|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
US: Election 2002: The Initiatives
DRCNet The Week Online, Issue #259
Friday 18 Oct 2002 With the November elections less than three weeks away, initiatives on the ballot in Arizona, the District of Columbia, Nevada, Ohio and South Dakota are putting different elements of drug reform or related issues to the popular vote. Medical marijuana is on the ballot in Arizona and Nevada, as is the decriminalization or regulation of personal marijuana use; different varieties of sentencing reform are on the Arizona, DC, and Ohio initiatives; and industrial hemp and a cousin to jury nullification are on the South Dakota ballot. Details: Election 2002: Arizona http://www.drcnet.org/wol/259.html#arizona Voters in Arizona will consider two competing initiatives with very different emphases. Proposition 203, the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act of 2002, sponsored by The People Have Spoken, is a multifaceted reform effort that builds on successful initiatives by the same group in 1996 and 1998. The initiative would decriminalize marijuana possession, require the state Department of Public Safety to distribute medical marijuana to qualified patients, eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession, require a sentence of probation -- not jail -- for a drug possession offense, allow judges to order drug offenders to treatment but not to jail them if they fail, and require parole for everyone convicted of personal possession of any drug. While opponents, including drug czar John Walters, who was in the state to campaign against the initiative last week, have criticized every aspect of the initiative, it is the provision barring judges from jailing drug offenders for violating treatment orders that sparked an opposition initiative. Proposition 302, spearheaded by Maricopa County Prosecutor Rick Romley, who aspires to be national drug czar some day, would allow judges to impose jail time or revoke probation for persons who failed or refused drug treatment. The Arizona law enforcement establishment is solidly opposed to Prop. 203, as are both major party gubernatorial candidates, Democrat Janet Napolitano and Republican Matt Salmon, who stood flanking Walters at a news conference last week. But that doesn't seem to make much difference to Arizona voters, who appear poised to pass the reform. The $1.3 million put into the campaign by University of Phoenix founder John Sperling may have something to do with that. While opponents make generous use of their public offices to attack the initiative, in terms of real campaign contributions they have raised only $75,000. The most recent statewide poll, conducted between September 26 and 29 by the Social Research Laboratory at Northern Arizona University, showed Prop. 203 leading with 53% support. Even Romley, point man for the Arizona drug war, appears to have conceded defeat. "I strongly suspect that it will pass," he told the Arizona Daily Sun on October 1. No polling data exists for Prop 302. Prop 203 as it appears on the ballot: Decriminalizes marijuana possession for personal use; $250 civil fine; Requires state to distribute marijuana free of charge upon physician's written documentation; Increases maximum penalty for violent crimes committed under influence of drugs; Eliminates mandatory minimum sentences; Requires parole if convicted of personal possession of controlled substance unless danger to public. A "yes" vote shall have the effect of decriminalizing marijuana possession for personal use, providing for a $250 civil fine, requiring distribution of marijuana free of charge by the Department of Public Safety if a person's physician provides written documentation, increases the maximum sentence for violent crimes while committed under the influence of drugs, eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for drugs, requires parole for persons convicted of personal possession of a controlled substance unless they are a danger to the public. A "no" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current criminal penalties for possession of marijuana and other controlled substances. Proposition 302 as it appears on the ballot: Allows court to impose term of incarceration if person convicted of personal possession or use of controlled substance or drug paraphernalia violates probation by committing another drug- related offense or refusing to participate in drug treatment, or if the person refuses drug treatment or rejects probation at the time of sentencing. A "yes" vote shall have the effect of allowing a court to impose a term of incarceration if a person convicted of personal possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia violates probation by committing a drug-related offense or violates a court order relating to drug treatment, or if the person refuses drug treatment or rejects probation at sentencing. A "no" vote shall have the effect of not allowing a court to impose a term of incarceration for persons convicted of possession of a controlled substance for personal use. For complete initiative language, visit: http://www.sosaz.com/election/2002/info/pubpamphlet/english/prop203.htm http://www.sosaz.com/election/2002/info/pubpamphlet/english/prop302.htm ================ Election 2002: District of Columbia http://www.drcnet.org/wol/259.html#districtofcolumbia Measure 62, the "Treatment Instead of Jail for Certain Non-Violent Drug Offenders Initiative of 2002," would allow persons charged with drug possession to request drug treatment in lieu of facing criminal charges. Judges could order a treatment program of up to 12 months (with a maximum extension to 18 months in some circumstances), upon completion of which the drug possession charges would be dropped. But the measure does not apply to Schedule 1 drugs, meaning people arrested for possession of marijuana, heroin, LSD, or ecstasy would not be able to ask for treatment. Washington has a significant heroin-using population. It also has a significant cocaine-using population. Because cocaine is a Schedule II drug, cocaine users would be covered. According to Opio Sokoni, campaign coordinator for Measure 62, the decision to exclude Schedule I drugs was an effort to avoid conflicts with the city's congressional overseers. Under the so- called "Barr amendment," the District is barred from spending any funds to implement any laws that would reduce penalties for Schedule I drug offenses. Former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), spearheaded the blocking measure to thwart a 1998 medical marijuana initiative. Last month, a federal court in the district upheld the Barr amendment, knocking a medical marijuana initiative organized by the Marijuana Policy Project off the ballot. Measure 62 has garnered almost no press attention and no organized opposition. Sokoni smells victory in November. "Sixty percent would be a mandate for change," he told DRCNet, "but we're looking for 70%." The DC Board of Elections and Ethics has not posted the measure on its web site. Under DC law, newspapers cannot print sample ballots until October 29. Visit http://www.dcmeasure62.com/fulltext.tpl to view the full text of Measure 62. ================ Election 2002: Nevada http://www.drcnet.org/wol/259.html#nevada On November 5, Nevada voters will vote on legalizing the possession of up to three ounces of marijuana. Question 9, as the initiative is known, also calls for the state government to create a system of taxed and regulated marijuana cultivation, sales and distribution. Because the measure seeks to amend the state constitution, under Nevada law it must be approved by voters twice. If Question 9 passes next month, it would then appear on the 2004 ballot for second approval. The Nevada initiative, sponsored by Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement (http://www.nrle.org) and its parent group, the Marijuana Policy Project (http://www.mpp.org), has already succeeding in placing the issue squarely on the national political agenda. It has generated press coverage from around the country and drawn the ire of national drug warriors. Drug czar John Walters has twice traveled to the state to deliver his prohibitionist message that regulating marijuana is "a lie, "a con" and "ludicrous." The repeated intervention of national drug war bureaucrats may be backfiring. The state's largest newspaper, the Las Vegas Review Journal, hardly a hotbed of pro-pot sentiment, scorched Walters in a Monday editorial that ran under the headline, "Federal Drug Czar Meddles in an Issue Nevadans Must Decide." Noting that Walters consistently hammered at campaign organizers as "out of state" carpetbaggers spending millions of dollars on "inaccurate campaigns," the editorial tartly asked: "As opposed to Mr. Walters jetting to Nevada from the Beltway to slam the measure?" The newspaper accused Walters of "duplicity" for saying one hand that his office would not spend money or resources to defeat the initiative, then twice visiting the state to campaign against it. The editorial also accused Walters of lying about marijuana addiction before concluding that: "Nevadans are capable of acting like grown-ups and deciding whether we wish to maintain the current, Draconian set of penalties against the possession and use of small amounts of marijuana. We need no help from our 'betters' in Washington, DC." But Walters isn't the only clown in this circus. The campaign against Question 9, which has been marked by outrageous rhetoric, probably reached its nadir last week, when Clark County Assistant District Attorney Gary Booker, leader of the prohibitionist campaign, and Democratic gubernatorial candidate state Sen. Joe Neal, claimed that "drug cartels" were funding the initiative. When challenged, they cited Lyndon LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review, a crankish publication that also claims the Queen of England is behind the international drug trade. Many howls of derision were heard, and Booker has since been replaced as lead spokesman for the anti crowd. As the final weeks approach, both sides are engaged in paid advertising campaigns seeking to sway voters. This race is too close to call. Polls in recent months have alternated between showing a Question 9 victory and a defeat. According to a poll conducted last week for the Marijuana Policy Project, the race is in a dead heat, with 46% in favor, 46% opposed and 8% undecided. Question 9 on the ballot: Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow the use and possession of three ounces or less of marijuana by persons aged 21 years or older, to require the Legislature to provide or maintain penalties for using, distributing, selling or possessing marijuana under certain circumstances, and to provide a system of regulation for the cultivation, taxation, sale and distribution of marijuana? Visit http://sos.state.nv.us/nvelection/2002_bq/bq9.htm for complete initiative language and related items. ================ Election 2002: Ohio http://www.drcnet.org/wol/259.html#ohio Issue 1, a "treatment not jail" initiative sponsored by the Campaign for New Drug Policies (http://www.cndp.org), has become a largely partisan campaign issue, with the state's Republican political establishment, headed by Gov. Robert Taft and his drug warrior wife, Hope, working with drug war bureaucrats from the Bush administration to defeat the measure. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tim Hagan has endorsed the initiative, and press reports this week indicated that the high rollers behind the effort may be shifting their last minute advertising buys from supporting the initiative to supporting Hagan. That is a clear sign that the initiative is in serious trouble. Reform backers are reading the same polls as everyone else, and the news isn't good. A mid-September poll for the Cleveland Plain Dealer found the measure losing, 55% to 30%, while an October 6 poll for the Columbus Dispatch had similar results, with the measure failing by 51% to 31%. Supporters of Issue 1 have accused Gov. Taft and other state officials of illegally interfering with the initiative (visit http://www.ips-dc.org/projects/drugpolicy/ohio.htm for an investigative report by Dan Forbes) and also cried foul over the language that will appear on the ballot. The ballot language says the measure will cost $247 million for drug treatment over seven years, but doesn't explain that the measure would generate huge savings in corrections costs. "If we can't pass drug reform in Ohio through the initiative process because the governor's stacked the deck against us, it makes more sense for us to try to change who the governor is," CNDP strategist Bill Zimmerman told the Associated Press on Tuesday. "It would be to shift resources to an independent expenditure committee that supports Hagan and opposes Taft." DRCNet did not know as of press time whether a final decision had been made. Issue 1 on the ballot: To adopt Section 24 of Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Ohio. In order to provide for persons charged with or convicted of illegal possession or use of a drug, in certain circumstances, to choose treatment instead of incarceration, to require the state to spend two hundred forty-seven million dollars ($247,000,000) over seven (7) fiscal years to pay for the drug treatment programs, to allow the applicable records of offenders who complete treatment instead of incarceration for illegal drug use and possession to be sealed and kept confidential for most purposes, and to limit the maximum sentence to ninety (90) days incarceration that eligible first-time, second-time, and certain repeat illegal drug possession or use offenders could serve, this amendment would: 1. Require a court to order treatment instead of incarceration for first-time or second-time offenders charged with or convicted of illegal possession or use of a drug who request treatment, have not been convicted of or imprisoned for a violent felony within five years of committing the current offense, have not been sentenced to a term of incarceration that would interfere with participation in treatment, and in the same proceeding have not been convicted of or charged with other drug-related offenses or misdemeanors involving theft, violence or the threat of violence. 2. Allow a court to order treatment instead of incarceration for eligible repeat offenders charged with or convicted of illegal possession or use of a drug who request treatment, and for offenders charged with or convicted of illegal possession or use of a drug who are also charged with or convicted of other nonviolent offenses resulting from drug abuse or addiction and who request treatment. 3. Create a Substance Abuse Treatment Fund and require the state to spend a total of two hundred and forty-seven million dollars ($247,000,000) to pay for the treatment, breaking down to nineteen million dollars ($19,000,000) for the remainder of the 2003 fiscal year and thirty-eight million dollars ($38,000,000) annually through fiscal year 2009, in addition to requiring the state to maintain its current spending to fund existing substance abuse treatment programs through fiscal year 2009, and to require the state to continue to provide adequate resources for these purposes after fiscal year 2009. 4. Limit the period of treatment a court may impose to not more than twelve (12) months, allow an extension of the treatment period for not more than six (6) more months, and allow court supervision of an offender for up to ninety (90) days after treatment. 5. Limit the sentencing of first-time, second-time, and certain repeat offenders who are eligible for treatment but who either do not request treatment or do not meet the terms of the treatment to a maximum of ninety (90) days incarceration for illegal possession or use of a drug. 6. Limit the authority of judges who place eligible offenders into treatment to remove those offenders from the programs. 