3 drug policy reforms fail; advocates to keep fighting

Though major drug policy reform measures failed in three states
Tuesday, supporters of the initiatives have said the movement to
change the enforcement policies of drug usage ““ and marijuana
usage in particular ““ is not dead.

“These initiatives may have been ahead of our their time,
but similar initiatives will sweep the country soon enough,”
said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of Drug Policy Alliance, a
nationwide organization that advocates for new drug policies.
“Yesterday’s losses were a tough blow, but we see them
as just a bump in the road.”

Voters in San Francisco and Washington, D.C. passed drug policy
reforms Tuesday, but significant measures were rejected in Arizona,
Ohio and Nevada.

Advocates for drug policy change were not deterred, though.

The results bring the total number of victories for drug policy
reform to 19 out of 24 since 1996, according to Nadelmann.

Measure S in San Francisco received nearly 63 percent of the
vote, allowing the city government to explore the possibility of
creating a program to grow and distribute marijuana to patients who
seek treatment under Proposition 215, California’s
Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which legalized the medical use of
marijuana.

San Francisco Supervisor Mark Leno, the proposition’s
author, said the program is in response to recent federal Drug
Enforcement Agency crackdowns on medical cannabis clubs that serve
patients with AIDS, cancer and other diseases.

The measure is the first in the country that could possibly put
the city government in charge of growth and distribution, according
to Sue North, chief of staff to Senator John Vasconcellos, D-San
Jose, who supported Measure S.

“The state law allowing the use of medical marijuana
conflicts with a federal law that says marijuana has no role other
than as an illegal substance,” North said.

North said it is not clear whether the federal Drug Enforcement
Agency will challenge the measure.

Washington D.C.’s Measure 62, modeled after existing
policies in Arizona and California, gives non-violent offenders
access to treatment instead of jail. The measure received 78
percent of the vote, but a similar issue in Ohio was defeated by a
2-1 margin.

Proponents of Ohio’s Issue 1 said the wording on the
ballot misled voters on the fiscal impact.

“It was indicating the cost of the initiative, but never
indicating the savings,” said Bill Zimmerman, executive
director of Campaign for New Drug Policies for Drug Policy
Alliance.

Proponents of Issue 1 said the annual cost of treatment averages
$3,500, while a prison inmate costs $23,000. Issue 1 required the
state to invest $38 million annually in treatment for six years,
but, according to Zimmerman, the state would net $21 million each
year.

However, all major Ohio newspapers and dozens of religious,
business and victim groups like Mothers against Drunk Driving
opposed the issue saying it would have limited how judges can deal
with drug offenders and disregards Ohio’s current system of
justice for drug-offenders.

“Our most obvious objection was that it was a
constitutional amendment,” said Judy Mead, executive director
for the Ohio Mothers Against Drunk Driving chapter.

While Ohio’s measure would have changed the state
constitution, the similar proposition in California, was deemed a
statute.

However, according to Zimmerman, a statute cannot be overturned
by the legislature in California, but it can in Ohio. By attempting
to pass Issue 1 as an amendment, it would be out of the reach of
the legislature.

Meanwhile, propositions in Arizona and Nevada received heavy
opposition from federal and state law-enforcement officials for
their attempt to decriminalize marijuana.

The Nevada measure, which failed 39 percent to 61 percent, would
have legalized possession of up to 3 ounces of pot. The Arizona
proposal, which failed 43 percent to 57 percent, would have imposed
a $250 civil fine on small-scale marijuana possessions instead of
criminal penalties.

In spite of the failed propositions, Nadelmann said the recent
victories in policy reform indicate more progress than any other
issue in the last decade.