Pot-as-medicine proposal returns, free of baggage
by Caroline Young Ullmann

October 14, 1998 - Tacoma News Tribune - leted@p.tribnet.com

A proposal to legalize marijuana as medicine is on the ballot again, but this year the issue is not accompanied by heroin, LSD and changes in drug sentencing laws.

And its chief sponsor, Dr. Rob Killian, thinks that will make Initiative 692 more palatable to voters Nov. 3.

"I really did learn my lesson last year, and this is a very different initiative," said Killian, whose Initiative 685 was defeated by a 60-40 margin in 1997.

"We're back with one piece of the issue," he said. "We're back with the piece people wanted."

He said polls last year showed the initiative would have passed had it addressed only marijuana. And last week, a poll conducted for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and KOMO-TV showed 59 percent of likely voters supported I-692.

Many of the arguments will be familiar.

Killian says sick and dying people have a right to use medicine that relieves their suffering, and doctors have a right to talk about it with their patients - a message that will be underscored in radio and TV ads in the next few weeks.

Opponents, though, say marijuana isn't medicine because it hasn't gone through rigorous studies to determine whether it is safe and effective. They also say I-692 masks supporters' national agenda that all drugs should be legalized.

The names on both sides of the debate also will be familiar.

Businessmen George Soros of New York, Peter Lewis of Cleveland and John Sperling of Phoenix back I-692, as they did last year's measure, Killian said.

This year, the three men also are financing a California-based group called Americans for Medical Rights, which supports medical marijuana measures in several states, including Washington.

Lt. Gov. Brad Owen and King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng are co-chairmen of the opposition group, called We Said No! Both opposed I-685.

Until three weeks ago, I-692 had no organized opposition. But an anti-drug group from Florida changed that with a check for $12,000.

Save Our Society From Drugs is opposing similar initiatives in five states and the District of Columbia, said its executive director, Terry Hensley, who also leads the Drug Free America Foundation.

Both groups were founded by Mel Sembler, finance chairman of the national Republican Party, and his wife, Betty.

Hensley said he sent seed money after he learned I-692 had no opposition.

Campaign coordinator Mike Suydam said to date We Said No! doesn't have enough money to buy advertising. "It's a little late in the game, but we're trying really hard to ... get some awareness out there," he said.

Some of the opposition's arguments have changed since last year. Suydam said Killian engaged in good public relations by meeting with opponents and removing sections they found egregious.

The opposition campaign had trouble last year raising money to fight the broader measure and this year's I-692 is perceived as less scary, Suydam said.

"But if (voters) take a closer look at it, they'll see a lot of holes," he said.

Here are some key points in the debate:

Safety and effectiveness.

Marijuana is a so-called Schedule 1 drug, which the federal government defines as an unsafe substance with a high potential for abuse that has no accepted medical use.

Supporters say anecdotal evidence shows marijuana helps ease symptoms of diseases such as AIDS and cancer by calming chemotherapy-induced nausea and stimulating the appetite.

"It isn't a crime to have to use marijuana if you're sick," Killian said.

Though small-scale studies have been done, the government quashed larger studies by blocking access to marijuana in its zeal to fight the war on drugs, I-692 supporters say. The Drug Enforcement Administration overruled its own administrative law judge, who had recommended that marijuana be legalized for medical use.

"This isn't out of the blue," Killian said. "When government won't act, it's time for the people to."

Not with drugs, opponents counter.

"Drugs in this country are the province of the federal government, and decisions should be made on the results of scientific studies," said Maleng, who added that I-692 would do an "end-run around the regulatory process."

Too much is unknown about using marijuana as medicine, opponents say; that's partly why the Washington State Medical Association didn't endorse the measure.

Doctors can't recommend dosages because they don't know the strength of THC, an active ingredient in marijuana. Quality can't be guaranteed. And how do doctors reconcile suggesting patients take up smoking?

"It makes no sense for a physician to abdicate responsibility for something that clearly is medical," said Dr. Susan Garcia-Swain, a Seattle addiction specialist on the medical advisory board of We Said No!

Alternatives.

THC has been reproduced in synthetic form in a drug called Marinol.

Killian, who recently moved from Tacoma to Seattle to open a private practice, prescribes Marinol but said it doesn't work for everybody.

Patients have reported they vomit the tablets, the medication takes too long to take effect and then lasts too long.

But that's not a reason to recommend an unproven, dangerous substance, argued Garcia-Swain. Instead, she said, the answer is to research how to better administer Marinol, perhaps under the tongue, by injection, through suppositories or inhalers.

Motivation.

Proponents say they want to protect sick patients, their caregivers and their doctors from prosecution under state law.

Opponents say backers are using the compassion argument to hide their real motivation, which is to legalize drug use across the nation. Medical marijuana measures already have passed in California and Arizona.

"The whole thing is bogus," said Katherine Ford, communications director for Drug Free America Foundation. "It's a guise. The medical marijuana issue is a ploy."

I-685, last year's initiative, would have allowed doctors to recommend the use of Schedule 1 drugs, which also include LSD and heroin. It also would have drawn a distinction between addicts and dealers. People charged with possession of Schedule 1 drugs would have been diverted to treatment and those already in prison would have been freed.

Killian said voters are smart enough to realize I-692 is more narrowly drawn. But society shouldn't fear debating a better solution to drug use, he said.

"We need to be tough on drugs, but we need to be compassionate to drug users."

Federal law.

Even if I-692 passes, growing and possessing marijuana still would be illegal under federal law.

Killian said patients could grow their own marijuana or obtain it from a group such as the Green Cross Patient Co-op.

Green Cross is a local network of people who grow or obtain marijuana and dispense it for free or at cost to sick people who have a signed note from their doctor, said JoAnna McKee of Seattle, who co-founded the co-op nearly six years ago.

McKee, who said she has about 400 patients, has exclusive contracts with growers and monitors the quality and strength of the plants. She said the group also gives away free plants to help people who are well enough to grow their own marijuana.

But Suydam thinks the federal government would shut down Green Cross.

"(Backers) say if this passes, people won't have to go to a drug dealer because Green Cross will be there. No, it won't," he said.

What's the limit?

I-692 would allow patients to possess a 60-day supply of marijuana, but the amount is not defined. Killian said it would vary, depending on a patient's disease.

Garcia-Swain said the supply language is meaningless.

Who's in charge?

I-692 also would protect patients' primary caregivers from prosecution if they met certain conditions, such as not using marijuana intended for a patient.

Garcia-Swain said there is no way to monitor whether caregivers use their patients' drugs.

Killian, who has worked in hospices, said he watched family members go to extremes to get their sick loved ones marijuana. He said he felt compelled to protect them.

Staff writer Caroline Young Ullmann covers medical issues. Reach her at 253-597-8541 or by e-mail at cyu@p.tribnet.com

back

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings are made available without profit for research and educational purposes.