7. Require a court to dismiss legal proceedings against an offender without a finding of guilt if the offender completes the treatment. 8. Allow an offender who successfully completes the treatment to have applicable records sealed and to have the conviction that prompted the request for treatment expunged, and require that the sealed or expunged records be kept confidential except for specified law enforcement and court related purposes. Visit http://www.state.oh.us/sos/2002Iss1Gen.htm for further information on the Question. ================ Election 2002: South Dakota http://www.drcnet.org/wol/259.html#southdakota Two measures of interest to drug reformers are on the South Dakota ballot. Initiative 1 would legalize industrial hemp production, but it is the other measure, Constitutional Amendment A, that has gotten notice from around the country. Amendment A would allow defendants in criminal cases to effectively seek jury nullification by arguing that the law under which they are charged in invalid, unfair, inapplicable or just plain dumb. Matthew Ducheneaux, a Lakota Indian who was arrested for smoking marijuana for medical reasons, has been the poster-child for the effort. Ducheneaux was convicted after South Dakota courts refused to allow him to use a medical necessity defense. But Amendment A supporters are currently engaged in a search for the most outrageous examples of courtroom abuse and are offering $2,002 for the worst case. The winner, if that's the right word, will be announced October 31. Amendment A is opposed by the South Dakota legal establishment. Both major party candidates for attorney general are united in opposition, as is the South Dakota Bar Association and the South Dakota Trial Lawyers Association. While its supporters, led by Bob Newland of Hermosa, are low on funds, they are high on energy and have argued the question in public forums and newspaper commentaries across the state. There have been no published polls on Amendment A, and Newland told DRCNet he couldn't tell what will happen on Election Day. But Newland added that the opposition had only recently been agreeing to debates. "It's just now that the lawyers are coming out to face us," he said. "They wouldn't be doing that if they didn't think they were losing, so we're feeling pretty good about that." Although Amendment A has stirred more interest than the industrial hemp initiative, both have been largely ignored as the state focuses on the highly contested battle for the US Senate seat currently held by Democrat Tim Johnson, who is being challenged by Republican John Thune in a race that has seen out-of-state money pour in in what is widely viewed as a surrogate battle between Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) and President Bush. The Sioux Falls Argus Leader, the state's largest newspaper, reported that its poll showed the hemp initiative losing with only 21% of the vote, leaving Newland mystified. "Our poll last year showed 85% approval, but that was a push poll, so that figure is probably too high. But the results were so encouraging we thought we had it in the bag," he said. "I find the Argus Leader numbers very hard to swallow, but all I can say, I guess, is that we're somewhere between 21% and 85% approval." Amendment A on the ballot: Title: An amendment to Article VI, Section 7 of the Constitution, relating to the rights of a criminal defendant. Attorney General Explanation: The Constitution currently guarantees certain rights to a person accused of a crime. Amendment A would amend the Constitution to state that a criminal defendant may argue the merits, validity, and applicability of the law, including sentencing laws. A vote "Yes" will change the Constitution. A vote "No" will leave the Constitution as it is. Full Text of Constitutional Amendment A: That Article VI, section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, be amended to read as follows: 7. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to defend in person and by counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him; to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses against him face to face; to have compulsory process served for obtaining witnesses in his behalf; and to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed; and to argue the merits, validity, and applicability of the law, including the sentencing laws. The hemp initiative on the ballot: Title: An initiated measure adopting a law relating to industrial hemp (cannabis). Attorney General Explanation: Initiated Measure 1 proposes a law that would make it legal under state law, but not under federal law, for a person to plant, cultivate, harvest, possess, process, transport, sell or buy industrial hemp (cannabis) or any of its by-products with a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of one percent or less. A vote "Yes" would adopt the state law. A vote "No" would leave state law as it is. Full Text of Initiated Measure 1: Any person may plant, cultivate, harvest, possess, process, transport, sell or buy industrial hemp (cannabis) or any of its by-products with a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of one percent or less. Visit http://www.state.sd.us/sos/2002/2002bq.htm