Green NORML logo

SUITE 1010-C

T 202-483-5500 • F 202-483-0057 • E-MAIL NATLNORML@AOL.COM
. . . a weekly service for the media on news items related to Marijuana Prohibition.

March 14, 1997

Republican Crime Bill Targets Doctors Who Recommend
Medical Use of Marijuana

Washington, D.C. March 13, 1997:  Sen. Orrin Hatch (R Utah), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the chief sponsor of the Republican crime bill in the U.S. Senate (S. 3), has included provisions to punish physicians who recommend the use of marijuana to seriously ill patients in compliance with state law.  The bill is co-sponsored by 27 other Republican senators.
Section 1002 of S. 3 requires hospitals and HMOs that receive federal funds to certify that no professional at that hospital has or will prescribe or recommend a Schedule I substance (which includes marijuana) to any person.  For physicians who might choose to ignore such Congressional medical advice, and discuss the possible medical benefits of marijuana with a patient, Sen. Hatch and his Republican colleagues would additionally revoke their federal DEA license required to prescribe serious painkillers, putting most doctors out of business.  "This official response of the national Republican Party to the recent statewide voter initiatives in California and Arizona legalizing the medical use of marijuana is surprisingly insensitive to the suffering of tens of thousands of sick Americans," observed NORML Executive Director Keith Stroup.  "Whatever one's views may be regarding the war on drugs, denying effective medication to seriously ill Americans should never be part of it."
"This extreme reaction by the Republicans," added Stroup, "was foreshadowed by the MaCarthyesque nature of the brief hearing Sen. Hatch held in December."  At that time, in a hastily scheduled Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill with only two senators in attendance, Sen. Hatch and Sen Jon Kyl (R-AZ) claimed the voters in California and Arizona had somehow been duped by the medical use advocates, and ridiculed the possibility that marijuana might offer relief to seriously ill patients.
This is the second bill introduced in the new Congress to punish doctors who recommend marijuana.  Sen. Lauch Faircloth (R-NC), along with Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), have introduced S. 40, making it illegal for physicians to "offer advice, or respond to a request for advice, suggesting the use of marijuana", threatening them with loss of their DEA license, as well as disqualifying them from participating in the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs; and, should the patient be a minor, sending them to prison for up to 8 years.
For more information on Senate Bill 2 and 40, please contact either NORML's Allen St. Pierre @ (202) 483-5500 or the Drug Policy Foundation's Government Relations Director, Cheryl Epps, Esq. @ (202) 537-5005.

Nebraska Decriminalization Bill Under Attack

Omaha, NE, March 12, 1997: Nebraska, among eleven states to decriminalize minor marijuana offenses during the 1970s, is currently considering a bill (L.B. 845) to recriminalize marijuana.  The bill was the subject of a hearing before the Judiciary Committee of the unicameral Nebraska State Legislature.  The recriminalization proposal was introduced by state Sen. Debrah Suttle (Omaha) and Sen. Don Priesler (Butler County).

Former NORML National Director and criminal defense lawyer Don Fiedler of Omaha, NE was among those testifying in opposition to the proposal.  Fiedler asked the legislators to imagine they were Rip Van Winkle, and had just awakened from a 20 year nap, and suggested some of the questions they should want answered before changing the current law:

Q: Has the law worked?
Q: Has marijuana usage gone down in Nebraska since the law went in to effect?
Q: Whether the concept of issuing a citation, like a traffic ticket, has saved law enforcement time, resources, and money as the Governor and Legislature envisioned in 1978?
Q: Has the cost of processing these cases gone up?
Q: How many opportunities for young adults were salvaged by enacting legislation that did not place a black mark on their record to haunt them for the rest of their lives?

Fiedler reports that the primary supporters of the bill were from PRIDE, and he noted that the police and prosecutors did not testify.  The Nebraska legislatue is midway through its 90-day session.  NORML Deputy Director Allen St.Pierre commented that Mr. Fielder's testimony demonstrates that "citizen advocates need to ask their politicians to examine the economic benefits derived from decriminalizing marijuana.  Federal government studies indicate no upsurge in adolescent use where marijuana is decriminalized.  All concerned citizens want to minimize the use of marijuana by America's youth, arresting responsible adults who use marijuana, does not accomplish that goal."
For more information on Nebraska Senate Bill L.B. 845, please contact attorney Donald Fiedler, (402) 346-6263.

Ohio Legislature Repeals Medical Marijuana Defense

Columbus, Ohio, March 12, 1997:  Despite a game effort by reform advocates, who testified against the bill before the legislature in Columbus, the Ohio legislature has approved a bill to repeal the one-year old medical use of marijuana defense law.  The bill has been sent to Governor Voinivich (R), who is expected to sign it.

Apparently the new law had not yet been utilized, and the effort to repeal it was symbolic - a backlash in response to the recent voter initiatives allowing for the medical use of marijuana in California and Arizona.  Among those who earlier testified against the repeal law were Dr. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard Medical School and a member of NORML's Board of Directors, and John Hartman, Northcoast Ohio NORML director.  Hartman says the legislature is ignoring the will of the voters in rejecting the medical use of marijuana, according to a survey of Cuyahoga County households which found:

*48% of respondents felt that marijuana has medical value;
*57% of respondents support legislation that would allow physicians to prescribe marijuana to seriously ill patients;
*18% of respondents know someone who uses marijuana for treating a medical condition.

"The data gathered from Northcoast Ohio NORML's survey coupled with the Ohio Legislature's flip-flop on the issue of medical marijuana lends a strong impetus for a statewide initiative - similar to California's Proposition 215," said Northcoast Ohio Coordinator John Hartman.
For more information on the repeal of the Ohio medical marijuana defense law, please contact Northcoast Ohio NORML's John Hartman @ (216) 521-9333.  For more information on potential state initiatives, please contact American for Medical Rights' Dave Fratello @ (310) 394-2952.



© copyright 1996, 1997 NORML NORML Home Page comments:

Regional and other news

Body Count

Four of the 10 felons sentenced by Multnomah County courts in the most recent week received jail or prison terms for controlled-substance offenses, according to the "Portland" zoned section of
The Oregonian, ("Courts," March 13, 1997, p. 7, 3M-MP-NE). That makes the body count so far this year 46 out of 99, or 46.46 percent.

Campaign For Multnomah County Medical-Marijuana Initiative Under Way

T.D. Miller, director of Portland NORML, writes:
More than $3,000 has already been pledged for the effort to get 16,000 signatures for a countywide medical marijuana initiative. The effort got under way after a meeting among local activists over the weekend. Currently, a political action committee is being formed to direct the initiative, which would lower the priority of and/or defund prosecutions of medical-marijuana cases in Multnomah County.

Phone numbers and addresses will be publicized as soon as arrangements are made. For the time being anyone seeking information can call T.D. Miller at 503-777-9088.


[Research by at least one lawyer, paid for by Portland NORML, revealed that Oregon state law effectively prohibits democracy on the county or municipal level. Any initiative regarding cannabis or other substantive policy issues has to be introduced at the state level. - ed.]


Irish Folk Concert Benefits Portland Medical-Marijuana Defendants

The Irish groups Cul an Ti, The Begrudgers with Maire Egan, Griff Ocker, and other Portland-area Celtic musicians and singers will perform in a benefit concert for AIDS patients and others being prosecuted for the medical use of marijuana.

The concert begins 7:30 pm Thursday, March 27, at the Clinton Street Theatre, 2522 SE Clinton, Portland. The cost is $5.00 at the door.

OCTA Petitioners Return To Portland Saturday Market

Paul Stanford of the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act writes:
The Portland Saturday Market is open again and we need volunteers to come out and help us staff it. Please e-mail or call me if you can volunteer some time on a Saturday or Sunday. 234-7562.
Please support the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act (OCTA)! OCTA would regulate cannabis sales in Oregon's state package stores, allow doctors to prescribe cannabis and allow farmers to grow hemp for industrial production of thousands of products, from cloth and paper to food and energy. OCTA will raise hundreds of millions of dollars in state revenue. OCTA is an initiative petition sponsored by our political committee, "Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp."

Paul Stanford
P.O. Box 86741
Portland, OR 97286
(503) 235-4606

A Physician Writes To The Olympian

The Olympian [Olympia, WA], Feb. 27, 1997
To the Editor:

One of the prime reasons that the Drug Enforcement Agency and its fellow drug warrior organizations are striving so desperately to block the approval of medicinal marijuana is that if marijuana does become accepted as a valid medicine it will have to be reclassified from Schedule I (too dangerous for physicians to prescribe) to Schedule II (available for doctors to prescribe).

It would then be possible for any physician or medical institution to do the unbiased, objective research that has been blocked so effectively by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the DEA for all these years.

When the DEA loses its strangle-hold monopoly on allowing or preventing research, studies demonstrating that marijuana is a safe and effective medicine can and will be done. These studies also will expose as baseless the myriad exaggerated claims about the dangers of marijuana use. The truth will out.

No longer will it be possible to hoodwink the public with florid rhetoric about the addictive, reefer-madness menace that warrants jailing (and confiscating the property of) otherwise law-abiding adult users.

No wonder the drug warriors are frantic. Their jobs are at risk.

Very sincerely,

David L. Edwards, M.D.
2715 Schirm Loop, N. W.
Olympia, Washington, 98502
(360) 866-7165

Tacoma Doctor Files Washington State Medical-Marijuana Initiative

"Medical use of marijuana sought - Doctor says initiative would ease pain, suffering"

Diane Targovnik
The Associated Press
circa Friday, March 7, 1997

OLYMPIA - A Tacoma doctor filed a proposed ballot initiative Wednesday that would allow physicians in Washington to prescribe marijuana to "treat a disease, or to relieve the pain and suffering of seriously ill and terminally ill patients."

"I am not about legalizing drugs," said Dr. Robert Killian, the initiative's sponsor and a family practitioner. "I am out to relieve suffering, and I need help."

The initiative, modeled after one that passed in November in Arizona, would legalize the prescription of all "Schedule I" drugs for people in debilitating pain or terminally ill.

Besides marijuana, the Drug Enforcement Administration classifies substances such as heroin, LSD, methamphetamine and cocaine as Schedule I drugs.

Killian lacks backing from any group and is counting on volunteers to help him collect the 179,248 signatures from registered voters he needs by July 3 to qualify the initiative for the state's November ballot.

For now, state officials have mixed reactions, and the Washington State Medical Association remains neutral.

Last week, the Clinton administration stepped back from its hard-line approach and said doctors can talk to patients about marijuana and the legality of its use.

Doctors still cannot prescribe marijuana, even though voters in Arizona and California approved referendums last fall allowing the use of marijuana for certain illnesses.

Killian said he found the California law too lenient, since it does not require doctors to prescribe marijuana, just orally recommend its use, for patients to obtain it legally.

