" misdemeanor punishable
by up to 30 days in jail and a fine of $500 to $1,000. (Sec. 1� ORS 475.992(4)(f))
-
Persons who do not complete a "possession of marijuana diversion agreement"
will have their driver�s license suspended for six months. (Sec. 4 � ORS
809.410(36))
-
Allocates $600,000 to pay for increased costs to the criminal justice system.
(Sec. 6)
Prospects for Passage
38% in favor, 54% against
source: Davis and
Hibbits poll, conducted for The Oregonian, October 11
OREGON
� Measure 67 �
Oregon Medical Marijuana Act
Organizational Sponsor: Oregonians for Medical Rights
Contact(s): Jeff Sugarman or David Smigelski, (503) 371-4711
Website: http://www.teleport.com/~omr
Endorsements
The Register-Guard (Eugene, Oregon)
Willamette Week
Albany Democrat-Herald
Oregon Coalition of Black Men
ACLU � Oregon
Oregon Physicians for Social Resonsibility
Opponents
Oregonians Against Dangerous Drugs
Background
Oregonians for Medical Rights submitted 97,648 signatures to the secretary
of state�s office, while being required to submit approximately 73,261.
In Oregon, signatures are checked by scientific sampling. The campaign
had a validity rate of approximately 79 percent; it needed a 75 percent
validity rate. The initiative qualified on July 10.
Key Provisions
-
Establishes Patient and Caregiver Rights. Allows patients who hold
or have applied for a registry identification card to possess, deliver,
or produce marijuana for medical purposes. A designated primary caregiver
of such a patient can possess deliver, or produce marijuana for the patient
as well. (Sec. 4(1))
-
Lists Specific Medical Conditions. Patients with the following "debilitating
medical conditions" are eligible to receive a registry identification card:
cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, cachexia, severe pain, severe nausea, seizures,
or persistent muscle spasms, including multiple sclerosis. New conditions
and diseases can be added by petitioning the Oregon Department of Human
Resources. (Sec. 3; Sec. 14)
-
Establishes Patient and Caregiver Registry. Patients seeking a registry
identification card must provide the Oregon Department of Human Resources
with a fee (to be established), as well as the following information: (1)
"[v]alid, written documentation" from a physician stating that they have
been diagnosed with an approved "debilitating medical condition" and that
marijuana should be used in their treatment; (2) their name, address, and
date of birth; (3) the name, address, and telephone number of their physician;
and, (4) the name and address of their designated primary caregiver. Patients
under 18 must have a parent or guardian approve the medical marijuana use
and agree to "control the acquisition of marijuana" as well as the dosage
and frequency of use. (Sec. 4(2); Sec. 4(3))
-
Ensures Registry Confidentiality. Requires the Oregon Department
of Human Resources to maintain a confidential list of registered medical
marijuana patients and designated primary caregivers. Names on the list
can be released to authorized employees of the department and authorized
state and local law enforcement agents to verify that a person is a registered
patient or a designated caregiver. (Sec. 12)
-
Provides Legal Defense for Non-Registered Patients. Affirms that
patients with a debilitating medical condition who do not have a registry
identification card can use an affirmative medical necessity defense if
they have been criminally charged for possessing or growing marijuana.
An affirmative defense can be used by a defendant who has a physician�s
recommendation to use marijuana for medicinal purposes and possesses no
more marijuana than is allowed under Measure 67. Otherwise, a person may
use a "choice of evils" defense (ORS 161.200) to defend their medical marijuana
use. (Sec. 6)
-
Sets Limits on Permitted Marijuana Quantities. A patient and his/her
caregiver can "collectively possess, deliver, or produce": (1) one ounce
of marijuana if at a location where marijuana is not produced, or (2) three
mature marijuana plants, four immature plants, and one ounce of usable
marijuana (dried leaves and flowers) per mature plant if at a location
where marijuana is produced. An affirmative, medical necessity defense
is available to persons who possess more than these amounts if a greater
amount of marijuana is needed to alleviate a patient�s medical condition.
(Sec. 7)
-
Sets Content Requirements of I.D. Cards. Registry identification
cards are issued to both approved patients and caregivers and contain the
following cardholder information: (1) name, address, and date of birth;
(2) date of issuance and expiration date of the card; (3) name and address
of the primary caregiver; and, (4) other information to be determined by
the Oregon Department of Human Resources.
-
Requires Annual Permit Renewal. Every year the patient must submit
updated written documentation regarding his/her medical condition. If a
doctor no longer considers marijuana necessary for the treatment of a patient,
that patient (and his/her caregiver) must return the registry identification
card within seven days of diagnosis. (Sec. 4(7)(a)(ii); Sec. 4(8))
-
Temporarily Protects Registry Applicants. Persons who are in the
application process for a registry identification card may use their written
documentation as a temporary registry identification card until their application
has been approved or denied. (Sec. 4(9))
-
Prohibits Certain Activities by Patients. Prohibits patients from
driving under the influence of marijuana; using marijuana in public; delivering
marijuana to persons without a registry identification card; or delivering
marijuana "for consideration" to any individual, even holders of a registry
identification card. Persons who violate any of the provisions of this
act may be precluded from obtaining a registry identification card for
up to six months. (Sec. 5)
-
Protects Patients and Caregivers Against Searches and Forfeiture. Establishes
that possession of a registry identification card shall not alone constitute
probable cause to search a cardholder or their property. Property connected
to the medical use of marijuana cannot be forfeited, and if it is seized
by law enforcement it cannot be "harmed, neglected, injured or destroyed"
while retained by a state or local law enforcement agency. (Section 8)
-
Protects Doctors Against Penalties. Protects doctors from being
penalized for discussing the medical use of marijuana with their patients
or for providing the written documentation necessary for a patient to receive
a registry identification card. (Sec. 9)
-
Protects Patients and Caregivers Against Losing Licenses. Prohibits
professional licensing boards from taking disciplinary action against licensees
who are registered medical marijuana users or designated primary caregivers.
(Sec. 10)
-
Limits Number of Caregivers. Patients may have only one designated
primary caregiver at a time. (Sec. 13)
-
Limits Requirements for the Government, Insurance Companies, and Empoyers.
Does not require a government assistance program or private health
insurer to reimburse a patient for medical marijuana purchases, nor does
it require an employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in the
workplace. (Sec. 16)
-
All provisions except sections 4, 12, and 14 take effect on December 3,
1998. The other sections take effect May 1, 1999.
Prospects for Passage
59% in favor, 37% against
source: Davis and Hibbits poll, conducted for The Oregonian,
October 11.
WASHINGTON
� Initiative 692 �
Washington State Medical Use of
Marijuana Act
Organizational Sponsor: Washington Citizens for Medical
Rights
Contact(s): Rob Killian, MD, Tim Killian (206) 781-7716
Website: http://www.eventure.com/i692
Background
This is the second drug policy reform initiative that Dr. Rob Killian has
succeeded in placing on the ballot in Washington. The first initiative
was I-685, "The Drug Medicalization and Prevention Act of 1997," which
was rejected by 60 percent of Washington voters. It was modeled after Arizona�s
Proposition 200, which passed in 1996. I-685 would have allowed doctors
to recommend Schedule I drugs such as marijuana, heroin, and LSD if they
had scientific research and a second doctor�s recommendation to support
such use, as well as would have released non-violent drug offenders from
jail or prison, and required first- and second-time non-violent drug offenders
to enter treatment rather than be incarcerated.
Despite the fact that I-685 failed to pass, there appeared to be much
support for medical marijuana. Exit polls for I-685 showed that 46 percent
of persons opposed to the initiative would support a medicinal marijuana
initiative. Seeing public support for the issue, two state senators (Sens.
Jeanne Kohl, D-Seattle and Bob McCaslin, R-Spokane) agreed to introduce
a medical marijuana bill (S.B. 6271) in the 1998 legislative session. That
effort failed, however, and an initiative similar to S.B. 6271 was written
and circulated to be placed on the 1998 ballot.