for further initiative information. ================ Election 2002: Local Ballot Issues in San Francisco and Massachusetts http://www.drcnet.org/wol/259.html#localissues In addition to a handful of statewide initiatives this year, drug policy issues are showing up in local elections in California and Massachusetts. In the Golden State, San Francisco is poised to give a collective poke in the eye to the federal government's anti-medical marijuana crusade, while in the Bay State, voters in selected districts will decide on a series of related pot and medical marijuana issues. SAN FRANCISCO Reacting to an escalating pattern of DEA raids against medical marijuana providers in the state, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted in July to ask voters whether the city government should explore growing and distributing its own medical marijuana supply. Supervisor Mark Leno, a long-time medical marijuana supporter, was the motivating force behind the measure. "Yes, this does challenge federal law and the DEA," he told a news conference at the time. "It has to be done. No one should have to go on the street to find this medicine." A yes vote on the measure would allow city officials to begin examining how to put such a system together, but would not commit the city to getting into the medical marijuana business. If San Francisco actually moved to implement such a system, court challenges from the federal government would be a near certainty. While DRCNet is aware of no polling on the issue, called Proposition S on the ballot, San Francisco has long been a bastion of support for medical marijuana. The city health department has issued more than 3,700 ID cards for certified medical marijuana patients, accounting for more than 10% of all medical marijuana patients in the state. Last year, the city declared itself a sanctuary for medical marijuana patients. On the ballot: (Proposition S) Medical Marijuana The Way it is Now: The City does not grow or distribute marijuana. The Proposal: Proposition S is a Declaration of Policy which states that the Mayor, Board of Supervisors, District Attorney, City Attorney and Department of Public Health shall explore the possibility of creating a program to grow and distribute marijuana for medical use. A Yes" Vote Means: If you vote "Yes," you want it to be City policy to consider growing and distributing marijuana for medical use. A "No" Vote Means: If you vote "No," you do not want it to be City policy to consider growing and distributing marijuana for medical use. MASSACHUSETTS Medical marijuana, marijuana decriminalization and industrial hemp initiatives are on the ballot in 47 towns and cities, including 20 of the state's 170 House districts. Yes votes on the initiatives instruct lawmakers to vote in favor of medical marijuana, decriminalization, or hemp, depending on the district. Another drug policy-related initiative would instruct lawmakers to vote for a resolution against US policy in Colombia. The marijuana initiatives campaign, largely organized by the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, the Massachusetts NORML affiliate and sponsor of the annual Freedom Rally at Boston Commons, builds on a similar effort in the 2000 elections, when 18 cities and towns passed like-minded measures by a two-to-one margin. On the ballot (in 16 districts in Norfolk, Plymouth, Suffolk, and Worchester): "Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would make possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a civil violation, subject to a maximum fine of $100 and not subject to any criminal penalties?" On the ballot (in three districts in Essex): "Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to introduce and vote for legislation making possession of marijuana a civil violation, like a traffic ticket instead of a criminal offense, and requiring the police to hold a person under 18 who is cited for possession until the person is released to a parent or legal guardian or brought before a judge?" On the ballot (in Worchester's 14th District): "Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote for legislation that would allow patients with certain diseases, who have a written doctor's recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of Cannabis marijuana for their personal use until such time that the federal government puts into effect a distribution system for these patients?" On the ballot (in Franklin's 2nd District): "Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would allow licensed farmers in Massachusetts to grow Cannabis hemp a crop with a 1 percent or less, THC, the active ingredient in marijuana for legitimate agricultural and industrial purposes?" On the ballot (in Norfolk's 15th District): "Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote for a resolution calling upon Congress and the President of the United States to immediately withdraw all troops from Colombia, to stop all gifts of money and weapons to the Colombian army, and to use all $1 billion requested for the Colombian army within the US for urgent health care needs?" Visit http://www.masscann.org/politics_2002.htm for further information on the initiatives and districts involved. ================
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!