The Arizona Legislature is considering a bill that would bar all other Schedule I drugs except marijuana as potential treatments.

Democratic Lt. Gov. Brad Owen said Washington's initiative would give youths approval to try marijuana.

"I've traveled for nine years, talking to schools about drugs. Over the last few years, since all this rhetoric about marijuana, the ability to talk with them about marijuana has been more difficult," Owen said. "I wish these people who are advocating would think a little bit more."

Killian's initiative also would strengthen state drug controls and proposes that a person who commits a violent crime while under the influence of illegal drugs should serve 100 percent of the sentence with no chance of early release.

Two years ago, a Pierce County judge struck down the state's marijuana ban in a case brought by Ralph Seeley, a Tacoma lawyer diagnosed with a rare form of terminal bone cancer. The case is now before the state Supreme Court.

"That final decision by the Supreme Court won't be made until after this cancer kills me," Seeley said Wednesday. Seeley, who supports Killian's efforts, uses marijuana to help control nausea while on chemotherapy.

[Dr. Robert Killian's World Wide Web page, "Seeking the Legalization of Medical Marijuana in Washington State," is at - ed.]

ABC's 'March Against Drugs' - The First Week

TV Wars
The First Week: The March Against Drugs Comes Before Accurate Information

The first week of the March Against Drugs demonstrates that ABC is willing to tell the news so that it fits their views - even if it is not accurate.

Below are some examples of false information on the network in the first week of the March Against Drugs. If anyone has additional information about these examples, or additional examples to add, please let me know, as we are working on a press release on this matter.

  • On March 6, Turning Point ran a one hour special on Heroin the New High School High. The special painted a false picture of a heroin epidemic among high school students. In fact, in 1996 the federal government's Monitoring the Future survey found that 1 percent of High School seniors used heroin in the last year and half of 1 percent used it in the last month - hardly a common High School High. An drug treatment expert on the show made an outlandish and impossible to document claim: for every one heroin user who stops use five hundred die a miserable death.

  • On March 4, Good Morning America an addiction medicine specialist, Dr. Richard Scatterday, made the assertion that 1,000 kids died from inhalant use last year, one-third on their first use. In fact, while this assertion went unchallenged by ABC, the facts are inhalant deaths are not even reported by the Drug Abuse Warning Network - which documents drug-related deaths. And poison-control deaths report ten to twenty inhalant deaths for all age groups each year, primarily, suicides or alcohol-related accidents.

  • On March 4, the Partnership for a Drug Free America was reported on by ABC news. The survey reported an increase from 2 to 4 percent for first trials of marijuana by adolescents. What they did not report was that for this question the margin of error was 1.3 percent, almost equal to the alleged increase.

  • On March 3, Good Morning America aired a round table discussion of parents talking to adolescents about drug use. The round table discussion was edited so that criticism of the Partnership for a Drug Free America was not included.

    Please help us monitor activity on ABC. When you notice something worth reporting on please pass on the information.

    Kevin B. Zeese
    Common Sense for Drug Policy
    3619 Tallwood Terrace
    Falls Church, VA 22041
    703-354-5694 (phone)
    703-354-5695 (fax)

    To which Marnie Regen responded:

    Re: ABC March Against Drugs: The First Week

    >On March 6, Turning Point, ran a one hour special on Heroin the New High
    >School High. The special painted a false picture of a heroin epidemic among
    >high school students...

    .... Another point that should be noted is that most of the overdoses they mention are the result of combining heroin with alcohol or heroin with downers. The young boy that died in Orlando ("Blondie") died because he mixed heroin with Rohypnol!! They never talk about this. They never talk about kids who go to parties, get drunk and then try heroin - only to learn how fatal this can be. The Smashing Pumpkins drummer and the lead singer for Sublime OD'd because they drank hard liquor before shooting up. I believe the singer for Blind Melon did the same. I interview heroin addicts for a living (and have personal experience) and none drink anywhere near as much (if at all) as these kids do. They won't waste the money on liquor, that's why they last longer than these middle-class kids! But the media will not talk about this, they rather blame it on the drug.

    Marnie Regen

    Public Service Ads We'd Like To See During ABC's 'March Against Drugs'

    On March 8
    "RV" wrote:
    Our new spot opens with a wide-angle shot of a press conference featuring the president of ABC Television. Also in the picture are speakers from the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, plus federal officials in charge of education, health and drug policy.

    "This is your nation's leadership on drugs," the announcer intones. "A more sanctimonious and hypocritical bunch you couldn't imagine."

    With the help of computer graphics, the dignitaries slowly morph into upscale party-goers. Some are smoking cigarettes, others are sipping cocktails - and all have large checks spilling from their pockets.

    "On March 4, 1997, these men and women gathered in Washington to launch yet another `anti-drug' campaign," the script goes on. "But they continued to tiptoe around the most damaging drugs in our society. As a practical matter, they're flunkies for the multibillion-dollar interests behind cigarettes and alcohol."

    Great idea! And the topic is right on, too. Speaking of the real dangerous drugs, here's another (visual) idea:

    Voiceover: "Johnny used to have a drug problem..."

    (Visual: Johnny - shot in profile - with joint in hand, laid back on couch with dreamy look on face, spacey music in background, perhaps a blacklight, fluorescent poster, other "hippie" paraphernalia.)

    Voice: "But today he's seen the light."

    (Visual: Johnny behind the wheel - as seen by a camera positioned on the hood of a car shooting back through the windshield - shouting and laughing, taking swigs off a bottle, turning around to talk to his car-full of buddies who are also "shitfaced" and partying hard. The movement of the camera indicates the car careening and swerving back and forth across the road. Cigarettes are going. Johnny has one clutched between two fingers throughout. Every couple of seconds all the laughing faces are lit up by passing headlights with horns blasting. Finally we hear a single, long horn blast accompanied by screeching tires and see the now brightly lit faces staring straight ahead in dumb, confused horror.)

    I'm sure there are better ideas for the "captions" for the two images. Here's another example:

    First image: Some drugs are dangerous
    Second: image: And some drugs are perfectly legal
    End: Does America know the difference?

    O.K. Folks, I need a little help here. Any other ideas?!


    Drug Arrests Up 18 Percent On Major College Campuses

    "Crime Survey Shows Campus Drug Arrests Rose 18% in 1995
    College officials say the figures may reflect tougher enforcement policies"

    By Kit Lively
    The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 21, 1997, p. A44

    Drug arrests on college campuses jumped by almost 18 per cent in 1995, the fourth consecutive year with a double-digit increase. Arrests for alcohol violations rose almost 1 per cent.

    A Chronicle survey of crime at almost 500 colleges also found that, except for sex offenses, the incidence of other crimes dropped in 1995, in line with national trends.

    Experts on campus crime suggest that the 6,797 drug arrests and 15,208 arrests for alcohol violations in 1995 - the most recent year for which data are generally available - may tell more about enforcement than about actual use of alcoholic beverages. Recent studies have shown a modest increase in the use of drugs and alcohol at colleges.

    Police officials on a number of campuses say they are paying more attention to dormitories, where students who do not use drugs are apparently becoming less tolerant of neighbors who do. An officer may be assigned to work with residents of just one dormitory, making frequent visits, checking security, giving safety talks, and listening to students' concerns.

    "We heard from residence people that they felt uncomfortable calling about suspected drugs because they weren't sure. So we were getting calls only about really obvious things," says Douglas F. Tuttle, director of public safety at the University of Delaware and a past president of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators.

    "We would go in and do a controlled burn and say, 'This is what marijuana smells like. This is what cocaine looks like.' They needed to be looking for drug paraphernalia. If someone has a triple-beam balance on top of their dresser, that ought to ring a bell."

    Police at the University of Texas at Austin looked more vigorously for drug use after a university employee was caught making methamphetamines in a campus laboratory in 1994. Police at the University of Wisconsin at Madison bore down on a parking lot in 1995 where they had evidence of drug activity. Arrests rose that year to 126, from 99 in 1994. But they dropped to 62 in 1996, says Susan Riseling, chief of police and security. "We took a look at drug arrests and we said, 'Hey, they're all coming from one place. Let's clean it up.'"

    Most of the drug arrests, according to several police officials, are for offenses involving marijuana, although some add that the use of LSD and cocaine seems to be rising slightly.

    The arrest numbers also include people visiting college campuses for parties, concerts, and athletics events, and automobile drivers just passing through on city streets.

    Despite the sharp rises in drug arrests, police officials on a number of campuses say alcohol is by far the bigger substance-abuse problem. Colleges reported more than twice as many arrests for alcohol-related offenses as for drug violations in 1995.

    The Chronicle's survey found that most other crimes, including murder, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, vehicle theft, and violations of weapons laws declined in 1995. Besides drug and alcohol abuse, the only crimes that increased were sex offenses.

    Colleges that receive federal funds are required by law to prepare annual reports on campus crime and to make them available to their students and employees. The reports must include the numbers of arrests for drug, alcohol, and weapons violations. For other categories of crime, the reports include the number of incidents, not arrests. Since 1993, The Chronicle has collected and analyzed this information from the country's largest colleges - those with at least 5,000 students.

    Under the law, the statistics need cover only the buildings and land owned or used by a college or by recognized groups, although some institutions do additional reports on crimes that occur on city streets around their campuses.

    The current survey excludes community colleges, which tend to have low crime rates because almost all of their students live and socialize off campus.

    This year, The Chronicle requested the reports from 490 four-year institutions. Only one, Yeshiva University, did not provide its report, despite two written requests and several telephone messages.

    College police officials and other experts on campus crime warn against drawing too many inferences from the statistical changes that occurred in the course of only one year. They also say the statistics are too imprecise to rank colleges on the basis of safety. Many variables can affect an institution's crime rate. Dormitories, for example, attract thieves. Teaching hospitals treat thousands of people and must be included in the reports, even if they are located in neighborhoods with more crime than the main campus.

    Nonetheless, most experts say the annual reports provide the best available indicator of broad trends over time.

    The declines in most kinds of violent and property crimes at colleges reflect national trends. The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported in October that the rate of major crimes per capita fell in 1995 to the lowest level since 1985. The average for violent crimes - murder, forcible-sex offenses, aggravated assault, and robbery - dropped by 3 per cent in 1995. The average for property crimes, including burglary and vehicle theft, dropped by 1 per cent.

    Colleges differed from the national scene in experiencing a 2-per-cent increase in forcible-sex offenses, which range from unwanted fondling to rape. (For a detailed explanation of the various offenses, see "F.B.I. Definitions of Crime Categories.")

    Campus police officials believe the increases reflect a greater willingness by victims to report sex crimes than in the past. Besides, a few more colleges each year are counting sex offenses that are disclosed to officials such as deans and counselors in addition to those reported to the police. Experts say the higher numbers on those campuses probably come closer to reflecting the true incidence of sex crimes.