On July 10, the I-692 campaign submitted over 250,000 signatures to
the Secretary of State. On July 30 the initiative was certified for the
November 3 ballot.
Key Provisions
-
Prohibits the Non-Medical Use of Marijuana. Growing, selling, purchasing,
and using marijuana for non-medical purposes is illegal. Fraudulently producing
or tampering with records to receive medical marijuana is a class C felony.
(Sec. 3; Sec. 8.5)
-
Provides Medical Marijuana Patients with an Affirmative Defense
in Court. Any qualifying patient or primary caregiver has an "affirmative
defense" in court against charges of violating the state�s marijuana laws.
(Sec. 5)
-
Defines What Medical Conditions Qualify for Medical Marijuana Treatment.
"Qualifying patients" are persons with cancer, HIV, multiple sclerosis,
epilepsy, seizure disorders, spasticity disorders, intractable pain, glaucoma,
or "[a]ny other medical condition duly approved by the Washington state
medical quality assurance board." (Sec. 6.4)
-
Limits the Amount of Marijuana a Patient Can Legally Possess. Patients
cannot possess more than a sixty-day supply of marijuana .
-
Requires Written Documentation From a Doctor to Be a Qualifying Patient.
A patient must be a Washington state resident with a statement signed
by his/her physician, or a copy of the relevant medical record, which states
that the benefits of the patient�s medical use of marijuana outweigh the
health risks of such use. (Sec. 6.3; Sec. 6.5)
-
Establishes Requirements for Primary Caregivers. A primary caregiver
of a qualifying medical marijuana patient must be 18 years of age or older,
"responsible for the housing, health, or care" of the patient, and be "designated
in writing" by the patient. (Sec. 6.2)
-
Protects Physicians Who Advise Patients to Use Medicinal Marijuana.
Physicians "shall not be penalized in any manner, or denied any right
or privilege" for advising a qualifying patient about the benefits of marijuana,
or for providing a patient with documentation showing that the potential
benefits of medical marijuana outweigh the health risks for the patient.
(Sec. 4)
-
Protects Patients� Property From Forfeiture. The forfeiture or seizure
of property for the lawful possession or manufacture of medical marijuana
is prohibited. (Sec. 7.1)
-
Protects Persons in the Vicinity of Medicinal Marijuana. People
cannot be criminally prosecuted for solely being "in the presence or vicinity
of medical marijuana." (Sec. 7.2)
-
Limits the State�s Liability. The state is prevented from being
held liable for "any deleterious outcomes" from the use of medical marijuana.
(Sec. 7.3)
-
Prohibits the Public Use of Medicinal Marijuana. It is a misdemeanor
offense to publicly use or display medical marijuana. (Sec.8.1)
-
Exempts Health Insurance Companies from Paying for Medical Marijuana.
Health insurance companies are not required to reimburse patients for
medical marijuana purchases. (Sec. 8.2)
-
Does Not Require the Accommodation of Medicinal Marijuana Use in a Variety
of Circumstances. The medical use of marijuana does not have to be
accommodated in places of employment, on school buses or school grounds,
or in youth centers. (Sec. 8.4)
-
Does Not Protect Patients Who Endanger Others. Patients who endanger
"the health or well-being of any person through the use of a motorized
vehicle on a street, road, or highway" cannot use their medical marijuana
use as an affirmative defense. (Sec. 8.6)
-
Provides for the Addition of Illnesses That Can Be Treated with Medical
Marijuana. Physicians and patients can add new medical conditions to
be treated with medicinal marijuana by petitioning the Washington state
medical quality assurance board or another agency designated by the governor.
(Sec. 9)
Prospects for Passage
59% in favor, 35% against
source: Mason-Dixon poll conducted for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer,
October 17
RESOURCES
State Campaigns
Alaska
Alaskans for Medical Rights
Contact: David Finkelstein
Ph: (907) 277-AKMR
Fax: (907) 277-2565
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.alaskalife.net/AKMR/
Website contains the text and summary of Proposition 8, as well
as medical marijuana research.
Arizona
The People Have Spoken
Contact: Sam Vagenas
Ph: (602) 222-6639
Colorado
Coloradans For Medical Rights
Contact: Luther Symons
Ph: (303) 394-0440
Fax: (303) 394-9135
Web: http://www.medicalmarijuana.com
Website contains the text and summary of Initiative 19, facts about
medical marijuana, and frequently-asked-questions.
District of Columbia
Washingtonians for the Legalization of Medical Marijuana/Yes on 59
Contact: Wayne Turner
Phone: (202) 547-9404
Web: http://www.actupdc.org
Website contains the text and summary of Initiative 59, press releases,
and legal documents pertaining to the initiative.
Nevada
Nevadans for Medical Rights
Contact: Dan Geary or Dan Hart
Phone: (702) 259-0300
Fax: (702) 259-7708
Oregon
No on 57
Contact: Jeff Sugarman or David Smigelski
Phone: (503) 371-6222
Fax: (503) 371-4720
Oregonians for Medical Rights
Contact: Jeff Sugarman or David Smigelski
Phone: (503) 371-4711
Fax: (503) 371-4720
Web: http://www.teleport.com/~omr
Washington
Washington Citizens for Medical Rights
Contact: Dr. Rob Killian or Tim Killian
Phone: (206) 781-7716
Fax: (206) 324-3101
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.eventure.com/i692
Website contains the text and summary of Initiative 692, press releases,
and information about the organization and its supporters.
National Organizations
Americans for Medical Rights
Contact: Dave Fratello
Phone: (310) 394-2952
Fax: (310) 451-7494
Email: [email protected]
National group that is organizing medical marijuana initiatives
in Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington state.
Drug Policy Foundation
Contacts: Sher Horosko, Executive Director; H. Alexander Robinson,
Public Policy Director
Phone: (202) 537-5005
Fax: (202) 537-3007
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.dpf.org
National organization that educates the public about drug policy
reform issues. Among its many programs is the Medical Marijuana Support
Fund, a grant program that aids medical marijuana patients and efforts
to make policy changes.
Marijuana Policy Project
Contact: Robert Kampia, Government Affairs Director; Chuck Thomas,
Communications Director
Phone: (202) 462-5747
Fax: (202) 232-0442
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.mpp.org
National organization that is helping to organize volunteers for
Initiative 59. Educates the public and advocates on behalf of marijuana
law reform.
National Oranization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)
Contact: Keith Stroup, Executive Director
Phone: (202) 483-5500
Fax: (202) 483-0057
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.norml.org
The nation�s oldest drug policy reform group. NORML advocates on
behalf of marijuana policy reform.
About
the Drug Policy Foundation
DPF has over 17,000 supporters throughout the United States.
DPF�s long-term goal is to change the nation�s approach and attitude toward
drug use and drug users, including comprehensive legislative and regulatory
reform of our nation�s drug laws. DPF is committed to the enactment
of U.S. drug policies that respect individual rights, encourage individual
responsibility, protect children and adolescents, and ensure public health
by lessening the harms associated with drug use.
Since its founding in 1986, the Drug Policy Foundation has researched
and promoted alternatives to current drug policies. The Drug Policy
Letter, DPF�s quarterly journal, and the annual International Conference
on Drug Policy Reform have provided a forum for the discussion of a variety
of reform proposals�from allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana to presenting
coherent and comprehensive plans for reform.
Through its public policy program activities DPF evaluates and disseminates
timely information on foreign and domestic alternatives to the current
drug policies, advocates for reform, and seeks to build public support
for reform by stimulating grassroots activism.
Finally, DPF�s Grant Program provides funding for local, state, national
and international advocacy, public education, and innovative harm reduction
services that effectively respond to the harms created by drug abuse and
by the current drug policies.
to the DRCNet home page