Drug Policy Measures on the 2000 Ballot

Medical marijuana continues to be a popular subject of the initiative movement, but this year drug policy in general has become a topic for consideration. Voters in seven states will consider change their states' drug policies on November 7. These initiatives deal with medical marijuana, legalizing marijuana in general, property forfeiture rights, and punishments for drug possession. Many of these measures are financed by the same wealthy individuals who have financed much of the medical marijuana movement that has been spreading in the western states since 1996: George Soros, a New York investor and philanthropist, Peter B. Lewis, the CEO of the Progressive Corporation (an Ohio insurance company), and John Sperling of Arizona, founder of the University of Phoenix.

Background on Medical Marijuana

Medical marijuana made its debut on a statewide ballot in 1996, when it was passed by voters in Arizona and California. It appeared on the ballot in 1997 in Washington and lost, but made a comeback and was passed in 1998. Washington was just one of five states that voted to legalize medical marijuana in 1998. The other four were Alaska, Arizona, Nevada and Oregon. It also appeared on the ballot in Colorado and the District of Columbia, but votes were not counted because those measures had been ruled invalid after the ballots were printed but before election day. It was on the ballot for a second time in Arizona in 1998 because after voters approved it in 1996, the Legislature passed a bill that weakened the voter-approved law. Voters responded by placing that bill on the ballot for a popular referendum, and subsequently repealed the Legislature's bill. Voters in Arizona have therefore twice expressed their support for medical marijuana.

This Year's Medical Marijuana Measures

In 2000, medical marijuana is on the ballot in Colorado (Amendment 20) and Nevada (Question 9). The Colorado Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that the 1998 measure that the Secretary of State was barred from counting votes on was in fact valid, and ordered the measure placed on the 2000 ballot. A poll taken on November 1, just six days before the election, shows support for Amendment 20 at 58% among Colorado registered voters. That's a slip from 65% just a week earlier. Nevada's Question 9 is the same question voters approved there in 1998. It's on the ballot again this year because Nevada law stipulates that an initiative must be approved in two consecutive general elections before it becomes law.

Legalizing Marijuana

Perhaps the most sweeping 2000 ballot proposal to change drug policy is Alaska's Measure 5. It would decriminalize marijuana for anyone 18 and over. The measure has been criticized as too vague and at the same time too drastic. Besides legalizing marijuana, it would grant amnesty to anyone with marijuana convictions and wipe their criminal records clean of the conviction. It would also convene an advisory panel charged with studying the feasibility of paying restitution to those individuals. Critics say the measure is too vague because it says that marijuana should be regulated "in a similar manner to alcoholic beverages," but does not elaborate any further or make any effort to specify such regulation. It also bans driving while under the influence of marijuana, but forbids the use of drug testing to determine whether or not a driver is under the influence. If Measure 5 passes, it would not be the first time marijuana has been legal in Alaska. Private marijuana use was legalized in 1975 under a state Supreme Court ruling. In 1983, the Legislature limited the amount a person could legally possess to four ounces or less. In 1990, a voter initiative made marijuana illegal again.

Background on Drug Possession Laws and the Initiative

Alaska wasn't the first state to decriminalize marijuana - in 1973, marijuana possession was deemed a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine, rather than a felony in Oregon. In 1998, the Legislature restored criminal penalties for marijuana possession. Voters petitioned to have that bill placed on the ballot, and in a popular referendum in 1998 (Measure 57) repealed the Legislature's bill. Arizona voters also struck down a legislative measure dealing with drug possession in 1998. The Legislature had passed a bill making drug possession punishable by jail time, rather than probation, and voters rejected that bill in a vote on Proposition 301 in 1998, making drug possession once again punishable by probation.

Drug Possession & Treatment Initiatives on the 2000 Ballot

Voters in California will decide whether drug possession and use should be punishable by jail time, or probation and mandatory treatment programs (Proposition 36). Prop. 36 would require that first and second-time convictions for possession, use, transportation for personal use or being under the influence of controlled substances be punishable by probation and a drug treatment program, not incarceration. It would not include sale or manufacture of drugs among the crimes exempt from incarceration. It also appropriates up to $120 million annually for drug treatment programs, through 2006. Prop. 36 is opposed by almost every law enforcement agency in the state. Supporters include San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, and organizations representing professionals in the fields of mental health and drug abuse.

Question 8 in Massachusetts would create a state Drug Treatment Trust Fund. Revenues in the fund would come from finds paid under the state's criminal drug laws, money forfeited because of its use in connection with drug crimes, and proceeds from selling property forfeited because of its use in connection with drug crimes. Measure 8 would also expand eligibility for drug treatment programs, allowing more people charged with drug crimes eligible for treatment programs and dismissal of criminal charges instead of incarceration. As in California, this proposal is opposed by law enforcement officials, even though the initiative was written by a former assistant attorney general and assistant district attorney.

Forfeiture Laws on the Ballot in 2000

Voters in two states will consider changing property forfeiture laws on November 7. Oregon's Measure 3 and Utah's Initiative B would make it more difficult for law enforcement officials to seize assets that they believe were used in a crime. Measure 3 in Oregon would prohibit asset forfeitures until after the owner of the property is actually convicted of a crime involving the seized property, and would establish stricter standards for proving that property was used to commit a crime. It would also require that all forfeiture proceeds be used for drug treatment programs, not for the enforcement of drug laws as is currently permitted. Initiative B in Utah also increases the government's burden of proof in forfeiture proceedings, restricts the conditions under which property may be presumed to be subject to forfeiture, and requires that the proceeds from the sale of forfeited property be directed to the School Fund.

Jennie Drage Bowser tracks initiatives and referendums, and may be reached at 303-364-7700 or elections-info@ncsl.org.