Advertisement

Dueling Initiatives Cloud Legalization Bid

Share
TIMES STAFF WRITER

Gov. Pete Wilson has twice blown smoke in the face of the state Legislature’s mandate to legalize marijuana for medical use. Those vetoes will come back to burn him, say some marijuana activists, if the people have their way.

Two new initiatives seek to get around the governor by taking the issue straight to you in ’96. One, sponsored by Californians for Compassionate Use, is in line with what a majority of voters, according to several polls, think: Seriously ill people should not be prosecuted for smoking pot. The other, sponsored by Help and Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP), is not: It would legalize marijuana for essentially all uses, but emphasizes legalizing pot for patients.

The Compassionate Use Act would appear to be a political winner: It is modeled after the last medical marijuana bill that passed the Senate by 22-14 but was vetoed in October. And it’s geared toward the two-thirds of California voters, according to a poll conducted by David Binder Research, who believe that marijuana should be available to sick people--just like any other medication--under a doctor’s supervision.

Advertisement

It’s a winner all right, except for one thing: The Compassionate Use backers don’t have the money it takes, upward of $250,000, to collect all the signatures needed, at least 433,000. The group has about $70,000 in the bank.

“Conventional wisdom is right,” says Scott Imler, Compassionate Use’s Southern California campaign director. “We don’t have the money.”

The group was founded in 1991 by activists trying to get San Francisco voters to approve medical marijuana, which they did. These days, Imler, 37, is counting on luck as a major contributor. “Every step of the way,” he says, “has been a shot in the dark.”

In the eyes of Californians for Compassionate Use, there’s one more problem: the California Cannabis Hemp and Health Initiative. Compassionate Use organizers are miffed that HEMP’s helmsmen will be competing for signatures. Frankly, they say, they don’t want to be affiliated with a group that advocates full legalization. Especially since HEMP’s initiative appears to have about as much chance of making the ballot as a tax increase.

Imler charges that HEMP’s initiative drive was timed to ride his wave. HEMP’s application to launch an initiative was filed five days after Compassionate Use filed its application late last month. And HEMP seems to be mimicking Compassionate Use’s campaign, right down to using the Internet to collect signatures.

Compassionate Use claims to be one of the first groups to use the computer network to gather signatures for an initiative; the petition can be downloaded at https://www.medicalmarijuna.org. HEMP does not have its site up and running yet.

Advertisement

HEMP’s leader, Jack Herer, is a raspy-voiced 56-year-old who has run a marijuana information stand on the Venice boardwalk for nearly 15 years. Much to the chagrin of Compassionate Use, Herer says his fieldworkers will carry Compassionate Use’s signature sheets along with his own. “We encourage everyone to sign both,” he says. “It’s a free country.

“What they would like,” he adds, “is to have the whole thing to themselves.”

The deadline for backers of the measures to turn in signatures is April 19. Meanwhile, opponents say neither bill is worthy of your John Hancock.

“What proponents seem to be doing is smoking a lot of this stuff,” says Jesus Arredondo, Wilson’s deputy press secretary. He says their goal is “the further legalizing of other drugs.”

“Their whole push is a scam,” adds Art Croney, executive director of the Committee on Moral Concerns, a state lobby. “It is part of the plan to legalize drugs in general and marijuana in particular.”

Yes and no. While some in the nationwide medical marijuana movement--including the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and the Drug Policy Foundation--would like to see nothing less than full legalization of the plant, few advocate the legalization of other drugs.

*

As far as medical marijuana goes, proponents cite studies that say smoked marijuana can relieve pain and nausea in cancer and leukemia patients, loss of appetite in AIDS patients and vision-blurring eye pressure in glaucoma patients. But Croney cites other scientists and argues, “It has no benefit for medical use and is in fact detrimental.”

Advertisement

Even some proponents have their doubts--but for different reasons. “Neither initiative will succeed in my opinion,” says Allen St. Pierre, deputy national director at NORML. “There’s just not enough warm bodies doing the work.”

The medical marijuana issue was born in the ‘70s and took root in the ‘80s when many AIDS patients joined the fray in favor of weed. Two cities in California, San Francisco and Santa Cruz, have passed referendums to legalize medical use, although they are superseded by state and federal law.

In fact, even if these initiatives pass, there will still be the federal government to answer to. Marijuana is, after all, still a “Schedule I” drug--one that Uncle Sam says has no legitimate use.

“We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it,” Imler says.

Advertisement