    Much of the 1.2-per-cent increase in non-forcible sex offenses may well be the result of confusion about the category. Federal regulations define "non-forcible" as consensual, illegal sex offenses, such as statutory rape and incest. But many colleges also include such behavior as public lewdness and stalking.

    Many kinds of crime on campuses can be linked to drug and alcohol use, several researchers say.

    "You are not as likely to get in a fight if you aren't high," says Alan J. Lizotte, executive director of the Consortium for Higher Education Campus Crime Research at the State University of New York at Albany. "You're not as likely to be raped. If you get rid of sellers, you get rid of unsavory characters and keep students from being victimized."

    Researchers at the University of Michigan found that 33.5 per cent of the college students they surveyed in 1995 had used illegal drugs within the past year, up 2.1 percentage points from 1994 and 4.3 points from 1991. Almost 85 per cent had used alcohol in the previous year, up 1.8 percentage points from 1994 but down 3.8 points from 1991.

    The numbers of drug arrests, although rising, bear out officials' impressions that campuses are not awash in drugs. There was only one arrest for every 1,000 students enrolled at the colleges surveyed. One quarter of all the colleges reported no drug arrests in 1995, and another one quarter reported five or fewer. Still, 69 colleges, or 14 per cent, reported 30 or more arrests, and of those, 11 reported more than 100 arrests. Those 11 were Arizona State, Michigan State, Northern Arizona, and San Jose State Universities; Rutgers University at New Brunswick; and the Universities of Arizona, California at Berkeley, Maryland at College Park, Michigan at Ann Arbor, North Carolina at Greensboro, and Wisconsin at Madison.

    The largest jump in the number of arrests was at Northern Arizona, where they rose to 133 in 1995 from 78 in 1994.

    At the University of Texas at Austin, Captain Silas Griggs of the police department says his officers spend more time than they used to "following the trail" after a student is arrested for drug possession. "We want to know where he got it from. We're trying to get the bigger fish."

    One criticism of campus-crime statistics is that arrest numbers don't capture all known violations, including cases that are referred to campus disciplinary bodies.

    Some institutions, however, do list disciplinary referrals. Kean College, for example, reported 2 arrests for alcohol violations and 41 referrals to the internal judicial system in 1995. The University of San Diego had no drug arrests but 25 referrals.

    Critics have charged that the reports understate campus crime. Many colleges do not include occurrences reported to officials other than police - such as counselors and deans - although the law requires them to. And the statistics count only the crimes that occur on campuses.

    Last September the House of Representatives adopted a resolution urging the Department of Education to make monitoring and enforcement of the federal law a priority. In February a sweeping bill was introduced in Congress that addresses the most common criticisms of the existing law. The bill calls for expanding the reports to include such common crimes as larceny and vandalism. It would require public-safety departments to keep daily logs of reported crimes and to make the contents of those logs public in most circumstances. It also would open college disciplinary proceedings to the public.

    Another provision calls for reporting drug and alcohol "incidents," not just arrests. Finally, the bill would require the Education Department to collect the crime data every year and report to Congress.

    Supporters of the bill say that opening the crime logs and disciplinary records would give students and their parents a more complete picture and give watchdogs, including journalists, more information to verify the annual statistical reports.

    Education Department officials say they routinely check whether about 700 colleges a year have published the reports. But it is impossible to confirm the accuracy of the reports without going back through police files at the campus.

    David A. Longanecker, Assistant Secretary for postsecondary education, says the Education Department doesn't have the money or staff to check the original files unless someone alleges non-compliance.

    Five such complaints have been filed since the law was enacted, he says. They were against Clemson University, Miami University (Ohio), Moorhead State University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Only the Moorhead findings have been released. The other reviews are pending.

    An inspection of hundreds of campus-crime reports indicates that some of the violations that were found at Moorhead are committed by many other colleges as well. They include failing to report crimes at University-affiliated sites away from the main campus; failing to include offenses reported to non-police officials; using crime definitions set by state statutes instead of those published by the F.B.I.; and reporting conflicting statistics from year to year.

    A report issued last week by the U.S. General Accounting Office noted some of the same reporting violations.

    The department is reviewing Moorhead's response and remedies before deciding whether to impose sanctions. Mr. Longanecker says he hopes that publicity about the investigation will convince other colleges that the Education Department takes compliance problems seriously.

    Still, he prefers to work with colleges to bring them into compliance rather than punish them by suspending part of their federal funds.

    "I think things are in better shape in respect to campus security now than when the law was passed in 1990," he says. "I hope in another five years we will be much farther than we are today."

    Authorities on campus crime say two big problems for colleges are convincing college students that crimes can happen to them, and that they should file crime reports if they are victims.

    Bonnie S. Fisher, an associate professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati whose research includes a study of compliance with the federal campus-crime law, says she has found that students fail to report many crimes against them. This doesn't excuse colleges for non-compliance, she says. But colleges might do well to analyze the underlying causes of crime and retool their policies accordingly, she says. She also asks how much the public can expect policies to sway 19-year-olds who feel invulnerable to the law and are determined to try drugs.

    "What puts students at risk is their life style - using drugs and alcohol," she says.

    "Colleges can have policies banning alcohol in the dorm, but come on," she adds wryly. "That's part of your defining moment as a college student - experimenting with drugs and alcohol.

    "Their lives are full of stressful periods and party periods. You can see those two worlds clashing. How much can colleges control that?"

    Mary Geraghty, Rachanee Srisavasdi, and Mike Waller contributed to this article.

    "Teens Find A Chilly, Zero-Tolerance World - Baby Boom Parents Going 'Draconian'"

    By Mary Leonard
    The Boston Globe, circa March 8, 1997

    Their behavior always has been annoying and sometimes even troublesome. Suddenly, though, America's teen-agers have turned into Public Enemy Number One, targets of a growing number of increasingly harsh measures by parents and public institutions aimed at yanking them into line.

    Pick up any high school newspaper to sample the outrage of teen-agers suffering death by a thousand cuts: Breathalyzer tests to get into the prom or a urinalysis to get a driver's license; nighttime lockouts at shopping malls and toddler like lock-ins in "time out" classrooms; dogs sniffing lockers for drugs; metal detectors searching backpacks for weapons; and dress codes prohibiting gang-suggestive black lipstick and bandannas.

    Now add to that Massachusetts Gov. William F. Weld's bill, proposed last week, to require teen-agers to present letters certifying regular school attendance when they apply for driver's permits and licenses. Under it, truants later could have their licenses revoked.

    It was never like this in the '60s. Then, as Janis Joplin warbled in a drug-altered state, freedom was just another word for nothing left to lose. Yet now, in the name of protecting both their children and the public safety, the baby boomers are applying their hallmark drive and will to denying liberties to their children.

    "Their baby-boomer parents, who grew up experimenting and pushing boundaries, are not just strict, they are draconian," said Mike Males, author of "The Scapegoat Generation: America's War on Adolescents." "It's zero tolerance time."

    In defense of zero tolerance, parents and public officials point out that it's a dangerous, even depraved world out there. Violent juvenile crime, until quire recently, had been skyrocketing. Drug use, particularly marijuana, is way up among teenagers. Intercourse carries the HIV risk that it didn't 30 years ago. Truancy these days leads to trouble with police and arrest records. A parents group in Anchorage recently tried to buy up all the tickets to a concert of the shock-rock roup Marilyn Manson, something that probably would not have happened if the Monkees had come to town.

    President Clinton, a baby boomer and the father of a teenager, perfectly read and reflected the fear and anxiety on the face of the nation during last year's campaign, and devised a second-term, parent-friendly agenda aimed at what he calls teen-age "order and discipline." He called for school uniforms and town curfews; drug testing for teen-agers seeking driver's licenses; zero tolerance for guns in schools and for teen-age drunken driving; and millions of dollars for antidrug and antismoking public information campaigns aimed at children.

    There's no body of evidence yet to prove that any of these newly minted rules and sanctions work. Psychologists who specialize in adolescents say that while teen-age behavior is malleable, it is molded much more by peers and the media than by the fear of punishment. James Alan Fox, dean of the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, notes that nighttime curfews do little to curb teen-age crime, which peaks from 3 to 8 p.m.

    Still the politicians, public officials, and parents are snapping back, abandoning permissive attitudes, and seeking to impose order on a generation that looks at risk and, at worst, out of control.

    "Oh, the teen-agers just hate it. They want their freedom back, said David Popenoe, a sociology professor at Rutgers University who writes extensively on family issues. "But the schools and families are realizing that a lot of kids are under socialized because we've drifted too far from authority and parenting. The impulse now is to impose structure, set forth proper standards, and enforce codes of behavior."

    Nancy Murray, who directs the Bill of Rights education project for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, sees it as part of a far-reaching movement in the country to turn back the clock. "It's a culture war between those who say things went terribly wrong in the '60s, let's get shipshape and end the dissent, and those who still value freedom of expression."

    For parents who grew up in the 1960s, it's painful to take sides in that culture war. It's even harder for members of the Woodstock generation to become in midlife what William Strauss, co-author of "The Fourth Turning," call "moral megaphoners."

    "Baby-boom parents aren't trying to punish their teen-agers. They're trying to reform them, have the nation feel good about them," Strauss said. "The same protective impulses that had them declaring 'Baby on Board' in their cars now have them demanding their kids shape up, get in line, cut it out, follow the rules, just no - and we mean it!"

    If teen-agers are confused by the crackdown, it's understandable. They can't imagine their parents would have stood for V-chips censoring what television shows they watched, or "smut blockers" if the Internet had been around 30 years ago. In the 1960s, some high schools had smoking rooms. Today, some high school yards are policed, and students are ticketed for smoking.

    Parental responsibility for teen-age behavior is taking other new forms in the 1990s. In January, the Food and Drug Administration approved an over-the-counter home urine-testing kit, which is being marketed directly to parents who want to learn if their children are using illegal, drugs. And around the country, local ordinances that hold parents financially responsible for their teen-agers misdeeds are catching on fast.

    "Parents today are very conflicted. Unlike their own parents, they had firsthand experience with sex, drugs and violence, and now they are scared as hell with what's going on in society and want to shield their kids from sex, drugs and violence," said Dr. Victor Strasburger, chief of adolescent medicine at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine and author of "Getting Your Kids to Say No in the '90s When You Said Yes in the '60s."

    "It's an extraordinarily difficult time to be a teen-ager or a parent," Strasburger said, "Teen-agers are stressed by peers, the media, commercialism, the need to exceed the expectations of their parents, and parents are equally stressed by money, blended families, divorce and time pressures."

    If stress creates generational problems in the middle class, it is multiplied many times over for teen-agers living in poverty and often in fractured families scarred by abuse and threatened by everyday violence. Yet these youngsters, when they get in trouble or cause it, aren't viewed by adults as victims, but increasingly, as demons to be feared.

    In their recent book, "Body Count," William Bennett, drug czar under President Bush, and John KiIulio Jr., a professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University, forecast a tidal wave of youth violence cresting in the year 2005 and perpetrated by teen-age "superpredators" - wild, cold-blooded, and remorseless killers raised in moral poverty. The label has been quoted widely, but not everywhere endorsed.

    "Something more vicious, more punitive, more dehumanizing is going on right now in the nation's official response to teen-agers," said Robert Schwartz, executive director of the Juvenile Law Center, a public-interest law firm in Philadelphia, "For the first time, we are willing to brand the behavior of acting-out juveniles as deviant and call for punishment that is an eye-for-an-eye."

    The political response to a 62 percent increase in the rate of arrests for violent juvenile crime between 1987 and 1993 has been for some 47 states to enact measures that automatically send certain youthful offenders into the adult judicial system. Despite a lack of data showing it has a deterrent effect or lowers recidivism rates among juveniles, the political power of the idea is so great that Congress is expecting to pass a bill this year making it easier to try juveniles as adults in federal courts.

    "Prison Looms For One In 20 Born Today"

    By Cassandra Burrell
    The Associated Press
    circa March 7, 1997

    WASHINGTON - One out of every 20 U.S. residents born today will spend time behind bars, if 1991 crime, incarceration and death rates remain constant, the Justice Department said yesterday.

    For minority males, the chances of spending time in prison are much greater.

    "At current levels of incarceration, a black male in the United States today has greater than a one in four chance of going to prison during his lifetime," the report said. The chance for Hispanic males is 16 percent, compared with 4.4 percent for white males.

    The projections by the Bureau of Justice Statistics are based on what is likely to happen to a hypothetical population of newborns over their lifetimes, the bureau said. They assume that recent rates of crime, imprisonment and death will not change.

    An estimated 5.1 percent of those born today - 9 percent of males and 1.1 percent of females - can be expected to serve time in a state or federal prison, the study said.

    Nearly 1.1 million men and women were imprisoned in a state or federal facility at the close of 1995.

    "We lock up a lot of people in this country," said Malcolm Young, executive director of The Sentencing Project, a non-profit group that advocates less imprisonment and more use of creative alternatives.

    The study "confirms our research and what we've published and I think it issues a pretty clarion call for some of the recommendations and solutions that we and groups like us have proposed," Young said. "I think the consequences of this kind of information is pretty serious."

    The study did not include the likelihood of being imprisoned in a local jail, juvenile facility or other type of detention center. It also did not estimate a person's chances of simply being arrested.

    The probability of a person committing a crime and being sentenced to prison for the first time declines steadily with age.

    For example, 2.1 percent of white males age 30 with no previous record of imprisonment are likely to go to prison sometime before they die, the study said.

    "Among those 35 years old, 1.5 percent will go to prison," it said. "Among those age 45, fewer than 1 percent will go to prison."

    Most data for the survey were collected in 1991, but other statistics indicate that incarceration rates have remained stable since then even though prison populations have been increasing, the bureau said.

    "One thing that occurred in the 1980s was a dramatic increase in the number of persons entering prison," said Allen Beck, one of the study's authors. "In the 1990s we continue to see prison populations grow, but that growth has not been the result of growing number of admissions. . . . Fewer people are being released."

    You can download the "Lifetime Likelihood of Going to State or Federal Prison" report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Survey - New Zealand Prohibition Yields High Cannabis Use Rates

    The Dominion [Wellington, New Zealand], March 14, 1997, p.1

    Cannabis use among young New Zealanders is much more common than previously reported, says a study that found more than half of 21-year-olds surveyed had smoked cannabis in the previous year.

    Otago Medical School researchers surveyed a group of 1000 people, all born in Dunedin in 1972, and interviewed for several studies since.

    Ritchie Poulter, spokesman for the research team, said 52.4 per cent of those surveyed acknowledged having used cannabis in the preceding year. Almost two thirds said they had tried it by the time they turned 21.

    Previous research suggested rates of use were much lower, about 40 per cent for males and 20 per cent for females.

    In the new study more men than women reported using cannabis frequently defined as more than six times a year and about 10 per cent were assessed as cannabis-dependent, an assessment made on the basis of internationally accepted criteria.

    Dr. Poulter said he believed the survey group was sufficiently large and representative for the findings to be extrapolated to the population at large. However, it contained few Maoris or Pacific Islanders, suggesting real rates of use could be higher as other studies showed high cannabis use among those groups.

    Give Needles Or Give Death

    On March 14, 1997 Ed Marshall wrote:
    As a physician I'm always amazed that everyone talks mainly about AIDS being spread by dirty needles. Many times more people are killed by Hepatitis B, C and perhaps other forms of hepatitis, all spread by dirty needles, than are killed by AIDS.

    Clean needle exchanges should be permitted everywhere, encouraged everywhere, publicized everywhere, and operated by volunteer addicts. Donation campaigns should be held to pay for needles for those addicts who truly cannot afford them.

    Tremendous suffering will be averted, and untold billions in medical expense caring for both AIDS and hepatitis victims. Plus, we must remember that these diseases are easily spread to the non-drug using population sexually and by blood products.

    I believe sale of needles and syringes should be totally deregulated, and any adult should be able to purchase them at will anywhere in the U.S. Once upon a time we were a free country, with very little crime and drug abuse.

    Then many laws began to be passed, and many problems intensified. "When will they ever learn?"

    Ed Marshall (MD)

    Australian Survey Debunks 'Junkie' Myth

    ADCA News of the Day, March 12, 1997

    West Australian, March 12, 1997, p. 3
    The Age, March 12, 1997, p. A3
    Australian, March 12, 1997, p. 3

    New research shatters stereotypes of injecting drug users and reveals they are more likely to be married with children and on incomes of $30,000-plus than unemployed and on the streets. The study, released by the National Centre for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse, studied questionnaires returned anonymously by 511 injecting drug users who bought "fit packs" from 193 pharmacies across Western Australia. Forty-four % were married or had a partner, 41% had at least one child, 17% owned their home and 30% earned more than $30,000. Most were not considered addicts; 61% injected less than once a day and 24% once a week or less. Amphetamines use was the most common, followed by heroin. The survey also found that nearly 40% of users surveyed shared needles, and a quarter had tested positive for hepatitis C.

    Curtin University's head of addiction studies, Associate Professor Bill Saunders, said the State Government's drug abuse strategy was woefully inadequate because it was based on stereotypes quashed by the research. Lewis Marshall, medical director of the Health Department's communicable diseases control program, admitted that education programs might not be hitting the mark - "We need to go back and reassess some of our particular programs and how we access people who are not in the more easily defined groups."

    ADCA's Daily News selects one story only from the many that comprise the national news of the day. The ADCA Library maintains a full collection of national print media clips which can be used by members and others. Copies of articles can be faxed on request and at no cost. Requests can be made by phone (06 2811002), fax (06 2810995) or e-mail (

    "Head Of Drug Panel Charged In Drunken Driving"

    The New York Times, March 12, 1997, p. B6

    The chairwoman of the State Assembly's Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse was arrested early today and charged with driving while intoxicated, the police said.

    Assemblywoman Susan John, 39, a Democrat from Rochester, was arrested after a police officer observed her car at 1:26 A.M. crossing the double yellow line and failing to stay right on a two-lane road in the suburb of Colonie.

    The Colonie officer who pulled her over said he smelled alcohol on her breath and conducted a sobriety test, which she failed. Her blood alcohol content was 0.14 percent, above the legal limit of 0.10, Lieut. Steven Heider said.

    "It was a routine arrest," Lieutenant Heider said. "She was seen swerving and weaving and pulled over. As far as I know she was entirely cooperative throughout the entire process."

    Just two months ago, Ms. John was selected to head the Assembly committee on substance abuse issues. She also was a sponsor of a "zero tolerance" bill toughening penalties for those under 21 who drink and drive.

    Ms. John issued a statement today in which she said she would enter a guilty plea at her court appearance and "do whatever the judge tells me to do."

    "Last night I made a serious mistake," she said. "I drank and drove. I was wrong to drink and drive."

    An aide said Ms. John would say nothing more about the incident.

    Her arraignment is scheduled for Monday, Lieutenant Heider said. Ms. John was elected to the State Assembly in 1990.

    Photo: Assemblywoman Susan John admitted drinking and driving. (Associated Press)

    "DC Cops Arrested On Drug Charge"

    By Janelle Carter
    Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON (AP, March 7, 1997) - One of two District of Columbia police officers accused of running a crack cocaine operation used a police station telephone to arrange a meeting with a drug contact, an affidavit alleges.

    Officer Jude H. Jeanty, 31, of Lanham, Md., allegedly made the calls while working at the Sixth District police station in northeast Washington. Prosecutors said Friday they also have a videotape of Jeanty engaged in a drug deal.

    An affidavit unsealed Friday charges Jeanty, Officer Marcus D. Jefferson, 29, of Washington, and six other people not employed by the police department with distributing up to $100,000 of crack and powdered cocaine.

    "These are extremely serious cases," said U.S. Attorney Eric Holder. "They are an indication that the Metropolitan Police Department still has problems."

    It is the second time in recent years that D.C. police officers have been arrested in a narcotics sting. In 1993, police arrested the infamous "Dirty Dozen," a group of young, inexperienced officers accused of running a drug ring.

    The announcement Friday of the Jeanty and Jefferson arrests came hours after Rep. Charles Taylor, R-N.C., chairman of the House D.C. Appropriations subcommittee, urged Police Chief Larry Soulsby to purge the 3,600-member department of "dozens" of officers with criminal records.

    "This is a police force that remains troubled," Holder said. "There are still people on the force who need to be separated from it."

    Jeanty was arrested in January, but his case was not made public until after Jefferson's arrest Thursday night. Both officers were uniformed patrolmen and have been placed on administrative leave, a police spokesman said.

    Jefferson appeared before a federal judge Friday and was ordered held without bond outside of the city's corrections system. Another man charged in the case Gregory Thomas, believed to be Jeanty's cousin also appeared before U.S. Magistrate Patrick Attridge.

    Police declined to reveal the names of the other five defendants. Two have entered pleas and are cooperating with authorities, Holder said.

    From November 1996 to January 1997, the eight men allegedly handled about 1.5 kilograms of cocaine, with a street value between $24,000 and $100,000, Holder said.

    Police received about alleged drug activities by Jeanty and Jefferson in 1995 and a tap was placed on Jeanty's phone in November 1996 following a second tip, according to the affidavit.

    Investigators allege that in January Jeanty arranged for Thomas to deliver 62 grams of cocaine to another individual. Authorities said a cooperating witness later purchased 62 grams of cocaine from Jeanty on Dec. 19 and Dec. 23. Police said they have a videotape of the second purchase.

    Boston Detectives Busted For Rip-Offs

    "Two city detectives indicted in thefts"

    The Boston Globe, March 11, 1997, p. A1
    By Mitchell Zuckoff and Patricia Nealon
    Boston Globe Staff

    A federal grand jury indicted two veteran Boston police detectives yesterday on theft, extortion and conspiracy charges for allegedly carrying out a five-year crime spree under the cover of their badges. In an indictment Boston's police commissioner called as serious as any corruption case in the department's history, Detectives Kenneth Acerra and Walter F. Robinson Jr. were accused of stealing more than $250,000 in cash, drugs and guns in 56 incidents from February 1990 to December 1994. They also allegedly ran a related scheme under which they dropped drug charges in exchange for money.

    The detectives' alleged practices, ranging from thievery and blown cases to dubious search warrant tactics, were first detailed in stories by the Globe Spotlight Team, including an expose in February 1996 that triggered the ongoing federal investigation.

    The grand jury also indicted Boston defense lawyer Joseph P. Murphy on extortion charges for allegedly conspiring with the detectives to drop charges against an accused drug dealer.

    "Their goal was not to fight crime," US Attorney Donald K. Stern said at a news conference. "Their goal, as set forth in the indictment, was to profit from crime."

    Stern said "the city and the Boston Police Department ought to be thankful" to the Globe for unmasking the detectives. He insisted, however, that although it was a "black mark ... this is not a wholesale indictment of the Police Department."

    "Common criminals"

    Police Commissioner Paul F. Evans, who was chief of detectives during part of the pair's alleged reign of thievery, said the indictment portrays Acerra and Robinson as "nothing more than common criminals who took advantage of their badges."

    Evans, whose anticorruption bureau worked with federal authorities to build the case, said he was filled with "anger that these men have betrayed their oaths of office, anger that they have dishonored the reputation of over 2,000 men and women" of the force.

    Stern said the federal grand jury investigation was continuing, but he would not comment on speculation that prosecutors hope to work their way up the chain of command.

    Acerra was charged with 21 counts and Robinson with 20 counts of extortion, theft, conspiracy, conspiracy to violate civil rights, civil rights violations, and filing false income tax returns. Murphy was charged with three counts of extortion. Each extortion count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine; the remaining charges also carry long prison terms and heavy fines.

    The three surrendered yesterday morning. Later, their hands cuffed behind their backs, they were brought into a ninth-floor courtroom in US District Court where each pleaded not guilty. After ordering them to surrender their passports and turn in any guns and firearms' licenses, US Magistrate Judge Lawrence P. Cohen released Robinson and Acerra on $100,000 unsecured bond and Murphy on $50,000 unsecured bond.

    Acerra's lawyer, Daniel J. O'Connell III, said afterward the detective "did not extort anybody, he didn't steal anybody's money, he didn't violate anybody's civil rights, he didn't conspire with anyone."

    Robinson was represented by his cousin, Maine lawyer Joseph Jabar, who has employed Robinson as a paralegal and investigator since last summer. "We insist he is innocent and we will prove it," Jabar said. Murphy left the courthouse without comment and did not return a message left at his Milton home.

    Acerra, 50, of West Newton, a 29-year police veteran, has been on paid leave since February 1996; now that he is under indictment, his pay will be suspended, Evans said. Robinson, 50, of Belgrade, Maine, a 26-year officer, resigned from the force one day before the initial Globe story appeared. He has applied for a stress disability pension.

    The 69-page indictment unsealed yesterday paints in rich detail how the detectives are alleged to have repeatedly employed a nefarious scheme built around illegal search warrants.

    Once armed with those warrants, they allegedly stole cash and other items from the homes of suspected drug dealers and others throughout Area E, the Boston police district that covers West Roxbury, Roslindale, Jamaica Plain and Hyde Park. The indictment alleges Robinson and Acerra also roamed beyond their home turf, stealing from homes elsewhere in Boston as well as in Brookline and Dedham.

    Although the pattern varied at times, the indictment alleges Robinson and Acerra routinely lied to obtain illegal search warrants, usually by making false statements about information they gathered from confidential informants and surveillance.

    Then, the detectives would report finding less money and drugs than they had seized, or would report finding no money or drugs while stealing everything. In one case Acerra allegedly stole ransom money after arresting three men in connection with a kidnapping case, the indictment says.

    The indictment also alleges Acerra and Robinson committed extortion by cutting deals with alleged drug dealers from whom they stole money. If the victims allowed the police to keep the money, the detectives would have the charges dismissed, usually by failing to show up in court, or would seek lenient sentences.

    Among the cases in the indictment was a West Roxbury raid in May 1992 that formed the basis of the Globe's first story.

    The early-morning search of an Edgemere Road apartment by Acerra, Robinson and two other detectives resulted in three arrests and the seizure of more than 200 grams of cocaine. Court documents and a tape recording of the suspects' arraignment, obtained by the Globe, clearly stated that the police also seized $8,000 in cash during the raid.

    But there was no further mention of the money in later police reports, court documents or criminal proceedings. Its mention at the arraignment was apparently a slip-up b the detectives.

    The Globe story quoted an eyewitness who said Acerra had found the money in a strongbox hidden under a bed. Upon discovering thousand-dollar bundles inside, Acerra proclaimed, "I like this," then stuffed money into his coat and shared the loot with Robinson, the witness said. The indictment says the detectives found $16,000 in the strongbox.

    The Edgemere Road case also led to an extortion charge against the pair and Murphy, who represented an accused drug dealer named Bruno Machore. The indictment alleges that Robinson and Acerra used Murphy to send Machore a jailhouse message: Pay $50,000 and the charges would be dropped.

    To enable Machore to raise the money, Robinson deliberately delayed the indictment, which opened the door for Murphy to successfully file a motion for his release, the indictment says.

    When a Globe reporter first asked Acerra about the Edgemere Road money, he insisted that Murphy - Machore's lawyer - would support his claim that there was no money in the apartment. The Globe reported that Murphy not only backed up Acerra's story, he gave a sworn statement to that effect to Boston police investigators. It appears from the indictment, however, neither the investigators nor the grand jury believed them.

    Extortion in drug case

    The other extortion charges against Murphy also involved a case against Machore. In that case, Robinson and Acerra allegedly arranged for drug charges against Machore to be dropped in exchange for payments of $1,000 to each.

    Also included in the indictment is a case detailed by the Globe involving two raids on the Jamaica Plain home of a suspected drug dealer. The detectives reported finding only a few ounces of marijuana in each raid on Wayne Chesterfield's apartment. But sources told the Globe the detectives pocketed during searches in 1992 and 1994 more than $20,000 in cash, at least 10 times more marijuana than they reported, and a cache of guns.

    Another case detailed by the Globe that led to indictments involved $21,915 entrusted to Acerra as the Police Department's share of forfeited drug money. After Acerra was asked about that money and an additional $1,210 seized in the case, he "arranged to have another detective unwittingly `find' the missing money in a storage closet," according to the indictment.

    Collectively, the indictments bear out the findings of a Globe review of more than 400 search warrants that documented how unsuccessful Acerra and Robinson were in finding money during drug raids. While officers in Roxbury and Dorchester reported finding money in 60 percent of raids that yielded drugs, the Area E detectives did so only one-third as often.

    Additionally, the Globe raised questions about the detectives' use of confidential informants; Robinson and another detective, John K. Brazil, used the same confidential informant in at least 47 searches they conducted in 1992. Such heavy reliance on a single, unnamed source was seen as a red flag for possible fabrication of a confidential informant.

    The Globe reported last year that Brazil, who also was placed on unpaid leave, was cooperating with federal authorities. The detectives' supervisor, Sergeant Detective Leonard W. Marquardt, was reassigned to crime scene duty when the case broke. Evans said yesterday his status remains unchanged.

    Gerard O'Neill and Dick Lehr of the Globe staff contributed to this report.

    "San Jose Proposes Zones For Medical Pot Clubs"

    "On-site smoking would be forbidden"

    The San Francisco Chronicle, March 12, 1997
    Maria Alicia Gaura, Chronicle South Bay Bureau

    San Jose took a novel step to regulate the sale of medical marijuana by proposing rules yesterday governing where it can legally be sold - the first city in the state and possibly the nation to treat cannabis clubs like other businesses.

    City officials unveiled zoning rules for "medical marijuana dispensaries" that would allow pot clubs to operate in commercial areas and grow marijuana on site. The dispensaries would not be allowed near schools, churches, homes or day-care centers.

    Marijuana smoking would be prohibited on the premises, however, because city law bars smoking of any kind inside public buildings and offices.

    "We would not allow smoking. We are not following the San Francisco model," said city attorney Joan Gallo.

    Gallo described the proposal as an attempt to abide by last year's Proposition 215, which legalized the use and cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes.

    "The chief of police, the district attorney and the city are all determined to enforce the law in a humanitarian way," Gallo said. "We have no intention of making it difficult to comply with Proposition 215 . . . but it has to be done in a way that does not create problems for residents in their communities."

    The proposed ordinance would forbid marijuana dispensaries in residential areas and would require as-yet-unspecified buffer zones between the dispensaries and schools, churches and day-care centers. No juveniles would be allowed on the premises, and the city would require club operators to document their transactions.

    Gallo promised to provide details before the ordinance goes before the City Council on March 25. She drew up the proposal at the request of a City Council committee.

    In addition to the zoning ordinance, city officials are developing procedures to police the pot clubs. As required by Proposition 215, a doctor's referral would be required to purchase medical marijuana, and San Jose Police Chief Louis Cobarruviaz said his officers may conduct "spot-checks" to assure that the guidelines are being followed.

    "I would like to be able to walk into one of these clubs and inspect it, just as we would a liquor facility," Cobarruviaz said. "I would hope they would cooperate with us. We may use undercover officers in the future, if we need to do that."

    Jesse Garcia, a medical marijuana user who hopes to open the Santa Clara County Medical Cannabis Club in San Jose, said he would work with the city - although his vision is at odds with the proposed rules.

    "I would love to have a club where people with illnesses can socialize," Garcia said. "That's part of the healing process. If it's a private club, it should allow smoking."

    Dennis Peron, founder of the San Francisco Cannabis Cultivators Club, was skeptical about San Jose's proposal.

    "The people have legalized medical marijuana," Peron said. "I don't know if we need this kind of ordinance. The government shouldn't try and squeeze (medical marijuana) into a corner like a dirty bookstore."

    Although still vague, the San Jose proposal is an attempt to regulate a burgeoning trade that exists in a hazy legal limbo. Because of Proposition 215, medical marijuana is legal under California law but still a federal crime.

    Large amounts of money change hands every day at the 15 cannabis clubs now in California - more than $20,000 per day at the San Francisco club alone, according to a member familiar with club finances. Yet most of the marijuana sold is purchased on the black market, creating a dilemma for local law enforcement.

    While San Jose's proposal would allow marijuana cultivation, officials are not yet sure how to approach the problem of black- market suppliers.

    Robert Niswonger, a San Jose resident who has announced plans to open a cannabis club, hopes to begin a large-scale indoor growing operation that would raise marijuana using hydroponic equipment. But under the proposed zoning rules, he could not operate the club out of his Race Street home.

    "All I want to do is to get medical marijuana to people who are dying," Niswonger said. "I talk to these people every day, and they have the saddest stories."

    San Jose Cannabis Club Now In Service

    Open For Business
    "S.J. pot club is now in service
    Courier delivery of medicinal marijuana raises questions of regulation"

    The San Jose Mercury News March 14, 1997
    By Raoul V. Mowatt
    Mercury News Staff Writer

    A Santa Clara County medical-marijuana group officially kicked off its cannabis crusade Thursday night, hand-delivering a month's supply of pot to a woman suffering from lupus, nausea and anorexia.

    But the courier service may raise new questions for city officials, who earlier announced a bid to regulate the club through a zoning ordinance.

    A volunteer took the drug to the South San Jose home of Pat Jones about 6 p.m., three days earlier than organizers of the Santa Clara County Medical Cannabis Club had originally targeted for their grand opening. Director Peter Baez said Jones even got a discount as the club's first customer, receiving five grams for $60, normally the price for 3.5 grams.

    Practically homebound, Jones, 50, said she was elated to have the local club up and running. "It feels so good because I don't have to have someone drive me all the way down to San Francisco in all that congested traffic," she said.

    Police said Thursday they never heard organizers discuss the possibility they would deliver marijuana to people's homes and were unsure how to react. The subject will probably come up at a meeting between cannabis club organizers and police today.

    "Obviously it's new ground, new territory, and we're all taking a look at it," said Sgt. Scott Savage of the department's narcotics and covert investigations unit. "Hopefully we can all sit down and come up with some rational understanding so the law is upheld and the city's interests are looked after."

    The cannabis club owes its aboveground existence to California voters in November passing Proposition 215, allowing the cultivation and distribution of marijuana as medicine. Jones and other supporters say pot relieves symptoms of various diseases, although scientific research is mixed.

    Wanting to accommodate those who need pot while protecting neighborhoods from problems with its distribution, City Attorney Joan Gallo announced Tuesday she would draft the state's first ordinance for medical marijuana dispensaries. The city council could enact it as soon as March 25.

    Although details of the rules are still being worked out, it would ban the sale of the drug to minors, forbid smoking in a social fashion at the clubs and prohibit businesses from opening near schools, homes and day-care centers.

    The rules would block a club planned by Robert Niswonger for his home in the 100 block of Race Street. Niswonger said Thursday he has continued to take applications for members, is seeking an alternate location and is still hopeful to begin distributing pot by next week.

    But the city ordinance would have no effect on Baez because his agency is planned to open in Santa Clara County jurisdiction, near Valley Medical Center. Baez said he still is waiting to sign a lease for office space at 2400 Moorpark Ave., and is being put on hold while ownership of that building changes.

    It's unclear whether the city would act to prevent an organized group from transporting pot to people's homes.

    Baez said his group has legal standing to operate the courier service, which it will provide to anyone before its offices open. Courier service will continue for those unable to drive to the club.

    Jones is among that group. She said she had tried synthetic marijuana and other drugs, but none gave her the relief of real pot. She said she had never even seen marijuana until three months ago, when she joined San Francisco's Cannabis Cultivators Club.

    "Hopefully the politicians will just get out of the way and let sick people get what they need," Jones said. "These politicians don't know what it's like to suffer."

    California Just Says No To 'Smoke-A-Joint, Lose Your License'

    The End
    Drug Use Won't Mean License Loss
    State scraps driving law to maintain federal funds

    The San Francisco Chronicle, March 11, 1997
    Greg Lucas, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau

    SACRAMENTO - With some harsh words about the evils of federal mandates, the state Senate in a bipartisan vote agreed to snuff out California's "smoke a joint, lose your driver's license" law.

    The bill by Senator Quentin Kopp, Ind.-San Francisco, says California opposes suspending a person's driver's license for six months for any drug offense - even if unrelated to driving a motor vehicle.

    California's law expired on midnight February 28. It stripped a person convicted of a drug offense of their license for six months. Even without that law, Californians who are convicted of driving under the influence of a controlled substance still lose their license.

    States either have to pass a bill creating such a policy or one opposing it. If they do neither, they lose federal highway construction dollars. In California's case, that amounts to some $92 million.

    "Thirty-two other states have adopted the contents of this measure," said Kopp. "That indicates a great majority of the states feel as we do."

    Four Republicans joined Democrats in voting for Kopp's bill. In February, a bill to make it law failed.

    The measure was approved on a 23 to 14 vote by the 40-member body. It still must be approved by the Assembly and signed by Governor Pete Wilson.

    Federal officials told the state last month that they had to pass some kind of bill before March 1 or lose the $92 million. Wilson and legislative leaders have asked for an extension.

    Senate President Bill Lockyer, D-Hayward, predicted that eventually two bills would be approved and signed by Wilson. One would reject the six-month license suspension notion and the other would create "appropriate sanctions" for persons convicted of drug use.

    Turn a New Leaf

    Drug Reform Coordination Network Launches Book Review Site

    On March 9 Peter Webster wrote:
    OK all you literary talents. I've started a new section in the Schaffer Library for book reviews, the first one there is my review of Drug Warriors and Their Prey. (It'll be at the site as soon as Cliff can get a few moments to send up my latest envoi). The URL will be: Make a contribution, review a new or an old book and send me your review in any format, or post it to the list for comments and possible suggestions for improvements. Your efforts will be appreciated!

    Peter Webster

    "Colombia Drug Lords Offered US Info On Samper"

    By Frank Bajak
    The Associated Press

    BOGOTA, Colombia (March 6, 1997) - Jailed Cali cartel bosses Miguel and Gilberto Rodriguez offered to provide the United States evidence implicating Colombian President Ernesto Samper in drug corruption, the U.S. ambassador disclosed.

    Ambassador Myles Frechette said Miguel's son, William, made a similar offer in a meeting with the former U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration country chief, Tony Senneca, who left Colombia last year.

    He did not elaborate on the circumstances or dates.

    "We're not trying to arrive at any agreement with them," Frechette said of the Rodriguez brothers in a Wednesday night interview with QAP television. "We want them to be judged and to pay the penalty. This matter of persecuting President Samper is not the policy of the United States."

    Frechette said William Rodriguez offered to provide the United States with all the Cali cartel's smuggling routes and details of its operations if U.S. law enforcement agreed to stop pursuing his father and uncle.

    "The response of my government was a resounding, `No. We're going to bring you to justice, period,"' said Frechette.

    U.S. authorities sometimes make deals with lower-level criminals to get information that targets their chiefs. The United States, however, will not negotiate with crime bosses, Frechette told RCN radio today.

    "That's been the policy of my government for many years," he said. "We don't negotiate with criminal kingpins. We go after them, sentence them and make them serve long sentences."

    The Rodriguez brothers, jailed since their 1995 capture, are wanted in the United States on multiple indictments. Washington has formally requested their extradition, which Colombia's constitution prohibits.

    If convicted in the United States, they would face life terms, a sharp contrast to this country's more lenient sentences.

    The Rodriguez brothers are alleged by the United States and Colombia's chief prosecutor to have contributed $6 million to Samper's 1994 presidential election. Samper denies charges he solicited the money and was cleared last June by Congress.

    Frechette also said he was "really surprised" at Colombia's announcement earlier Wednesday that it was temporarily suspending its drug crop eradication program. The effort is largely underwritten by the United States and run with donated U.S. herbicide and planes, some of which are flown by U.S. pilots.

    Colombian officials characterized the suspension as a direct reaction to Washington's decertification of their country last week as an ally in the war on drugs.

    But Frechette told QAP he was assured by the Defense Ministry that the suspension was only temporary.

    He said to stop eradication now would only cut off congressional support for Colombia, strengthen Sen. Jesse Helms and others who want to impose sanctions and "confirm suspicions in Washington that President Samper doesn't really want to go forward" against drug lords.

    "After Drug Vote, Mexico Tells US Not to Meddle"

    International Herald Tribune
    The Associated Press, March 8, 1997

    MEXICO CITY - President Ernesto Zedillo warned in comments published Friday that he would not tolerate meddling in Mexico's internal affairs as a result of Washington's feud over certification of his drug war.

    Other Mexicans also bristled at the vote Thursday by a U.S. congressional committee that rebuked the Clinton administration's recertification of Mk. Zedillo's anti-narcotics program.

    Mr. Zedillo described the squabble between the U.S. executive and legislative branches as an " internal affair that can have consequences for the dignity and sovereignty of Mexicans." While stressing that Mexico intended to continue cooperating with the United States he promised that his government would act forcefully "to defend the dignity and sovereignty" of the nation.

    "Mexico, as with other important problems, has acted without hesitation to take up the war on drugs," he said in comments published on the front pages of several Mexican newspapers.

    "We have established very clear foundations for cooperation with the United States and other countries grounded as always on the principle of respect for our sovereignty."

    Mr. Zedillo made the comments Thursday while meeting in Cancun with South and Central American officials to discuss the fight against illegal drug production and firearms trafficking.

    On Thursday, the House International Relations Committee rebuked both Mr. Clinton and Mexico by giving bipartisan support to a measure on overturning Mr. Clinton's decision. The largely symbolic resolution is scheduled for a vote by the full House next week.

    Extradition Seen as Test Case

    The Clinton administration has singled out a drug case in Mexico as a test of whether Mexican officials will achieve a new level of cooperation, a promise made in negotiations preceding the president's decision last week to certify that Mexico is fully cooperating in the war on drugs, the Los Angeles Times reported from Washington.

    Administration officials are pushing for the extradition of Oscar Malherbe de Leon, the alleged leader of the notorious Gulf drug cartel, who was arrested recently in Mexico and is under indictment in Houston, said Robert Gelbard, an assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement affairs.

    Clear View

    "US Probes Mexican Corruption"

    By Terri Langford
    The Associated Press

    HOUSTON (March 9, 1997) - At first glance, Texas Commerce Bank account No. 08100355370 seems most unremarkable. Its healthy balance of $9,041,598 is nothing special in Houston, where millionaires are plentiful.

    But this single account and its owner could blow wide open a corruption scandal simmering in Mexico and further damage the United States' drug-fighting partnership with its southern neighbor.

    The account belongs to Mario Ruiz Massieu, once Mexico's top drug prosecutor, who is now named in allegations that top Mexican officials were paid to protect drug cartels.

    U.S. prosecutors go to court this week to prove that Ruiz Massieu's nest egg, fed in six-figure deposits over 13 months, was not the result of shrewd stock picks or a lucky real estate deal.

    The money, they say, came from Mexico's leading drug traffickers, who wanted unfettered routes to get drugs into the United States and their profits back into Mexico. If they can convince six federal jurors, U.S. taxpayers will be $9 million richer, thanks to federal asset forfeiture laws.

    In Mexico, this is more than some mere cash forfeiture trial; it has exploded into a kind of Mexican Watergate.

    This is what has happened in public view:

    In 1993, then-President Carlos Salinas de Gotari appointed Mario Ruiz Massieu deputy attorney general, with a primary goal of cracking down on drug traffickers.

    In 1994, assassins killed Jose Francisco Ruiz Massieu - the prosecutor's older brother and the No. 2 man in the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party - and Luis Donaldo Colosio, then the party's presidential candidate, within six months of each other.

    Despite convictions in both deaths, questions remain unanswered as to whether the murders were motivated by political struggles within the ruling party or linked to drug trafficking - or both.

    At the request of incoming President Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de Leon, Mario Ruiz Massieu investigated his own brother's murder. But in November 1994, he abruptly resigned from his post and the party, claiming that high-ranking party members were sabotaging his efforts.

    Behind all the political machinations, however, something else entirely appears to have been going on, according to court documents:

    For 13 months beginning Dec. 2, 1993, Ruiz Massieu's top aide ferried cash-filled boxes and suitcases to Houston, where the money - often in bundles of $20 bills tied with rubber-bands or wrapped in plastic tape - was deposited at a branch office of Texas Commerce Bank near The Galleria shopping area.

    Court records show the account was opened with $40,000 under the name "Mario Ruiz," and the aide, Jorge Stergios, told bank officials he was delivering money from the sale of Ruiz Massieu real estate.

    Twenty-four additional deposits were made, ranging from $119,500 to $477,320.

    When bank officials asked why his employer did not want to invest the money, Stergios told them Ruiz Massieu wanted "immediate liquidity."

    Ruiz Massieu acknowledges in court depositions that the money is his. He says he kept the money in U.S. dollars because the peso was so unstable in 1994. He insists all the money, except a $500,000 bonus from President Salinas, came from his brother's estate or from family business dealings.

    Stergios was enlisted as courier, Ruiz Massieu says, because he speaks better English and could maneuver through U.S. Customs more easily.

    Raul Salinas de Gotari, the former president's brother, has acknowledged doing the same thing, but on a much grander scale.

    Using false names, Raul Salinas in 1989 opened a network of bank accounts. Four years later, he began shifting money to banks in Switzerland and elsewhere via Cayman Island shell corporations. So far, Mexican investigators have found at least $120 million in Salinas bank accounts.

    On Feb. 28, 1995, just months after Ruiz Massieu quit investigating his brother's death, police in Mexico arrested Raul Salinas and charged him in the murder.

    Mexican prosecutors believe Salinas conspired with federal congressman Manuel Munoz Rocha to hire a hit man for the killing.

    Ruiz Massieu's attorneys have been granted permission to talk to Raul Salinas, who is in jail in Mexico.

    Two days after Salinas' arrest, investigators - thinking Ruiz Massieu, as investigator, was pressured into ignoring the Raul Salinas connection - grilled the former deputy attorney general for eight hours.

    By that evening, Ruiz Massieu was on a plane for Houston. The next day he was arrested at Newark International Airport en route to Spain, after failing to inform U.S. Customs officials he was taking $46,000 in cash with him.

    Mexican officials have charged Ruiz Massieu with obstructing justice but have failed to extradite him in four attempts; the judge hearing their arguments has said their evidence against Ruiz Massieu is weak.

    He is now under house arrest in New Jersey, awaiting a deportation hearing in May.

    "Two Mexican Drug Lords Get Reprieves"

    Reuters, March 12, 1997

    MEXICO CITY - Two powerful Mexican drug lords - including one of the country's most well-known cartel leaders - have had their prison sentences annulled, news reports said Wednesday.

    Radio Red said Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, head of the feared Sinaloa cartel who was arrested in June 1993, was "absolved of the crime of bribery" in a court in the central city of Guadalajara. It gave no more details.

    Authorities said Guzman was the intended target of a bungled "hit" by members of a rival drug gang in May 1993, who instead shot to death Roman Catholic Cardinal Juan Posados Ocampo in a case of mistaken identity at Guadalajara airport.

    In a seperate report, Mexican news agency Notimex said a major drug trafficker jailed last month for 30 years for murder had his sentence annulled by a Guadalajara judge because of faulty detective work.

    Notimex quoted the head of a Guadalajara court as saying two unnamed magistrates revoked the sentence against Miguel Angel Beltran Lugo because police had failed to carry out a ballistic test on guns he was supposed to have used in the murder of rival drug traffickers.

    Both Guzman and Beltran Lugo were imprisoned in Mexico's top security jail, Almoloya de Juarez.

    The annulled sentences, if they are confirmed, will be a new blow to Mexico, which is being judged on its drug-fighting efforts by some members of U.S. Congress trying to overturn President Clinton's "certification" in February of Mexico as an ally in the war on drugs.

    Last week the House International Relations Committee voted 27-5 against the ruling. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has scheduled a hearing on the issue for Wednesday.

    Mexico has been incensed by the criticism, and Clinton has sought this week to persuade Congress to back him.

    Despite the tensions, Mexican and U.S. justice officials ended a two-day meeting Tuesday jointly pledging to reinforce staffing levels and equipment along the border in their shared fight against drugs, the Foreign Ministry said.

    They also agreed to speed up extradition processes between the two countries.

    "Exiled Haiti Police Chief Held In Drug Smuggling"

    The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 8, 1997
    By David Royse
    Associated Press

    MIAMI - The exiled police chief of Haiti's capital was charged yesterday with helping Colombian drug traffickers smuggle 33 tons of cocaine and heroin into the United States.

    Lt. Col. Michel Francois, widely considered the power behind Haiti's ousted military rulers, supervised smuggling through Haiti's airports and seaports and pocketed millions of drug cartel dollars while his country descended further into poverty, according to a federal indictment.

    Francois, 38, who fled Haiti and was convicted in absentia in a 1993 assassination, was taken into custody in Honduras and was to be flown to Miami today. The indictment, naming 13 people, was unsealed yesterday after his arrest.

    All but three people named in the indictment were arrested. Hearings were set for Monday.

    The indictment puts prosecutors in a delicate situation because a confidential Justice Department memo obtained by the Associated Press in 1994 revealed concerns that U.S. intelligence agencies may have cooperated with the smugglers.

    At that time, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration estimated that one ton of cocaine was reaching the United States through Haiti each month, and the agency privately worried about the safety of its agents in Haiti.

    As Port-au-Prince police chief under military rule, Francois maintained control of the capital with a network of thugs blamed by the United Nations for political repression and killings. Drug trafficking was considered an enriching perk of the job, a 1993 U.S. Senate report said.

    Francois had face-to-face meetings with Medellin cartel kingpin Pablo Escobar and leaders of two other major Colombian drug cartels as he arranged to protect U.S.-bound shipments of cocaine and heroin, prosecutors charged.

    Escobar authorized bribes to several unidentified Haitian officials to funnel drugs into Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, New York and Chicago, the indictment said.

    Francois' men led the 1991 coup that ousted Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Haiti's first democratically elected president.

    Francois fled to the Dominican Republic in 1994, two weeks after U.S. troops arrived to return Aristide to power.

    A Haitian court convicted him in September 1995 for his part in the killing of Haitian businessman Antoine Izmery, an associate and campaign fund-raiser for Aristide. Francois was sentenced to life at hard labor.

    "Spanish Marijuana Advocacy Groups Launch Campaign To Grow for Personal Use"

    Associated Press, March 2, 1997
    Madrid, Spain: It's spring. It's sunny. It's time to grow pot.

    That was the message Sunday at an old, downtown Madrid theatre, where Spanish cannabis advocacy groups launched a nationwide campaign Sunday to cultivate marijuana for private use.

    Martin Barriuso, a marijuana activist from the northern city of Bilbao, invited a crowd of nearly 100 joint-puffing sympathizers to join in a "solidarity campaign" in support of a grower's group whose case is now before the Supreme Court. A ruling is expected any day.

    A favorable decision could bring Spain close to the "definitive decriminalization of cannabis growing" which Barriuso called for in the theatre thick with the sweet, heavy fumes of cannabis.

    Spaniards can legally possess small amounts of marijuana or hashish for personal use at home, but are fined for selling. No police came to Sunday's meeting, which was public and publicized.

    Those who did come made it impossible to pick a stereotype for Spanish pot smokers: people in their 20s in hippie-style clothing mixed with middle-aged professionals who looked ready for a day at the office, including a provincial judge from Barcelona.

    Sixteen pro-marijuana associations from across Spain sponsored the gathering to support a group in the northeastern Catalonia region, ARSEC, which bought land in 1992 to cultivate marijuana.

    Police raided the group's field, uprooting 450 plants, and charged four ARSEC members with endangering public health, a common charge for drug traffickers.

    But a regional court found the defendants innocent last year because it could find no Spanish law prohibiting cannabis growing for private use. Prosecutors appealed the case to the Supreme Court in Madrid.

    "If we are not drug traffickers, just consumers, we cannot be punished with traffickers' sanctions," Felipe Borrallo, the head of ARSEC, told the meeting, believed to be the first nationwide meeting of pro-marijuana groups.

    "Pot smokers want to abandon secrecy, and demand the right to consume for personal use," said Oscar Feijoo, a tour guide who looks forward to sowing seeds at the first full moon in spring, the best time according to marijuana mavens.

    ARSEC recommended potential growers to use private property, or to rent land, in a remote location.

    Borallo advised that a typical Spanish marijuana smoker would consume between five and ten joints a day, so would need between three and ten cannabis plants a year.

    French grower Patrice Bellais said he had come to support the Spanish campaign, since in his native country marijuana possession can land a person in prison for up to a year and bring stiff fines.

    "Struggling for cannabis is struggling for the freedom of smoking it," said Bellais.

    Appeal Planned In Kriho Juror Rights Decision (Case Summary)

    March 7, 1997

    In a case that threatens to destroy trial by jury, former juror Laura Kriho was convicted of contempt of court for failing to volunteer information about her political beliefs and knowledge during jury selection. Kriho is the first victim of a new crime - failure to volunteer answers to questions that weren't asked of her during jury selection. Kriho is a resident of Gilpin County, which, along with Jefferson County, comprises Colorado's First Judicial District. Kriho was summonsed for jury duty in May of 1996.

    Jury Selection

    The case to be heard was of a nineteen-year-old woman charged with three crimes. The most serious was felony possession of methamphetamine. The voir dire (jury selection) process took almost four hours. While Kriho was in the audience, other jurors in the jury box were asked over 350 different questions. Kriho was one of the last jurors called to the jury box. She was asked few specific questions. One general one was, "You listened to all of our topics; would you have answered anything differently?"

    The first time Kriho was asked this by the judge, she volunteered information about a recent civil court experience. Later asked the same question by the prosecutor, Kriho, bored by this apparently meaningless question, replied no, imitating replies from several previous jurors. She was selected to serve on the jury and listened to two days of testimony.

    Jury Deliberations

    During jury deliberations, the jury reached verdicts of guilty and not guilty on the less serious charges. However, it proved difficult to reach a verdict on the possession charge.

    Kriho was the only juror who didn't want to convict the defendant; she said she had reasonable doubts. Kriho argued the prosecution hadn't proved the defendant knew she had possessed the methamphetamine (knowing possession is a required element of the law). The defendant had said someone else put it in her purse without her knowledge.

    Kriho and the other jurors discussed the evidence extensively, but no one was persuaded to the other's side. The deliberations became very heated. Kriho became the focus of verbal attacks and ridicule from the other jurors. She tried to defend her vote, but became frustrated and upset.

    In the heat of the deliberations, Kriho cried out that the defendant could receive several years in jail if the jury convicted her. Kriho also spoke about the doctrine of jury nullification and the historic right of jurors to vote according to their conscience. In addition, Kriho stated that it was a shame drug possession cases couldn't be handled by the family and community, rather than the courts.

    These statements, and Kriho's refusal to change her vote, angered another juror so much that, without the knowledge of other jurors, he sent a note describing these statements to presiding Judge Kenneth Barnhill. Based only on this anonymous note, Judge Barnhill became furious and declared a mistrial.

    The Investigation of Laura Kriho

    The judge and prosecutor James Stanley were so enraged at losing a conviction that the DA had his investigator inquire who the hold-out juror was. Detectives investigated Kriho and discovered that she had received a deferred judgment on the charge of possession of LSD in 1985. After Kriho completed two years of probation, the charge was supposed to be wiped from her record. Kriho believed that it had been. The D.A.'s office also discovered that Kriho was an organizer for the Colorado Hemp Initiative Project, a group trying to reform cannabis and hemp laws in Colorado.

    Retaliation Against a Juror

    Kriho was charged with contempt of court in August of 1996, becoming the first juror in over 300 years to be prosecuted for "improper deliberations."

    The Trial of Laura Kriho

    Kriho was represented by attorney Paul Grant. Her case was heard by former prosecutor and First Judicial District Chief Judge Henry Nieto, who assigned himself to the case after Judge Barnhill honored a defense request to recuse himself.

    In pre-trial rulings, Judge Nieto denied Grant's request for a continuance of the trial date to raise money for defense experts and to raise constitutional issues by motion. Nieto said it was a "simple" case and the defense should be ready. Judge Nieto also denied a motion to disqualify Stanley as the prosecutor. Nieto denied the defense the right to call either Stanley or Judge Barnhill as witnesses.

    In addition, Judge Nieto denied Kriho a jury trial. A Colorado defendant is only entitled to a jury trial in a contempt case if the sentence might include more than six months in jail. Since Stanley agreed not to seek more than six months, Judge Nieto denied a jury trial.

    Kriho was tried on October 1 and 2, 1996, only six weeks after her arraignment. Her trial was attended by over 100 people and was covered by local and national media. Nine other jurors testified about how they deliberated in the jury room. All remembered that Kriho had discussed the evidence in the case as well as made remarks about jury rights and the drug laws.

    At the end of the trial, in a surprise decision, Judge Nieto said he needed legal briefs from both attorneys explaining the applicable law. The briefs were filed on October 9. Normally, a decision could be expected within a few weeks.

    However, it appeared that this was no longer a "simple" case for Judge Nieto. He deliberated on the case for over four months!

    On February 10, 1997, Judge Nieto finally issued a nine-page ruling in which he cleared Kriho of two aspects of the contempt charge, but convicted her of contempt of court for "obstructing the administration of justice."

    Judge Nieto's Ruling

    Full text:

    Kriho was charged with contempt of court for three reasons:

    1) Disobedience to an order of the court.

    Judge Nieto ruled that jury instructions (i.e., not to discuss sentences) were -not- court orders. However, he stated that a judge's admonitions to the jury on how to behave (i.e., don't discuss the case or do outside research) -were- court orders. But since the prosecutor never introduced transcripts containing the judge's admonitions into evidence, Judge Nieto ruled in favor of Kriho.

    2) Committing perjury by lying under oath.

    Judge Nieto ruled in favor of Kriho, stating that there are specific conditions which have to be met in order for perjury to constitute contempt of court. These specific conditions were not met in this case.

    3) Obstructing the administration of justice.

    This aspect of the contempt charge was always the most ill-defined of the three. At Kriho's trial, defense attorney Grant asked several times for the judge or prosecutor to clarify what action or statement of Kriho's constituted "obstructing the administration of justice." No answer was given before or during her trial.

    However, it was this aspect of the contempt charge that Kriho was convicted of violating.

    Judge Nieto ruled that Kriho, during jury selection, deliberately withheld her attitudes about certain drug laws, her involvement in hemp legalization activities, and her knowledge of a juror's power to determine questions of law as well as fact.

    By failing to volunteer this information, Kriho "obstructed the process of selecting a fair and impartial jury."

    Judge Nieto writes, "The selection of jurors who have open minds and who have not preconceived the verdict is essential for a fair trial. Ms. Kriho's lack of candor about her experiences and attitudes led to the selection of a jury doomed to mistrial from the start."

    The Facts of the Case

    All the voir dire questions quoted in Judge Nieto's ruling were made well before Kriho was called to the jury box, while she was still sitting in the audience. Kriho never lied to the court or was deceptive in any of her answers. Kriho was convicted of failing to volunteer answers to questions the prosecutor later wished he would have asked.

    In his ruling, Judge Nieto stated that Kriho was being convicted for her behavior during jury selection, not jury deliberations. However, the contempt citation quoted many statements Kriho made in the jury room. To many, this seems to be a malicious prosecution by an angry prosecutor who got sloppy during jury selection.

    Clearly, had Kriho voted guilty, she would never have been investigated and prosecuted.

    Kriho's Penalty

    Although Kriho faced up to six months in jail, Judge Nieto decided that he wasn't quite ready to jail jurors. Kriho was fined $1200 on March 7, 1997. Because of the important Constitutional issues involved and to help protect other jurors, she plans to appeal the conviction.

    New Crime for Jurors

    "This ruling creates a new legal duty in which a juror is obliged to volunteer confessions of any beliefs or experiences they have any thought the court might want to know," says Paul Grant, Kriho's attorney. "The court is trying to intimidate anyone with an independent mind. We should all be very concerned about this case," he adds.

    The ruling is seen as an unprecedented assault on jury rights and the independence of juries from judges. It has national ramifications for potential jurors and for defendants and plaintiffs seeking a fair and impartial jury. Jurors will be risking prosecution if, during deliberations, they reveal an opinion a judge or prosecutor might have wanted "volunteered" during jury selection. Jurors will understandably now be reluctant to deliberate freely and will fear to vote against the majority lest they be investigated and prosecuted later. A fair trial is impossible if jurors are serving under such intimidation.

    Until this ruling is over-turned, the Colorado Legal Eagles, a local legal advocacy group, is advising jurors to ask for court-appointed counsel to represent them throughout jury selection. See "Latest Governmental Mousetrap" at

    What you can do:

    1) Donate to Laura's legal defense fund to help her pay to appeal her conviction. If this ruling is allowed to stand, our right to a fair and impartial jury will be destroyed. The ruling signifies a bold step by the courts to return to Medieval times when jurors were often punished for improper verdicts and disregarding instructions of the court.

    (Contributions are not tax deductible. Unused funds, if any, will be used to advocate jury rights, or returned if requested in the comment box on your check or money order.)

    Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund
    c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney)
    P.O. Box 1272
    Parker, CO 80134
    Phone: (303) 841-9649

    2) Copy and distribute this flyer. For an already formatted version of this flyer, printed on legal-sized paper, send your snail mail address.

    3) Write a letter to the editors of these local papers. Letters can express opinions or be used to educate the public about jury issues. Letters should be 200-250 words. Include your address & phone number for verification. For snail mail addresses, phone and fax numbers of these papers, send e-mail to For letter writing help, see the Media Awareness Project:

    Front Range Newspapers * Denver Post, Denver Rocky Mt. News, Denver Westword, Denver Daily Camera, Boulder Colorado Daily, Boulder Boulder Weekly, Boulder Boulder Planet, Boulder Mountain Ear, Nederland Mountain Messanger, Idaho Springs Coloradan, Ft. Collins The Chieftan, Pueblo Gazette Telegraph, Colo. Springs Independent, Colo. Springs

    Western Slope Newspapers * Chronicle and Pilot, Crested Butte Ten Mile Times, Frisco Glenwood Post, Glenwood Springs Delta County Independent, Montrose Telluride Journal, Telluride

    E-mail list ready to cut-and-paste into Blind Carbon Copy field:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    Please send copies of your letter to

    4) Contact the following officials. Tell them you are concerned about the conviction of Laura Kriho and the threat it poses to other jurors. Send copies of your letters to the Jury Rights Project: (JRP, c/o Box 729, Nederland, CO 80466, E-mail:

    Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline
    1301 Pennsylvania St. #260
    Denver, CO 80203
    (303) 837-3601

    File a letter of complaint against Judge Henry Nieto and his unprecedented conviction of Kriho.

    Send a copy to:

    Honorable Henry Nieto
    1st Judicial District
    Jefferson County Justice Center
    100 Jefferson County Parkway
    Golden, CO 80401

    (Caution: any perceived or implied threats against any person or property can be prosecuted.:)

    Governor Roy Romer
    State Capitol Building
    200 E. Colfax, Denver, CO 80203
    (303) 866-2471

    Dave Thomas, District Attorney
    1st Judicial District
    Jefferson County Justice Center
    500 Jefferson County Parkway
    Golden, CO 80401

    Also ask the D.A. to stop prosecuting jurors.

    Colorado State Legislators
    (303) 866-4865 or (303) 866-4866
    Mailing address: same as Governor Romer's

    Also ask your local representatives and senators to sponsor legislation to limit judicial contempt powers against jurors.

    Sixth Amendment - U.S. Constitution

    "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

    To be added to or removed from the JRP mailing list, send e-mail with the word SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE in the title.

    The Jury Rights Project (



    Comments, questions and suggestions. E-mail

    Reporters and researchers are welcome at the world's largest online library of drug-policy information, sponsored by the Drug Reform Coordination Network at

    Back to the 1997 News page.

    This URL: