Measure No. 57

Explanatory Statement

Arguments in Favor

Arguments in Opposition

Measure Contents Page

Proposed by referendum petition to be voted on at the General Election, November 3, 1998.

BALLOT TITLE

57

MAKES POSSESSION OF LIMITED AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA CLASS C MISDEMEANOR

RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote makes possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a Class C misdemeanor.
RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote retains statute making possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a violation.
SUMMARY: Under current Oregon law, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is a violation, punishable by 500 to 1000 dollar fine; charges against first-time offenders may be dismissed upon completion of marijuana diversion agreement. Measure makes possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days imprisonment, plus 500 to 1000 dollar fine. Measure also makes failure to complete diversion agreement ground for six-month suspension of offender's driving privileges. Allocates $600,000 for enforcement.
ESTIMATE OF FINANCIAL IMPACT: Direct state expenditures for law enforcement, indigent defense, court operation, and jury payments are estimated at $586,000 annually. A one-time cost of $50,000 would be required for Driver and Motor Vehicle Services computer programming. State expenditures could increase or decrease depending on the number of cases prosecuted, the number of individuals entering diversion agreements, and the number of defendants eligible for court-appointed counsel.
Direct county expenditures for local jail beds are estimated at $229,000 annually. Local expenditures could increase or decrease depending on the length of sentences imposed by the courts, population management decisions of jail commanders, and management of offenders on probation or post-release supervision.
State fine revenues are estimated to be reduced by $638,000 annually.
Major assumptions for these estimates include:

TEXT OF MEASURE

AN ACT

Relating to controlled substances; amending ORS 135.907, 135.919, 419C.443, 475.992 and 809.410; and appropriating money.

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:

SECTION 1. ORS 475.992 is amended to read:

475.992. (1) Except as authorized by ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.940 to 475.995, it is unlawful for any person to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance. Any person who violates this subsection with respect to:

(a) A controlled substance in Schedule I, is guilty of a Class A felony.

(b) A controlled substance in Schedule II, is guilty of a Class B felony.

(c) A controlled substance in Schedule III, is guilty of a Class C felony.

(d) A controlled substance in Schedule IV, is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.

(e) A controlled substance in Schedule V, is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.

(2) Notwithstanding the placement of marijuana in a schedule of controlled substances under ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.940 to 475.995:

(a) Any person who delivers marijuana for consideration is guilty of a Class B felony.

(b) Any person who delivers, for no consideration, less than one avoirdupois ounce of the dried leaves, stems and flowers of the plant Cannabis family Moraceae is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, except that any person who delivers, for no consideration, less than five grams of the dried leaves, stems and flowers of the plant Cannabis family Moraceae is guilty of a violation, punishable by a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000. Fines collected under this paragraph shall be forwarded to the Department of Revenue for deposit in the Criminal Fine and Assessment Account established in ORS 137.300.

(3) Except as authorized in ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.940 to 475.995, it is unlawful for any person to create or deliver a counterfeit substance. Any person who violates this subsection with respect to:

(a) A counterfeit substance in Schedule I, is guilty of a Class A felony.

(b) A counterfeit substance in Schedule II, is guilty of a Class B felony.

(c) A counterfeit substance in Schedule III, is guilty of a Class C felony.

(d) A counterfeit substance in Schedule IV, is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.

(e) A counterfeit substance in Schedule V, is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.

(4) It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.940 to 475.995. Any person who violates this subsection with respect to:

(a) A controlled substance in Schedule I, is guilty of a Class B felony.

(b) A controlled substance in Schedule II, is guilty of a Class C felony.

(c) A controlled substance in Schedule III, is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

(d) A controlled substance in Schedule IV, is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.

(e) A controlled substance in Schedule V, is guilty of a violation.

(f) Notwithstanding the placement of marijuana in a schedule of controlled substances under ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.940 to 475.995, any person who knowingly or intentionally is in unlawful possession of less than one avoirdupois ounce of the dried leaves, stems and flowers of the plant Cannabis family Moraceae is guilty of a [violation, punishable bya] Class C misdemeanor. In addition to any other sentence it may impose for a conviction under this paragraph, the court shall include in the sentence an order to pay a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000. Fines collected under this paragraph shall be forwarded to the Department of Revenue for deposit in the Criminal Fine and Assessment Account established under ORS 137.300.

(5) In any prosecution under this section for manufacture, possession or delivery of that plant of the genus Lophophora commonly known as peyote, it is an affirmative defense that the peyote is being used or is intended for use:

(a) In connection with the good faith practice of a religious belief;

(b) As directly associated with a religious practice; and

(c) In a manner that is not dangerous to the health of the user or others who are in the proximity of the user.

(6) The affirmative defense created in subsection (5) of this section is not available to any person who has possessed or delivered the peyote while incarcerated in a correctional facility in this state.

SECTION 2. ORS 135.919 is amended to read:

135.919. (1) At any time before the court dismisses with prejudice the charge of possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, the court on its own motion or on the motion of the district attorney may issue an order requiring the defendant to appear and show cause why the court should not terminate the diversion agreement. The order to show cause shall state the reasons for the proposed termination and shall set an appearance date.

(2) The order to show cause shall be served on the defendant and on the defendant's attorney, if any. Service may be made by first class mail, postage paid, addressed to the defendant at the mailing address shown on the diversion petition and agreement or at any other address that the defendant provides in writing to the court.

(3) The court shall terminate the diversion agreement and continue the offense proceeding if:

(a) At the hearing on the order to show cause, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the reasons for termination described in this section exist; or

(b) The defendant fails to appear at the hearing on the order to show cause.

(4) If the court terminates the diversion agreement and continues the offense proceeding, the court:

(a) On the defendant's motion and for good cause shown, may reinstate the diversion agreement at any time before conviction, acquittal or dismissal with prejudice.

(b) If the defendant is convicted, may take into account at time of sentencing any partial fulfillment by the defendant of the terms of the diversion agreement.

(c) Shall send a notice of the failure to complete diversion to the Department of Transportation.

(5) The court shall terminate a diversion agreement under this subsection for any of the following reasons:

(a) If the defendant has failed to fulfill the terms of the diversion agreement.

(b) If the defendant did not qualify for the diversion agreement.

SECTION 3. ORS 419C.443 is amended to read:

419C.443. (1) Except when otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this section, when a youth is found to be within the jurisdiction of the court under ORS 419C.005 for a first violation of the provisions under ORS 475.992 prohibiting delivery for no con-sideration of less than five grams of marijuana or prohibiting possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, the court shall order an evaluation and designate agencies or organizations to perform diagnostic assessment and provide programs of information and treatment. The designated agencies or organizations must meet the standards set by the Assistant Director for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs. Whenever possible, the court shall designate agencies or organizations to perform the diagnostic assessment that are separate from those that may be designated to carry out a program of information or treatment. The parent of the youth shall pay the cost of the youth's participation in the program based upon the ability of the parent to pay. The petition shall be dismissed by the court upon written certification of the youth's successful completion of the program from the designated agency or organization providing the information and treatment.

(2) Monitoring the youth's progress in the program shall be the responsibility of the diagnostic assessment agency or organization. It shall make a report to the court stating the youth's successful completion or failure to complete all or any part of the program specified by the diagnostic assessment. The form of the report shall be determined by agreement between the court and the diagnostic assessment agency or organization. The court shall make the report a part of the record of the case.

(3) The court is not required to make the disposition required by subsection (1) of this section if the court determines that the disposition is inappropriate in the case or if the court finds that the youth has previously entered into a formal accountability agreement under ORS 419C.239 (1)(i).

(4) If the youth fails to complete the program specified by the diagnostic assessment, the court shall send notice to the Department of Transportation of the youth's failure to complete the program.

SECTION 4. ORS 809.410 is amended to read:

809.410. This section, ORS 813.400 and 813.403 establish grounds for the suspension and revocation of driving privileges and commercial driver licenses by the Department of Transportation, whether the suspension or revocation is mandatory or permissive, the length of time the suspensions will be effective and special provisions relating to certain suspensions and revocations. Hearing and administrative review procedures for this section, ORS 813.400 and 813.403 are established under ORS 809.440. The following apply as described:

(1) Any degree of murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide or assault resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle constitutes grounds for revocation of driving privileges. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) Upon receipt of a record of conviction for an offense described in this subsection, the department shall revoke the driving privileges or right to apply for driving privileges.

(b) The revocation shall be for a period described in this paragraph except that the department shall not reinstate any driving privileges to the person until the person complies with future responsibility filings. The period of revocation shall be:

(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, eight years from the date the person is released from incarceration, if the sentence includes incarceration. If the sentence does not include incarceration, the period of revocation shall begin on the date the department receives the record of conviction.

(B) One year if the revocation is for an assault that is not punishable as a felony. The period of revocation shall begin on the date the person is released from incarceration, if the sentence includes incarceration. If the sentence does not include incarceration, the period of revocation shall begin on the date the department receives the record of conviction.

(c) A person is entitled to administrative review of a revocation under this subsection.

(d) The provisions of this subsection do not apply to a person whose driving privileges are ordered revoked under ORS 809.235.

(2) Any degree of recklessly endangering another person, menacing or criminal mischief resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle constitutes grounds for suspension of driving privileges. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) Upon receipt of a record of conviction for an offense described in this subsection, the department shall suspend the driving privileges or right to apply for driving privileges.

(b) A person is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this subsection.

(c) A suspension under this subsection shall be for a period described under Schedule I of ORS 809.420, except that the department shall not reinstate any driving privileges to the person until the person has complied with future responsibility filings.

(3) Perjury or the making of a false affidavit to the department under any law of this state requiring the registration of vehicles or regulating their operation on the highways constitutes grounds for revocation of driving privileges. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) Upon receipt of a record of conviction for an offense described in this subsection, the department shall revoke the driving privileges or right to apply for driving privileges.

(b) The revocation shall be for a period of one year from the date of revocation except that the department shall not reinstate any driving privileges to the person until the person complies with future responsibility filings.

(c) A person is entitled to administrative review of a revocation under this subsection.

(4) Any felony conviction with proof of a material element involving the operation of a motor vehicle constitutes grounds for revocation of driving privileges. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) Upon receipt of a record of conviction for an offense described in this subsection, the department shall revoke the driving privileges or right to apply for driving privileges.

(b) The revocation shall be for a period of one year from the date of revocation except that the department shall not reinstate any driving privileges to the person until the person complies with future responsibility filings.

(c) A person is entitled to administrative review of a revocation under this subsection.

(5) Failure to perform the duties of a driver to injured persons under ORS 811.705 constitutes grounds for revocation of driving privileges. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) Upon receipt of a record of conviction for an offense described in this subsection, the department shall revoke the driving privileges or right to apply for driving privileges.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this subsection, the revocation shall be for a period of one year from the date of revocation except that the department shall not reinstate any driving privileges to the person until the person complies with future responsibility filings.

(c) If the court indicates on the record of conviction that a person was killed as a result of the accident, the revocation shall be for a period of five years. The period of revocation shall begin on the date the person is released from incarceration, if the sentence includes incarceration. If the sentence does not include incarceration, the period of revocation shall begin on the date the department receives the record of conviction.

(d) A person is entitled to administrative review of a revocation under this subsection.

(6) Reckless driving constitutes grounds for suspension of driving privileges. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) Upon receipt of a record of conviction for an offense described in this subsection, the department shall suspend the driving privileges or right to apply for driving privileges.

(b) The suspension shall be for the periods of time described under Schedule I of ORS 809.420 except that the department shall not reinstate any driving privileges to the person until the person complies with future responsibility filings.

(c) A person is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this subsection.

(7) Failure to perform duties of a driver when property is damaged under ORS 811.700 constitutes grounds for suspension of driving privileges. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) Upon receipt of a record of conviction of an offense described in this subsection, the department shall suspend the driving privileges or right to apply for driving privileges.

(b) The suspension shall be for the periods of time described under Schedule I of ORS 809.420 except the department shall not reinstate any driving privileges to the person until the person complies with future responsibility filings.

(c) A person is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this subsection.

(8) Fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer under ORS 811.540 constitutes grounds for suspension of driving privileges. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) Upon receipt of a conviction for an offense described in this subsection, the department shall suspend the driving privileges or right to apply for driving privileges.

(b) The suspension shall be for a period described under Schedule I of ORS 809.420 except the department shall not reinstate any driving privileges to the person until the person complies with future responsibility filings.

(c) A person is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this subsection.

(9) Failure to file accident reports required under ORS 811.725 or 811.730 constitutes grounds for suspension of driving privileges. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) The department shall suspend the driving privileges or right to apply for driving privileges if the person fails to make the required accident reports.

(b) The suspension shall continue until the person makes the required reports and complies with future responsibility filings or for five years from the date of suspension, whichever is sooner.

(10) Failure to make future responsibility filing described in this subsection constitutes grounds for suspension of driving privileges. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) The department shall suspend the driving privileges or right to apply for driving privileges of a person who fails to comply with future responsibility filings whenever required under the vehicle code or to provide new proof for future responsibility filings when requested by the department.

(b) The suspension shall continue until the person complies with future responsibility filings.

(c) A person whose initial obligation to make future responsibility filings is not based upon a conviction or other action by a court is entitled to a contested case hearing prior to a suspension under this subsection. A person whose obligation to make future responsibility filings is based upon a conviction or other action by a court is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this subsection. A person whose suspension under this subsection is based on lapses in filing after the initial filing has been made is entitled to administrative review.

(11) Failure to settle judgments as described in this subsection constitutes grounds for suspension of driving privileges. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) The department shall suspend the driving privileges or right to apply for driving privileges if a person has a judgment of the type described under ORS 806.040 rendered against the person and the person does not settle the judgment in the manner described under ORS 809.470 within 60 days after its entry.

(b) A suspension under this subsection shall continue until the person complies with future responsibility filings and does one of the following:

(A) Settles the judgment in the manner described in ORS 809.470.

(B) Has an insurer which has been found by the department to be obligated to pay the judgment provided that there has been no final adjudication by a court that such insurer has no such obligation.

(C) Gives evidence to the department that a period of seven years has elapsed since the entry of the judgment.

(D) Receives from the court that rendered the judgment an order permitting the payment thereof in installments.

(c) A person is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this subsection.

(12) False certification of financial responsibility requirements constitutes grounds for suspension of driving privileges. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) The department shall suspend the driving privileges or right to apply for driving privileges if a person falsely certifies the existence of a motor vehicle liability insurance policy or the existence of some other means of satisfying financial responsibility requirements or if a person, after certifying the existence of a motor vehicle liability insurance policy or other means of satisfying the requirements, allows the policy to lapse or be canceled or otherwise fails to remain in compliance with financial responsibility requirements.

(b) The department shall only suspend under this subsection if proof of compliance with financial responsibility requirements as of the date of the letter of verification from the department under ORS 806.150 is not submitted within 30 days after the date of the mailing of the department's demand therefor under ORS 806.160.

(c) The suspension shall continue until the person complies with future responsibility filings.

(13) Failure to take examination upon request of the department under ORS 807.340 constitutes grounds for suspension of driving privileges. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) The department shall suspend the driving privileges or right to apply for driving privileges of a person if the department requests the person to submit to examination under ORS 807.340 and the person fails to appear within a reasonable length of time after being notified to do so or fails to satisfactorily complete the required examination.

(b) The suspension shall continue until the examination required by the department is successfully completed.

(c) Upon suspension under this subsection, the department may issue an identification card to the person for identification purposes as described under ORS 807.400.

(14) Failure to obtain required medical clearance under ORS 807.070 or 807.090 upon request by the department constitutes grounds for suspension of driving privileges. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) The department shall suspend the driving privileges of the person if the department requests the person to obtain medical clearance described by this subsection and the person fails to do so.

(b) The suspension under this subsection shall continue until the required medical clearance is received by the department.

(15) Causing or contributing to an accident resulting in death or injury to any other person or serious property damage through incompetence, recklessness, criminal negligence or unlawful operation of a motor vehicle constitutes grounds for suspension of driving privileges. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) The department immediately may suspend the driving privileges of any person without hearing and without receiving a record of the conviction of such person of crime if the department has reason to believe that the person may endanger people or property if not immediately suspended. Any suspension under this paragraph shall be subject to a post-imposition hearing under ORS 809.440.

(b) A suspension under this subsection shall continue for a period determined by the department and be subject to any conditions the department determines necessary.

(16) Incompetence to drive a motor vehicle because of a mental or physical condition rendering it unsafe for a person to drive a motor vehicle upon the highways constitutes grounds for suspension of driving privileges. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) The department immediately may suspend the driving privileges of any person without hearing and without receiving a record of the conviction of such person of crime if the department has reason to believe that the person may endanger people or property if not immediately suspended. A suspension under this paragraph shall be subject to a post-imposition hearing under ORS 809.440 except that a person who has submitted a certificate of eligibility under ORS 807.090 is entitled only to administrative review of a suspension.

(b) A suspension under this subsection shall continue for a period determined by the department and be subject to any conditions the department determines necessary.

(17) Habitual incompetence, recklessness or criminal negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle or committing a serious violation of the motor vehicle laws of this state constitutes grounds for suspension of driving privileges. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) The department immediately may suspend the driving privileges of any person without hearing and without receiving a record of the conviction of such person of crime if the department has reason to believe that the person may endanger people or property if not immediately suspended. Any suspension under this paragraph shall be subject to a post-imposition hearing under ORS 809.440.

(b) A suspension under this subsection shall continue for a period determined by the department and be subject to any conditions the department determines necessary.

(18) A conviction under ORS 811.700 or 811.705 for failure to perform the duties of a driver while operating a commercial motor vehicle or any conviction of a crime punishable as a felony involving the operation of a commercial motor vehicle constitutes grounds for commercial driver license suspension. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) Upon receipt of a record of conviction for an offense described in this subsection, the department shall suspend the commercial driver license or right to apply for a commercial driver license of the person convicted.

(b) The suspension shall be for a period of time according to the following:

(A) If the person's commercial driver license has not previously been suspended under this subsection, ORS 813.403 or 813.410 (2) and the person was not driving a commercial motor vehicle containing a hazardous material at the time the offense was committed, the suspension shall be for a period of one year.

(B) If the person's commercial driver license has not previously been suspended under this subsection, ORS 813.403 or 813.410 (2) and the person was driving a commercial motor vehicle containing a hazardous material at the time the offense was committed, the suspension shall be for a period of three years.

(C) If the person's commercial driver license has previously been suspended under this subsection, ORS 813.403 or 813.410 (2), the suspension shall be for the lifetime of the person.

(c) A person is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this subsection.

(19) Use of a commercial motor vehicle in the commission of a crime punishable as a felony involving the manufacturing, distributing or dispensing of a controlled substance constitutes grounds for commercial driver license suspension. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) Upon receipt of a record of conviction for an offense described in this subsection, the department shall suspend the commercial driver license or right to apply for a commercial driver license of the person convicted.

(b) The suspension shall be for the lifetime of the person.

(c) A person is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this subsection.

(d) "Controlled substance" has the meaning given that term in ORS 475.005 (6).

(20) Incompetence to operate a motorcycle constitutes grounds for revocation of a motorcycle indorsement. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) Whenever the department has reason to believe an individual with a motorcycle indorsement under ORS 807.170 comes within the grounds described in this subsection, the department may revoke the indorsement.

(b) Upon revocation under this subsection, the license shall be surrendered to the department.

(c) Upon surrender of the indorsed license, the department may issue a license without indorsement for the unexpired period of the license.

(21) The department forthwith shall suspend the driving privileges of any person for a period of time required by this subsection if the person is involved in a motor vehicle accident at any time when the department determines the person has been operating a vehicle in violation of ORS 806.010. A suspension under this subsection shall be for a period of one year except that the department shall not reinstate any driving privileges to the person until the person complies with future responsibility filing requirements.

(22) Upon notification by the superintendent of a hospital under ORS 807.700 that a person should not drive, the department shall immediately suspend the driving privileges of the released person. A suspension under this subsection is subject to administrative review and shall continue until such time as the person produces a judicial decree of competency or a certificate from the superintendent of the hospital that the person is competent or establishes eligibility under ORS 807.090.

(23) Upon notification by a court under ORS 153.625 that a person charged with a traffic offense has been found guilty except for insanity and committed to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board, the department shall immediately suspend the driving privileges of the person. A suspension under this subsection is subject to administrative review and shall continue until such time as the person establishes eligibility under ORS 807.090.

(24) The department shall suspend driving privileges when provided under ORS 809.290. The suspension shall continue until the earlier of the following:

(a) The person establishes to the satisfaction of the department that the person has performed all acts necessary under ORS 809.290 to make the person not subject to suspension.

(b) Five years from the date the suspension is imposed.

(c) A person is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this subsection.

(25) Criminal trespass under ORS 164.245 that involves the operation of a motor vehicle constitutes grounds for suspension of driving privileges. The following apply to suspension on grounds described in this subsection:

(a) Upon receipt of a conviction for an offense described in this subsection, the department shall suspend the driving privileges or right to apply for driving privileges of the person convicted for a period of six months from the date of suspension.

(b) A person is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this subsection.

(26) Agreements entered under ORS 802.530 may establish grounds and procedures for the suspension of driving privileges.

(27) Violation of restrictions placed on driving privileges under ORS 807.120 or 809.310 constitutes grounds for suspension of driving privileges. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) The department immediately may suspend the driving privileges of any person without hearing and without receiving a record of the conviction of such person of crime if the department receives satisfactory evidence that the person has violated restrictions placed on the person's driving privileges. Any suspension under this paragraph shall be subject to a post-imposition hearing under ORS 809.440.

(b) A suspension under this subsection shall continue for a period determined by the department, but in no event for longer than one year, and shall be subject to any conditions the department determines necessary.

(28)(a) The department shall suspend driving privileges as provided under ORS 809.405.

(b) The suspension shall continue until the person reaches 18 years of age or until the suspension is terminated as provided in ORS 809.405.

(c) A person is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this subsection.

(29) Upon receipt of a record of a person's second conviction of a serious traffic violation within a three-year period, the department shall suspend the person's commercial driver license or right to apply for a commercial driver license if the convictions arose out of separate incidents. A suspension under this subsection shall be for a period of 60 days. A person is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this subsection.

(30) Upon receipt of a record of a person's third or subsequent conviction of a serious traffic violation within a three-year period, the department shall suspend the person's commercial driver license or right to apply for a commercial driver license if the convictions arose out of separate incidents. A suspension under this subsection shall be for a period of 120 days. A person is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this subsection.

(31)(a) Upon receipt of a record of conviction of an offense described in ORS 809.310, the department shall, or upon determination by the department that the person has committed an act that constitutes such an offense, the department may suspend any driving privileges, any right to apply for privileges or any identification card of the person convicted or determined to have committed the act.

(b) A suspension under this subsection shall continue for a period of one year.

(c) A person is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this subsection if the suspension is based upon a conviction. If the suspension is based upon a determination by the department, the person is entitled to a hearing as described in ORS 809.440.

(32) Upon receipt of a first notice indicating that a person has violated an out-of-service order issued under ORS 813.050 or has knowingly violated any other out-of-service order or notice, the department shall suspend the person's commercial driver license or right to apply for a commercial driver license for a period of 90 days. For purposes of this subsection, "notice" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, a record of conviction and a record of a determination by a state or federal agency with jurisdiction to make such determinations that the person has violated an out-of-service order or notice. A person is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this subsection.

(33) Upon receipt of a second or subsequent notice indicating that a person has violated an out-of-service order issued under ORS 813.050 or has knowingly violated any other out-of-service order or notice, the department shall suspend the person's commercial driver license or right to apply for a commercial driver license for a period of not more than five years. The department by rule may establish a suspension period of less than five years if the department determines that it would be in the public interest to do so and relevant laws or rules of the United States authorize such a lesser suspension period. For purposes of this subsection, "notice" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, a record of conviction and a record of a determination by a state or federal agency with jurisdiction to make such determinations that the person has violated an out-of-service order or notice. A person is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this subsection.

(34) Upon receipt of a record of a person's conviction of reckless endangerment of highway workers under ORS 811.231 (1), the department shall suspend the person's driving privileges or right to apply for driving privileges. The suspension shall be for periods of time described under Schedule I of ORS 809.420 except the department shall not reinstate any driving privileges to the person until the person complies with future responsibility filings. A person is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this subsection.

(35) Upon notification by a school superintendent or a school district board under ORS 339.254, the department shall suspend the driving privileges of a person or the right to apply for driving privileges. The suspension shall be for the amount of time stated in the notice. A person is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this subsection.

(36) Failure to satisfactorily complete a possession of marijuana diversion agreement under ORS 135.907 and failure to complete a program under ORS 419C.443 constitute grounds for suspension of driving privileges. The following apply to this subsection:

(a) Upon receipt from a court of a notice that a person has failed to complete a diversion agreement or a program described in this subsection, the department shall suspend the person's driving privileges or right to apply for driving privileges.

(b) The suspension shall be for six months.

(c) A person is entitled to administrative review of a suspension under this subsection. Notwithstanding ORS 809.440 (2)(b), it is not a defense in an administrative review under this paragraph that the offense on which the suspension was based did not involve a motor vehicle.

SECTION 5. ORS 135.907 is amended to read:

135.907. (1) The court shall inform at arraignment a defendant charged with the offense of possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, that a diversion agreement may be available if the offense for which the defendant is before the court is the defendant's first offense of possession of less than one ounce of marijuana and files with the court a petition for a possession of marijuana diversion agreement.

(2) The petition form for a possession of marijuana diversion agreement shall be available to a defendant at the court.

(3) The form of the petition for a possession of marijuana diversion agreement and the information and blanks contained therein shall be determined by the Supreme Court under ORS 1.525. The petition form made available to a defendant by any state court shall conform to the requirements adopted by the Supreme Court.

(4) In addition to any other information required by the Supreme Court to be contained in a petition for a possession of marijuana diversion agreement, the petition shall include:

(a) A waiver by the defendant of the right to speedy trial or sentencing in any subsequent action upon the charge;

(b) An agreement by the defendant to complete at an agency or organization designated by the state court a diagnostic assessment to determine the possible existence and degree of a drug abuse problem;

(c) An agreement by the defendant to complete, at defendant's own expense based on defendant's ability to pay, the program of treatment indicated as necessary by the diagnostic assessment;

(d) An agreement by the defendant to comply fully with the laws of this state regarding controlled substances;

(e) A notice to the defendant that the diversion agreement will be considered to be violated if the court receives notice that the defendant at any time during the diversion period committed a violation of the controlled substances laws of this state;

(f) An agreement by the defendant to keep the court advised of the defendant's current mailing address at all times during the diversion period; [and]

(g) A waiver by the defendant of any former jeopardy rights under the federal and state constitutions and ORS 131.505 to 131.525 in any subsequent action upon the charge or any other offenses based upon the same criminal episode; and

(h) A stipulation by the defendant that the controlled substance the defendant possessed was marijuana.

SECTION 6.In addition to and not in lieu of any other appropriation, there is appropriated to the Emergency Board, out of the General Fund, for the biennium beginning July 1, 1997, the sum of $600,000 for allocation only to the Judicial Department and the Department of State Police to address costs expected to be incurred in carrying out the purposes of this Act. Any such moneys that remain unallocated and unobligated by the Emergency Board on November 1, 1998, become available for any lawful purpose for which the Emergency Board may lawfully allocate funds.

NOTE: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and italic] type indicates deletions or comments.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Ballot Measure 57 makes possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a Class C misdemeanor crime, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a fine of $500 to $1,000. Under current law, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is a non-criminal violation, punishable upon conviction by a fine of at least $500 but not more than $1,000.

Current law allows an adult charged with possession of less than one ounce of marijuana to have the charge dismissed by completion of a diversion program if it is the person's first offense. This measure also allows diversion, but requires, as a condition of diversion, that the person charged stipulate that the person was in possession of marijuana. Current law also requires a juvenile who is found to have committed the same act to enter a program for information or treatment. This measure provides that if a person enters one of these programs and fails to complete the program, the person's driving privileges will be suspended for six months.

The measure appropriates $600,000 for the biennium out of the General Fund to the Emergency Board, for allocation to the Judicial Department and the Department of State Police for purposes of carrying out the provisions of the measure.

The text of Ballot Measure 57 was enacted by the Legislative Assembly in 1997 as House Bill 3643 and was referred to the voters in accordance with the referendum power reserved to the people by section 1, Article IV of the Oregon Constitution.
Committee Members:Appointed by:
Representative Jo Ann BowmanChief Petitioners
Representative Floyd ProzanskiChief Petitioners
Senator Eileen QutubSecretary of State
Representative Ben WestlundSecretary of State
Representative Lane ShetterlyMembers of the Committee

(This committee was appointed to provide an impartial explanation of the ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.)

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

YES ON 57

http://www.focc.org

When marijuana was decriminalized in 1977, it actually attracted criminals to the state. Decriminalization, sent a mixed message to our children and though marijuana is especially damaging to
children, Oregon students, soon led the nation in the use of marijuana. Today, marijuana is 5 to 30 times more potent, and far more dangerous than it was in the 70's. Recriminalizing will impose meaningful penalties, act as a deterrent for use and possession, and end attracting drug users to Oregon.

David Smith, M.D., Founder, Haight Ashbury Free Clinics

The Commonwealth", Vol. 90, #5, January 29, 1996

Denise Kandel Columbia University,

From: "New Scientist", 2/21/98

By school age, these same children exhibited: highly inferior verbal skills, lower intelligence, and memory problems

Their mothers rated them as: more impulsive, more hyperactive, and more problematic (behavior).

Fried, P.A., Published in "Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology" 36:319-337, 1993

(This information furnished by John E. English, Director, For Our Children's Children.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

OREGON MARIJUANA LAW NEEDS FAIR CONSEQUENCES TO PROTECT OREGON TEENAGERS.

PROTECT OREGON TEENAGERS FROM THE HARM OF
MARIJUANA AND OTHER ADDICTIVE DRUGS.

VOTE YES ON MEASURE 57.

(This information furnished by Roger Burt, MS.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

OREGON POLICE CHIEFS FOR SAFER
COMMUNITIES URGES YOU TO
VOTE YES ON MEASURE 57

SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE TO OREGON'S CHILDREN

It's time we send a clear message to the children of Oregon that the use of marijuana is not acceptable. We cannot expect young people in Oregon to believe our message about the danger of drugs, if we continue to treat possession of marijuana as a minor offense worth no more than a violation.

For the past several years, Oregon's children have been receiving conflicting messages about the acceptability of drugs. These mixed messages leave children more vulnerable to drug use than ever before. Increased marijuana usage by our children results in significant social impacts which deeply impact our schools and our communities. More children in Oregon are using marijuana than ever. Here are the facts:

WE CANNOT STAND BY AND WATCH THIS HAPPEN. OREGONIANS HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN. MEASURE 57 WILL SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE TO OUR YOUTH THAT MARIJUANA IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. YES ON MEASURE 57.

(This information furnished by Mike Cahill, Oregon Police Chiefs For Safer Communities.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Argument Against Ballot Measure #57

NO PRIVACY, NO HOME

This bill erodes everybody's privacy. By placing marijuana in the same category as cocaine, heroin, and prostitution, the State can require forfeiture of cars, assets and home. Professional licenses could be revoked. Loss of children to CSD is also a possibility. If marijuana is suspected to be present, the police may also presume guns to be present, thereby allowing swat team entry. A NO vote protects the Fourth Amendment from dilution and predatory interests!

The Fourth Amendment provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants, shall (be) issued(d), but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.

Since 1986, over forty million dollars worth of property has been seized in Oregon. Ballot Measure #57 allows the police to search the suspected marijuana criminal's car, house, computer files, and personal effects. Imagine if a friend who was a tobacco, coffee, or alcohol user was subjected to such inquisition by a similar bill! The proposed punishments for using small amounts of marijuana are extreme, especially in comparison with the penalties for alcohol abuse. Ballot measure #57 is an expensive assault on all privacy issues and one's home.

CHERISH PRIVACY RIGHTS! THEY ARE THE REAL BASIS UPON WHICH ALL OF OUR OTHER FREEDOMS REST. KEEP EVERYONE'S HOME A LEGAL CASTLE.

Vote NO on Ballot Measure #57!

Written by Toby Grant

Occupation - Landlord

Registered as Republican

(This information furnished by Toby Grant.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Five Good Reasons To Vote No on Measure 57:

Measure 57 costs too much:

At least $1.5 million each year.

That's what the Legislative Fiscal Impact Committee estimates Measure 57 will cost taxpayers.

But the true cost could go much higher.

The cost of taxpayer-funded, court-appointed lawyers could exceed $1 million a year alone..

Measure 57 would increase costs to state and local
governments for jail time and court costs.

And it would reduce state revenues by at least $638,000 per year.

The Legislature only appropriated $300,000 annually to pay for the increased costs.

Where will that additional $1.2 million come from?

Measure 57 sends the wrong message to our kids:

By re-criminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana we tell our kids one thing: We'll pay for your lawyers and jail cells, but we won't pay for your education.

Measure 57 will increase the release of criminals
from our jails:

In an Oregon State Bar Bulletin editorial in June, 1997, the Honorable Judge Frank Bearden had this to say about the Legislature's efforts to re-criminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana:

"With our Sheriff releasing around 500 criminals per month on matrix...our revolving door will soon spin like a top."

Measure 57 Won't Reduce Drug use among
juveniles or adults:

Experts agree treatment programs are far more effective in reducing casual use of marijuana, yet the Legislature has underfunded treatment programs for years.

Now Measure 57 will send people who use small amounts of marijuana to jail. At a cost of $1.5 million or more per year. There are better ways to spend our tax dollars.

Police Should Worry About Violent Criminals,
Not People Who Use Marijuana.

Why waste law enforcement's time and money on these non-
violent individuals when property and violent crimes continue to rise and people continue to be scared in our streets.

Keep law enforcement working where they belong.

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 57

(This information furnished by David Smigelski, No on 57.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Former Governor Tom McCall
signed the legislation that decriminalized possession
of small amounts of marijuana 25 years ago.

Here's what Governor McCall said:

"The Legislature determined that the existing penalties for mere possession or use of small amounts of the substance were disproportionately severe.

"All of us recognize the widespread use among our young people,

and most of us disapprove of the custom.

"There is recognition however, that if we are correct in assuming marijuana to be a socially undesirable substance, the solution is not to toss youthful offenders in jail.

"We long ago recognized alcoholism as a disease and
abandoned efforts to treat alcoholics by simply locking them up."

Former Governor Tom McCall

7/22/73

Salem Statesman Journal

Vote No on Measure 57.

There are better ways to spend our tax dollars.

Tom McCall knew that back in 1973.

It is more true today.

(This information furnished by State Rep. Floyd Prozanski.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Index of Facts on Measure 57:
Sources listed in parenthesis

State estimate of cost of Measure 57: $1.42 million
(Ballot Measure Fiscal Impact Committee)

Potential cost of Measure 57 to taxpayers annually: $18 million

Amount Legislature appropriated annually in current budget: $300,000
(Legislative record)

Amount Legislature left unfunded that will have to come from other programs like schools: $1.2 to $17 million
State Sen. Eileen Qutub's response to cost of M57: "Startled"
(Eugene Register Guard, August 6, 1998)

Number of prisoners released EARLY EACH MONTH in Multnomah County: 500
(Oregon State Bar Bulletin, June 1997)

Estimated number of people charged with marijuana possession in 1999: 6,000
(Legislative Fiscal Impact Committee)

Potential cost per person for taxpayer-funded defense lawyers: $280
(Oregon State Bar Bulletin, June 1997)

Total cost if each person arrested receives taxpayer-funded defense lawyer: $1.68 million

Minimum cost per day to jail people arrested for using marijuana: $76.20
(Ballot Measure Fiscal Impact Committee)

Annual cost if every possession case resulted in maximum jail stay: $13.7 million

Governor who signed law decriminalizing marijuana possession in 1973: Tom McCall
(1973 Legislative Record)

(This information furnished by Geoff Sugerman, No on 57 Committee.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

DON'T TURN BACK THE CLOCK!
VOTE NO ON MEASURE 57!

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Oregon urges you to consider why Oregon was the first state to decriminalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana in 1973. It wasn't because most Oregonians thought using marijuana was a good idea. We didn't then--and we don't now. It was because we thought police had more important things to do with their time and our tax dollars.

IT MADE SENSE THEN;
IT MAKES EVEN MORE SENSE NOW

Thirty years ago, police, prosecutors and the courts were spending too much time arresting and prosecuting young people whose only offense was the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Then, as now, marijuana was the most frequently used illicit drug.

Police, prosecutors and the courts shouldn't waste their time and our tax dollars arresting and prosecuting minor drug offenses. Their first priority should be catching and convicting murderers, rapists, sex offenders, armed robbers, burglars, drunk drivers and dangerous drug dealers.

MEASURE 57 GOES TOO FAR!

Before 1973, someone caught with less than an ounce of marijuana could end up in jail and saddled with a criminal record for the rest of his or her life. If Measure 57 is approved, that could happen again--but there's more.

In recent years, lawmakers have given police and prosecutors powerful new tools that weren't available in 1973. Among those is the right to seize property from people suspected of committing drug crimes. Under these "forfeiture" laws, it's up to property owners to prove their innocence if they want their property back.

One of the effects of Measure 57 will be to allow police to seize cars, cash and even the homes of people suspected of possessing less than an ounce of marijuana. Do we really want to give police and prosecutors this kind of power in minor marijuana cases?

LET'S KEEP OUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT!
VOTE NO ON MEASURE 57!

(This information furnished by Jann Carson, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Oregon.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

A Respected Judge Argues
The Legislature's Effort to Re-Criminalize Marijuana Use
Will Result in More Prisoners Being Released
From Our Jails.

Excerpts from an editorial by the Honorable
Judge Frank Bearden:
Oregon State Bar Bulletin, June 1997

"Like pouring gasoline on an out-of-control fire, the Legislature passes more laws in the name of public safety without coming close to funding the product through to completion.

"One small example is the proposed bill to re-criminalize marijuana to a Class A misdemeanor, with a conservative estimate of an additional 1,000 misdemeanor cases in Multnomah County (to go with our 20,000 plus).

"This would mean approximately $250,000 or more in indigent defense costs (in Multnomah County alone) and no additional prosecutors or judges or courts to handle those cases...

"With our Sheriff releasing around 500 people a month on matrix because of overcrowding, our revolving door will soon spin like a top."

NOTE: Judge Frank Bearden is the chief criminal judge for Multnomah County Circuit Court. This statement is excerpted from an article written by Judge Bearden which appeared in the June 1997 edition of the Oregon State Bar Bulletin.

(This information furnished by Leland R. Berger, No on 57 Committee.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Even Top Brass in the War on Drugs Agree:
Treatment Works Better than Jail Time....

"It is time to make education, prevention and drug treatment a priority for funding if we hope to make a lasting impact on alcohol and drug abuse."

"....Studies show that prevention and treatment work and save money. A recent study by the Oregon State office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs clearly shows that each dollar spent on alcohol and drug abuse treatment results in a savings of $5.60."

"...I am convinced that expanding prevention and drug treatment programs will help us make greater gains in eliminating alcohol and drug abuse."

­Portland Police Chief Charles Moose
Source: July 12, 1996 cover letter as Chair of the
Regional Drug Initiative Task Force

"We are not going to arrest our way out of the drug problem....The drug issue is going to get solved in the home and in the home room of a school, not on the streets of America."

U.S. Drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey
Source: Speech before the National Sheriffs' Association,
Portland, Oregon-- June 4, 1996

The Salem Statesman Journal Agrees...

"...We don't have the police, prosecutors, prison space and probation resources to combat major crime now. By burdening them with more small time offenders, we will be diverting law enforcement from effectively targeting drug suppliers, violent criminals and other high-priority offenders."

Source: "Tougher Marijuana Penalties Won't
Curb Substance Abuse."
Salem Statesman Journal editorial, April 26, 1997

Vote NO on Measure 57­Let's not waste our tax dollars.

(This information furnished by Amy K. Klare, No on 57 Committee.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Vote No on Measure 57

There are better ways to spend our tax dollars.

For 25 years, since Tom McCall was Governor, Oregon has used treatment and prevention programs to fight the problems of casual marijuana use. Compared to other states, especially those with costly incarceration programs, our rate of marijuana usage is similar. We do better than many states with the most severe penalties.

Measure 57 won't cut use... But it will cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year...And it will force us to release more criminals onto our streets.

Under current law, we require those caught with small amounts of marijuana to pay a hefty fine ­ a minimum of $500 up to $1000 ­ when they are caught. Under Measure 57, fines would actually be reduced in 40% of cases.

Now the politicians want to spend millions each year to send a political message.

But it's the wrong message, especially for young people Because what our young people hear is that we are willing to pay for their lawyers and jail cells, but not willing to pay for their education, prevention or treatment programs. In fact, Measure 57 makes it more difficult for people arrested for first time to enter diversion programs.

Measure 57 also requires us to release more prisoners from our over-crowded jails.

Prisoners who commit property crimes and theft are often released when jails become full. In Multnomah County, up to 500 prisoners are released each month..

Do we really want to release more criminals just to send a costly and ineffective message to our children?

Measure 57 is a political tool that will:

Vote No on Measure 57.

It's a bad law that will cost us millions and make our streets less safe.

(This information furnished by Charles E. Grossman, MD.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Vote NO on Measure 57

There are better ways to spend our tax dollars.

For 25 years Oregon has used treatment and prevention programs to fight the problems caused by the casual use of marijuana. Our rate of marijuana usage is similar to states that impose even more costly incarceration penalties. Oregon does better than many states in treating severe offenders.

Measure 57 won't cut usage, but it will cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year to punish those who use small quantities.

Under our present law, we require those caught with small quantities of marijuana to pay a hefty fine - a minimum of $500 up to $1000. Under measure 57, fines will actually be reduced in 40% of the cases.

Under Measure 57 certain politicians want to spend millions of your tax dollars each year to send their political message.

But, it is the wrong message; especially for young people. The message our youth will hear is that we are willing to pay for more jail cells and expensive lawyers, but we are not willing to pay for their education or marijuana prevention and treatment programs. In fact, Measure 57 will make it more difficult for those arrested for first time offenses to enter diversion programs.

Measure 57 will also require the release of more prisoners from our over-crowded jails.

Criminals in jail for theft or property offenses are often released early to make room for other offenders. In Multnomah County for example, up to 500 prisoners are released each month.

Do we really want to release more criminals just to send an expensive and ineffective message to our youth?

Measure 57 is a political tool that will:

Vote NO on Measure 57.

It's a bad law, will cost us millions, and make our streets less safe.

(This information furnished by George Eighmey, State Representative, No on 57 Committee.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

M.A.M.A. Says Measure 57 Sends the Wrong Message to Kids

My name is Sandee Burbank. I have lived in Oregon for 24 years. I have a deep love for this state, not only because of its natural beauty, but also for the wonderfully diverse and progressive people who live here.

For the last 17 years, I have served as the executive director Mothers AgainstMisuse and Abuse, a nationally recognized parents' organization concerned about preventing the misuse and abuse of all drugs. MAMA believes we must seek a more inclusive approach to our current drug policies beginning by judging all drugs by the same standard. Drug policy should be based on sound science and reason­not political posturing.

Measure 57 sends a misguided message to our children ­ telling them that our state would rather pay for more jail cells than for parks or school books.

Think Smart for Our Kids--Vote NO on 57.

Sandee Burbank

Mosier, OR

(This information furnished by Sandee L. Burbank.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

MARIJUANA AND REASON Do we not see that it is senseless to throw a man in jail for drinking a beer, or to declare a woman a criminal for lighting a cigarette? Yet this is just what Measure 57 proposes for the one who holds a marijuana cigarette. This would be a step entirely in the wrong direction. No doubt it is difficult to put aside the fearful emotions that have been attached to the questions of marijuana, but let us calm ourselves and examine the facts from a rational perspective.

IS MARIJUANA DANGEROUS? The thoughtful answer can only be "Compared to what?" Nothing is entirely safe; dangers are to be found in everything under the sun. Two comparisons are particularly useful: marijuana versus alcohol and tobacco, the legal adult "recreational" (mood-altering) drugs; and regulated marijuana versus prohibited marijuana.

ALCOHOL is mind- and mood-altering; it causes birth defects and many other physical ailments; it impairs judgment, learning, memory, and physical control; it induces violent behavior. It is physically addictive and psychologically habit-forming. (Alcohol is addictive to 10-20 percent of its users, roughly the same proportion as cocaine and heroin; each of these is much less addictive than tobacco.) TOBACCO is, without question, the most addictive and lethal drug around.

MARIJUANA use, by contrast, simply is not a major public health or safety issue. No one dies from a marijuana overdose, nor from marijuana poisoning; while marijuana affects driving abilities, it is demonstrably safer than alcohol; it does not induce violent behavior; it is no more addictive nor more habit-forming than coffee.

When compared objectively, alcohol and tobacco are each much more dangerous than marijuana. And yet we do not prohibit their use and sale by adults to adults, because we know the effects of prohibiting alcohol or tobacco are more dangerous than the effects of the drugs themselves. Instead, we regulate. The same should be true for marijuana.

PROHIBITION may or may not reduce absolute consumption, but it guarantees that all production, distribution, and use will be illegal and away from effective social control. Here is the true 'gateway' effect, due to prohibition itself: prohibiting marijuana brings the user into contact and collusion with our dark side,
the criminal world. Prohibition breeds crime and corruption by creating the sky-high profits of the black market, where illegal marijuana sells for one hundred times the price of legal, regulated tobacco.

PROHIBITION LOSES CONTROL While no form of regulation can be perfect, marijuana prohibition is wildly imperfect, a delusional fantasy: what prohibition pretends and what it actually delivers are two very different things. Prohibition pretends to offer control and safety, but instead gives us "unintended consequences"; it pretends to keep marijuana away from children, but actually makes it more available and completely uncontrolled. (Studies consistently show that school children can get marijuana more easily than alcohol.) Prohibition pretends to prevent crime while actually creating more.

Only by regulating adult marijuana commerce can we eliminate the black-market profits that are the real cause of crime and corruption. Then we can directly address the comparatively small social, medical, and public safety concerns about marijuana, and more effectively keep marijuana away from children, and children away from crime.

(This information furnished by Barry Smith.)

This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 57

Ballot Measure 57 will dramatically increase government intrusion and loss of privacy. It will give the police even more legal power to invade our homes at will. It is totally at odds with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

This bill is NOT about possession of marijuana (a nonviolent and victimless act). It IS about increasing police search and seizure, the forfeiture of property, vehicles and cash, the loss of commercial and professional licenses, and CSD taking our children. Oregon's whole climate of freedom and pursuit of happiness will be compromised, if not destroyed. The police are very supportive of this draconian bill (its original sponsor in the Oregon legislature was a policeman/representative). The police will benefit greatly, on numerous levels, from the latitude it will allow them.

This so-called War on Drugs (really a war on our personal freedoms) is an unmitigated disaster, and Measure 57 will only make things worse. When marijuana prohibition was initiated with the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, there were supposedly 55,000 users. Now in the U.S., after 60 years of prohibition and several trillion dollars, there are seventy million users. Our prison population has grown tenfold over the last 20 years. It is the highest in the world. On the average we have ten times the number of prisoners per capita than do most European countries.

If Measure 57 passes, there will instantly be a quarter of a million new "criminals" in the state of Oregon. What will we do with them?

Bill Conde

(This information furnished by Bill Conde.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.