cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Initiative Won't Make Nov. Ballot





Marijuana Initiative Won't Make Nov. Ballot
Posted by FoM on July 28, 2000 at 07:19:40 PT
By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services 
Source: Arizona Daily Star
A plan to let voters decriminalize possession of marijuana will be struck from the November ballot. State Elections Director Jessica Funkhouser said yesterday that backers of Proposition 201 did not have enough valid signatures on their petitions. The measure needed 101,762 to qualify for the Nov. 7 ballot. A random sample of the 142,624 signatures submitted showed that fewer than 101,762 signers were registered to vote or lived where they said they did. 
Michael Walz, chairman of Plants Are Medicine, the group backing the initiative, said the effort will be renewed for the 2002 ballot. The backers will exclude the questionable wording that drew immense opposition to this year's version. The measure's most visible provision would have reduced the penalty for possession of up to 2 ounces of marijuana to a maximum $500 fine. No Medical Marijuana: Now, someone caught with that much could end up in prison, though few first-time offenders actually wind up behind bars. A more significant provision would have removed a legal restriction that has precluded doctors from taking advantage of a 1996 law that technically allows them to prescribe marijuana to patients with serious or life-threatening diseases. What that means, according to proponents, is that those who need marijuana will remain unable to get it legally. The 1996 statute, approved by voters, allows doctors to prescribe otherwise-illegal drugs in certain circumstances. It includes the requirement for a second opinion. Foes of the measure insisted the voters did not understand what they were doing and they persuaded lawmakers in 1997 to repeal key provisions of that law. But voters reaffirmed their decision in 1998. Despite that, doctors have not written prescriptions, at least not visibly. "The federal authorities have threatened that they will not allow a doctor (who prescribes marijuana) to see any Medicare patients," said Jeff Singer, a Phoenix physician. Federal officials also threatened to revoke the prescription-writing privileges of doctors who take advantage of the Arizona law. Singer and others filed suit in federal court in Washington, D.C., seeking to have those threats lifted. That case is pending. He noted, though, that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California's medical marijuana law, which prevents officials there from closing down the distribution "clubs" that have sprung up to provide the drug. In that ruling, the judges said the government "has yet to identify any interest it may have in blocking the distribution of cannabis to those with medical needs." There is a key difference in the laws of the two states: In Arizona doctors must prescribe marijuana; the California law allows a doctor to simply recommend marijuana. For that reason proponents of this year's Proposition 201 sought to amend Arizona law to allow recommendations instead of prescriptions. Victory for Prosecutors: Singer said changing Arizona law to match the one upheld in California would end the problems that have kept Arizonans from getting medical marijuana and eliminate the need for him to pursue his lawsuit. The failure of Proposition 201 to qualify for the ballot is a victory for prosecutors who did not want further changes in drug laws. They particularly opposed one provision they said would exempt those who are certified as needing medical marijuana from all drug laws, including ones that make it illegal to sell heroin to children. That provision caused the original backers of this year's petition drive to abandon it in May. Walz, who specializes in defending people accused of drug offenses, took up the cause, saying that the wording, though possibly clumsy, did not allow people to sell drugs. The victory for prosecutors came at a cost: Consultant Bob Grossfeld said the anti-201 campaign is in debt despite a $10,000 donation from the Phoenix Suns. Grossfeld said he does not know the exact amount of the debt but said it is under $30,000. Phoenix, ArizonaPublished: Friday, 28 July 2000Copyright: Arizona Daily StarCannabisNews Search - Arizonahttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=arizona
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by freedom fighter on July 28, 2000 at 17:38:19 PT
As a Coloradoan, I was 
pretty incensed when that happened..People of Colorado voted on it too.. It passed by 65%.. Let's hope it will be even more this coming election!\|/
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by observer on July 28, 2000 at 14:58:27 PT
More Government Signature Counting Fraud
Here's more about the petitions that "just happened" to be "accidently" misplaced in Colorado, in 1998.http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1084/a13.html : Wednesday, the citizens of Colorado found out that they, too, were the subject of government action that challenged the principles of democracy. In the summer of 1998, Secretary of State Vikki Buckley was presented with a petition containing more than 80,000 signatures asking for a referendum on medical marijuana. Buckley rejected the petition saying there were not enough valid signatures. This summer, Buckley died of a heart condition, and her successor, Donetta Davidson, discovered the petitioners did indeed have more than enough valid signatures. As a result, Secretary Davidson ruled that the question will be on the November 2000 ballot. Sixty-six pages of petitions were found in Vikki Buckley's desk after her death. Rather interesting series of events in Colorado. the Prohibitionist propaganda press trumpeted far and wide the supposed failure to gather enough signatures. That's "on message", of course. They cheered and proclaimed that the MMJ initiatives has run out of steam.But when Vikki Buckley died, and her blatant lies and fraud were discovered ("Sixty-six pages of petitions were found in Vikki Buckley's desk after her death."), nary a word from the press. Not on message.http://www.mapinc.org/find?K=judge+Colorado+Buckley&Y=AllWhen it comes to depriving adult Americans of their traditional freedoms: remember, any old excuse will do. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by FoM on July 28, 2000 at 13:20:43 PT
Just a Comment
Hi Everyone, Is this the article about the Colorado Initiative? I did a search and found this. You can also put your name you post under in the search tool and if you made a comment in an article it should come up. I have only tried it a few times but I think it will do that.Peace, FoM!Here I typed in observer and got these. Thought I'd let you all know.http://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=observerMedical Marijuana Initiative On Ballot After Signature Recounthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/2/thread2979.shtml
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Thomas on July 28, 2000 at 11:56:07 PT
Does Colorado Ring A Bell?
Doesn't this sound like the same situation in Colorado where the initiative was found to have an insufficient amount of signors? When challenged, it was found that this was actually not the case, but the measure was delayed for two years. I think this is a repeat performance.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Dan B on July 28, 2000 at 11:55:15 PT:
Random Sampling Flawed
Because a random sample is just that--random--a "random sampling" procedure to determine something as important as a ballot initiative is inappropriate. Inherent in the definition of "random" is the possibility that the sample (notice that the size of the sample is not disclosed) "just happened to" pick up an inordinate number of falsified signatures. The rest of the total number of signatures may not have the same characteristics as the random sample--even if the sampling is truly random. That is, a random sample is, by definition, not necessarily a representative sample. An appeal is inevitable. The only way to tell if an appropriate number of valid signatures exists is to check them all. Recall that the "invalid signatures" issue was also raised with regard to the medical marijuana proposal in Colorado, but when they double-checked the signatures, they in fact had enough. I believe that the government of Arizona is claiming too few signatures because they don't want this issue to go to a vote. Remember, this is the same state that invalidated the first medical marijuana provision that the voters voted in because they thought the voters "obviously did not understand what they were voting for." Arizonans had to vote it in again. And they did.So, now that the government of that state knows the will of the people, they are afraid to allow the people to exert their will. Not an unfamiliar refrain.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by observer on July 28, 2000 at 10:28:50 PT
hope this is challenged
State Elections Director Jessica Funkhouser said yesterday that backers of Proposition 201 did not have enough valid signatures on their petitions. The measure needed 101,762 to qualify for the Nov. 7 ballot. A random sample of the 142,624 signatures submitted showed that fewer than 101,762 signers were registered to vote or lived where they said they did. I believe Funkhouser is a political appointee, and could easily be pressured. In any event, I really hope this is challenged in court. I'd like to have documented her methodology in the claimed random sampling. How does that compare to other ballot measures there? Same sampling methods? Or are there several different standards for determining "enough valid signatures"? This needs to be appealed. 
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: