State Prosecutors Object To Medical Drug Use Measure

Spokane County Prosecutor Jim Sweetser and 36 other state prosecutors say they will campaign against Initiative 685, the ballot measure that would legalize marijuana and other drugs for medical use.

Sweetser discussed the initiative with other prosecutors in Olympia and said the measure would gut the current arsenal he uses in the war against illegal drugs. The initiative will be on the November ballot.

Copied from a similar measure approved by Arizona voters last year, the initiative would allow seriously ill patients to use heroin, marijuana, LSD and methamphetamines if found effective in treating a disease.

“I oppose it because, under the guise of legalizing the medical use of a broad range of drugs, it basically makes our current drug laws unenforceable,” Sweetser said.

He and other members of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys expect to form a loud public chorus against the ballot measure before the Nov. 4 election.

No statement will come formally from the association until it gets responses from two prosecutors who have not yet indicated their position.

The other 37 prosecutors in this state have said they oppose the initiative, said association director Tom McBride.

McBride said the reasons for opposing the initiative vary from county to county.

Some of the prosecutors believe the drugs covered by Initiative 658 cannot have true medical value, McBride said.

Others say they oppose the initiative’s provision that would release about 300 people now serving sentences for drug crimes.

Others including Sweetser say they oppose the initiative for permitting three convictions before drug users get sent to jail or prison.

Most prosecutors and elected officials do agree that the initiative, if passed, would drastically change how the state deals with most drug users.

One of the initiative sponsors, Bellevue attorney Jeffrey Haley, said the measure would force the state to see drug use as a health problem, not a crime.

As drafted, all state prisoners who are serving time just for personal use or possession of illegal drugs would be placed on probation.

That release would apply to those convicted of crimes involving “schedule 1” drugs - basically all illegal drugs except cocaine.

Peggy Smith, a research director for the state Department of Corrections, said that could release about 300 prisoners now inside state prisons.

Drug offenders who have committed any other violent crime would not be released, according to initiative.

Any prisoner who’s also serving time for selling, manufacturing or delivering illegal drugs would also not qualify. A judge could also refuse to release prisoners if they’re deemed “a danger to the public.”

The other part of the initiative Sweetser said he finds bothersome is the three-conviction requirement.

The measure would require future drug offenders - those charged with use or possession but not sales or manufacture - to be sentenced to treatment for their first two convictions.

A judge “may require” drug treatment as part of probation before that third conviction, the measure says.

Spokane Superior Court Judge James Murphy said he cannot take a stand on Initiative 658, but he endorses “its philosophy.”

Murphy has been Spokane County’s first drug court judge and has helped that program divert more than 60 nonserious drug offenders into treatment instead of toward prosecution and jail.

Those who’ve evaluated drug courts nationwide say they make sense, cutting repeat drug use and lowering the costs of prosecution and incarceration.

Murphy said he understands the opposition to the initiative. “But I am wholeheartedly behind the philosophy that fostered it,” he said.

Sweetser contends that removing the prison or jail option tells prosecutors and police officers that such crimes have a low priority.

“Law enforcement officers would respond to that problem - of lesser penalties - by saying, why bother when we have other more serious crimes?” Sweetser said.

McBride said another major reason to oppose the initiative is its failure to distinguish between adult and juvenile drug use.

“We tell juveniles it’s illegal to drink under age or to smoke cigarettes. But what happens when there’s no real legal sanction for their use of marijuana or more serious drugs?” McBride asked.

Many prosecutors also oppose the measure for being badly written, he said.

Initiative 685’s sections sometimes refer to “parole,” a post-prison period that exists in California and Arizona but not in Washington state.

Arizona voters approved their version, Proposition 200, last year. Then that state’s Legislature repealed it, saying voters didn’t realize how far it went.

The initiative’s backers then gathered enough signatures to place it back on the ballot in November 1998.

Said one Washington prosecutor who wanted to remain anonymous: “If this measure was only about making marijuana legal for a narrowly prescribed medical use, I’d be for it.

“But it’s so badly put together, I can’t support it.” , DataTimes