That's how long it took the pharmaceutical industry-financed team behind Proposition 78 to provide reporters today with a study that draws a completely opposite conclusion to a study being hawked by the health access and union advocates behind Proposition 79.

Welcome to the prescription drug initiative spin zone.

At 10:44 am, the first e-mail landed, with the headline "New Report Finds Maine's Enforced Prescription Drug Program Offers Deeper Discounts Than Ohio's Voluntary Program." The e-mail was distributed by Consumers Union, but actually refers to an organization headed up by a woman named Sharon Anglin Treat.

And who is Treat? She happens to be the former Democratic leader of the state Senate in Maine who authored the prescription drug legislation being touted as more effective. Her new non-profit agency's report concludes that Maine's program (upon which Prop 79 is based) is better than one instituted in Ohio (upon which Prop 78 is based), because of the "quality of the price discounts, the number of eligible residents enrolled, and the overall design and implementation of the program."

83 minutes later, the counterattack e-mail arrived: "Survey Shows Drug Prices Lower In Ohio Than Maine." The e-mail was distributed by the PR firm working for the Pharamceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). The study they quote was conducted by a group called Californians For Affordable Prescriptions.

And who are Californians For Affordable Prescriptions? That would be an initiative campaign set up and funded by PhRMA. They claim that a side-by-side comparison of Maine (Prop 79) and Ohio's (Prop 78) prescription drug programs concludes that Ohio's prices are 20% lower than those in Maine.

If that wasn't enough spin, the Prop 79 folks just sent me another e-mail at 2:44 pm... this one now proclaiming that PhRMA's study is "flawed."

I'm waiting for another counterattack.