>Sender: >To: >X-Original-Message-ID: <012601bf175b$9f7cc400$9acf69cf@pacbell.net> >From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: feet to the fire in DC >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:21:27 -0700 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > >Pubdate: Sun, 10 October 1999 >Source: Washington Post (DC) >Copyright: 1999 The Washington Post Company >Address: 1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071 >Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm >Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ >Author: Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post Staff Writer > >NATIONAL AGENDAS COLOR D.C. MARIJUANA DEBATE > >When 65 percent of Arizona's voters passed a referendum in 1996 legalizing >the medical use of marijuana, U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) hit the stump. >Over the next two years, the freshman senator argued to state lawmakers, >Congress and local reporters that undoing the state's drug laws would >betray Arizona children and his own law-and-order values. > >State legislators sent the measure back to the ballot last November--where >voters passed it again. Kyl and other opponents could only console >themselves that the margin of approval had narrowed to 57 percent. > >Now, members of Congress who believe easing state laws on marijuana would >subvert the nation's war on drugs have a new target: the District of >Columbia's medical marijuana initiative. For them, this is a chance to act >on their conviction without riling constituents back home--though some >lawmakers seem to be keeping a low profile on the issue. > >Georgia Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R) and Ohio Sen. George V. Voinovich >(R) recently introduced legislation to overturn the D.C. referendum, which >won 69 percent of the vote last fall. Although Congress has clear >authority to oversee the District, members whose states have passed similar >initiatives appear wary of undoing a decision endorsed by their own >constituents. > >Nevada Sens. Harry M. Reid (D) and Richard H. Bryan (D) are hedging >questions on the subject. Reid opposed a Nevada initiative passed last >fall, but his spokesman, asked how the lawmaker would vote on the D.C. >initiative, replied, "I'm not sure it's so simple." A spokesman for Bryan >responded, "I'm not sure he's taken a position on that." Nevada voters will >face the issue again this fall, since all referendum proposals must be >approved twice to become law. > >Kyl, who faces a reelection bid next fall, said in 1996 that he was >"embarrassed" by the Arizona vote, but explained later that he was talking >about the margin of defeat, not voters' judgment. His spokesman declined >to say how Kyl would vote on the District's initiative, saying, "It sounds >like nothing is pressing until the D.C. Council acts." > >The District's Initiative 59 would change city drug laws to allow the >possession, use, cultivation and distribution of marijuana if recommended >by a physician for serious illness. Only six states--Alaska, Arizona, >California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington--have passed similar legislation, >and most of their congressional representatives have stayed out of the >home-state fray, letting governors and local lawmakers shoulder the debate. > >If a vote is taken, it could force Democrats and Republicans to choose >between standing with the majority of their constituents back home or >ignoring similar sentiments by District voters in order to enforce tough >drug laws. > >Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), for example, has opposed California's >medical marijuana initiative, calling such measures dangerous and ridden >with loopholes. But Feinstein, who also faces a reelection bid in 2000, >said she is sensitive to the needs of terminally ill patients and will >examine the District's measure before making a decision. > >Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) would not say how he would vote. He released a >statement explaining that despite his personal "reservations" about >Oregon's medical marijuana law, "the people of my state have spoken, and I >intend to honor their will." > >The House voted 310 to 93 a year ago to approve a non-binding resolution >opposing state efforts to allow medical use of marijuana. But Sen. Gordon >Smith (R-Ore.), who introduced a companion resolution, also has not >indicated how he will vote on the D.C. measure, his spokeswoman said. > >By law, Congress can negate the District initiative within 30 business >days, once the D.C. financial control board reviews and forwards it. >Congress could also kill the marijuana measure by denying funding. > >"It's a twofold rationale" in Congress for overturning the D.C. >initiative, said Marshall Wittman, director of congressional relations for >the conservative Heritage Foundation. "There is Congress's clear, >constitutional prerogative over issues concerning the District, but also >many believe in Congress that the District should serve as a model to the >rest of the country." > >Supporters of medical marijuana laws say the drug can alleviate symptoms of >AIDS, cancer and other illnesses. Opponents, including the White House's >national drug policy office, cite a lack of conclusive findings about >marijuana's efficacy and current research into treatment alternatives. > >Those who back the D.C. measure decry congressional intervention, claiming >"hypocrisy" by members who protest federal intrusion in their home states >but interfere elsewhere. > >"The Republicans, the party of states' rights, are only for states' rights >when they agree with what a state or the District of Columbia is doing," >said Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.), who has battled congressional >efforts to undo Oregon's law permitting physician-assisted suicide. To >Congress, the District is a "sandbox." > >"They can use it for experiments and indulge in things they might want to >do to voters at home, but here they can do with impunity," he said. > >For now, the congressional fight against the D.C. measure is being led by >those whose constituents have not endorsed similar initiatives. And even >for past critics of D.C. statehood and management, the issue is touchy. > >Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), whose district strongly supported >California's marijuana referendum, voted against the non-binding resolution >opposing medical marijuana. An aide hinted that his vote on the D.C. >measure would similarly factor in constituent views. > >"If he's faced with this vote on the House floor," a spokesman said, "he >will look very closely at how conservative Orange County voted on the >California measure." > > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: