SUITE 1010
Tel. (202) 483-5500 * Fax (202) 483-0057 * E-mail:
World Wide Web:

. . . a weekly service on news related to marijuana prohibition.

May 9, 1996

Federal Judge Speaks Out Against Drug War
Endorses Program To Stop Arresting Marijuana Consumers

April 25, 1996, Waterville, ME: A high-ranking federal judge criticized America's current anti-drug efforts while speaking before students at Colby College, reported The Associated Press. Calling our drug war strategies a "losing battle," Chief Judge Juan Torruella of the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals proposed that America seriously rethink its methods and goals, and suggested that the establishment of a national pilot program to alleviate marijuana-related prosecutions might be a first step in the right direction.

At minimum, "a shift has to be made in the funding for drug enforcement toward an intense educational campaign," he said.

Torruella, who went on the federal bench in 1975 and joined the appeals court in 1984, called for a national debate on the drug issue. In addition, he said that an independent national commission should be impaneled to analyze alternative approaches to curbing drug use. Currently, any legitimate debate on the issue is clouded by political "rhetoric" and anti-drug "hysteria," he claimed. Torruella likened this attitude to the zealotry exhibited by anti-Communists during the McCarthy era.

Torruella was also critical of the ways in which he felt drug prosecutors and law enforcement officials have run rampant over the bill of rights. "You can't have one Constitution for the good guys and another Constitution for the bad guys," he said.

Torruella has served as chief judge of the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals since 1994.

Federal Medical Marijuana Bill Attracts Additional Sponsors

May 1996, Washington, DC: Three more members of Congress, including one Republican and the House's only Independent, have recently signed on to a federal bill (H.R. 2618) that would permit physicians to prescribe marijuana as a therapeutic agent for seriously ill patients. With the addition of the recent signees, U.S. Reps. Bernard Sanders (I-VT), George Brown (D-Calif.), and Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), the total number of co-sponsors now stands at sixteen.

"Slowly but surely, more and more members of Congress are coming forward to show their support for medical marijuana legislation," stated NORML Deputy Director Allen St. Pierre. "This is a bill that deserves full bipartisan support and prompt federal action."

The inclusion of Bilbray brings the total number of Republican co-sponsors to three. Republican support of this legislation is critical if the bill is to move forward in a Republican controlled Congress.

Currently, H.R. 2618 is simultaneously pending before two subcommittees: the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime and the House Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Health and Environment. This past March, NORML Executive Director Keith Stroup testified before the Subcommittee on Crime and encouraged Chairman Bill McCullom (R-Fla.) - a former two-time co-sponsor of federal medical marijuana legislation himself - to hold additional hearings regarding medical marijuana.

H.R. 2618 was introduced in Congress last fall by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) to amend federal law to allow seriously ill patients to have legal access to marijuana for medicinal purposes. If passed, the bill would allow doctors to prescribe marijuana to individuals suffering from "glaucoma, AIDS wasting syndrome, muscle spasms from certain spastic disorders including multiple sclerosis, paraplegia, and quadriplegia, or the nausea associated with cancer chemotherapy or radiology." Presently, only eight patients are allowed to receive marijuana legally from the federal government.

The effectiveness of medicinal marijuana has been endorsed by a number of scientific and medical associations including the American Public Health Association, the Australian Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Nurses Society on Addiction.

For more information about H.R. 2618 or medical marijuana, please contact either Allen St. Pierre or Paul Armentano of NORML at (202) 483-5500.

Navajo Hemp Crop Under Fire From Feds

May 1, 1996, Navajo Nation, AZ: Plans for a widescale planting of industrial hemp on American Indian soil have met opposition from federal officials who argue that any planting or harvesting of hemp would violate federal law. Presently, Navajo Nation President Albert Hale is awaiting a legal opinion from the tribe's Justice Department before going forward with the project. This past March, a ceremonial planting of industrial hemp seeds by the Coalition for Hemp Awareness (CHA) took place on Native American soil following the unanimous passage of a resolution by the Nation to allow for hemp cultivation to occur on sovereign soil.

Often described as "marijuana's misunderstood cousin," industrial hemp is from the same plant species (Cannabis sativa) that produces marijuana. Unlike marijuana, however, industrial hemp contains only minute traces of THC, the psychoactive ingredient that gives marijuana its medicinal and euphoric properties. Regardless, DEA spokeswoman Dana Seeley still maintains that federal laws forbidding the cultivation of marijuana also apply to hemp. "We are hopeful that they will not [go forward with their plans]," she said. Seeley noted that the DEA will continue to monitor the situation closely and may take action if any large-scale test plots of hemp are planted.

After decades of unemployment, leaders of the Navajo Nation feel that hemp cultivation will invigorate the local economy. The Navajo Nation Hemp Project "is formulated to provide [a] bio-regional local industry that will create jobs and enhance the agricultural base," stated CHA spokeswoman Christie Bohling. "With the many attributes and by-products of this natural renewable resource, the Navajo Nation will become self-sufficient in [its] ability to provide many of its own necessities."

Currently, industrial hemp is grown legally throughout much of Europe and Asia and can be used to produce a variety of products such as cosmetics, textiles, paper, paints, plastics, and animal feed.

For more information regarding the Navajo nation Hemp Project, please contact the Coalition for Hemp Awareness at P.O. Box 9068, Chandler Heights, AZ 85227. For further information or for a copy of the Navajo nation resolution, please contact either Allen St. Pierre or Paul Armentano of NORML at (202) 483-5500.

Drug Czar Admits Most People Who Experiment With Drugs 'Walk Away' Without Problems

May 1, 1996, Washington, D.C.: During a recent speech at the National Press Club, new Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey made several remarks that cast doubt on the validity of the "gateway theory."

McCaffrey stated that out of the 90 million Americans who have experimented with illegal drugs, only 3 million are current addicts. In addition, he stated that the "overwhelming majority" of Americans who use illegal drugs simply "walk away and sa[y] it's not for me."

"In my mind, the Drug Czar is simply acknowledging what we at NORML have already known," said Allen St. Pierre. "Federal statistics tell us time and time again that the bulk the Americans who experiment with illicit drugs experiment solely with marijuana and do not progress to harder drugs or run into drug-related problems later in life."



Regional and other news

Body Count

Six of the 12 felons sentenced to jail or prison in the most recent week by Multnomah County courts were controlled-substance offenders according to the "Portland" zoned edition in Thursday's
Oregonian, delivered to subscribers in the central metropolitan area. (May 9, 1996, p. 4, 3M-MP). That brings the total so far this year to 135 of 229, or 58.95 percent. In the first two months of 1996, the proportion topped 65 percent. Since Portland NORML is the only group that has been drawing attention to this evidence of a criminal-justice system gone amok, could its efforts finally be yielding significant results?

Religion And Drugs In The May Atlantic Monthly

William James, the celebrated American psychologist and philosopher, achieved some of his most unusual and dramatic insights while high on nitrous oxide, writes Dmitri Tymoczko, a teaching assistant at Harvard University. In many of his writings, James described his experiments with the drug and how his altered state of mind led him to some of his deepest thoughts on religion. Tymoczko uses those statements to argue for allowing drug use in religious ceremonies, an issue that has produced conflicting rulings from American judges. In rejecting the claim that the First Amendment protects the use of drugs in religious ceremonies, the U.S. Supreme Court distinguished between the freedom to believe and the freedom to act on one's beliefs. Tymoczko writes that James demonstrated that although taking drugs is an action, it is an action "necessary for the production of religious beliefs [and] should not be conflated with actions taken because of religious beliefs that could exist regardless." (The article has been posted at the magazine's Web site.)

Hawaii Passes Hemp Resolution

Hawaii state representative David Tarnas announced April 23 that both houses of the legislature had passed a resolution to conduct a study on the economic potential, problems, and other related matters of growing non-psychoactive industrial cannabis hemp as an agricultural product in Hawaii.

House Resolution 71 and House Concurrent Resolution 63 describes the study as a fact-finding and information-gathering forum that would examine the following aspects of nonpsychoactive industrial hemp: 1) the commodity value, 2) economic potential and other benefits, 3) comparison of the economic potential with that of other similar crops, including kenaf and sunn hemp, 4) interest of Hawaii landowners, businesses and other parties in growing industrial hemp, 5) federal procedures for obtaining a permit to grow hemp, and 6) the barriers, including federal procedures and current drug policies at the federal, state and county levels that inhibit and prohibit the growing of hemp.

"Thousands of acres of former sugar plantation land still await the arrival of a viable alternative crop," said Rep. Tarnas. "Our economy must have a strong foundation in agriculture to stabilize the ups and downs of the tourism economy. Plantation-scale industrial hemp production will require a labor force that can be readily made up of former sugar plantation workers, in addition, industrial hemp can supply a raw agricultural commodity that will support numerous cottage industries for textiles, clothing and food products. The potential for fuel production is also very attractive since we import all our transportation and energy producing fuel. Industrial hemp should be allowed to prove itself as a successful commodity here in Hawaii - as it is doing in other places around the world."

The joint Senate Committees on Agriculture, Labor, and Employment and Ways and Means stated in their committee report that "given the State's current economic crisis, the viability of alternative cash crops should be explored to the fullest extent possible".

The Hawaii Agribusiness Development Corporation has initiated this research project already and will be working with the University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture, the Legislative Research Bureau, and other cooperating agencies.

For more details please contact Rep. Tarnas on Oahu at (808) 586-8510.

Eric Skidmore comments:

"If you're wondering why the DEA has taken an activist role in blocking hemp legislation in various states, this quote from John Ingersoll, the first Director of the DEA is very revealing. In a column by Jack Anderson in The Washington Post, June 24, 1972, p.31, Mr. Ingersoll had this to say about the subject of legalization....'Not only are we here to protect the public from vicious criminals in the street but also to protect the public from harmful ideas.'"

Mother's Day Reminder

Friends of Prisoners at Mitchellville, a program of the Urban Mission Council United Methodist Church, recently distributed the following statistics in conjunction with a planned Mother's Day demonstration on behalf of drug offenders: Sponsored by Friends of Prisoners at Mitchellville. For more information call (515) 262-2024.

Oakland OKs Medical Marijuana

Here's a resolution passed unanimously by the Oakland City Council March 12, 1996, supporting medical marijuana and directing enforcement against providers be assigned a "low priority." The Council also endorsed the Compassionate Use Initiative of 1996.


Resolution No. 72516 C.M.S.


WHEREAS, marijuana has been shown to help alleviate pain and discomfort in people suffering from a variety of illnesses inclusing AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, and multiple sclerosis; and,

WHEREAS, marijuana has alleviated the suffering of people with chronic illnesses when no other medications have been effective; and,

WHEREAS, the use of marijuana is presently unlawful even under the supervision of a physician; and

WHEREAS, the illegal purchase of marijuana by people already suffering with chronic illnesses subjects them to further suffering in the form of potential arrest and prosecution; and

WHEREAS, Representative Barney Frank (MA) and local co-sponsors Representative Ronald Dellums and Pete Stark have introduced H.R. 2618 which would allow physicians to prescribe marijuana for medical purposes and would insure the production of marijuana to meet the need for medical use; and

WHEREAS, the Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Club provides a way for patients needing to purchase marijuana for medical use to do so with greater ease and less risk of arrest and prosecution; and

WHEREAS, the City of Oakland wishes to declare its desire not to expend City resources in any investigation, detention, arrest or prosecution arising out of alleged violations of state and federal law regarding the distribution of marijuana for compassionate medical use; and

WHEREAS, the Oakland City Council passed Resolution 72379 C.M.S. endorsing state legislation AB 1529, "The Medical Marijuana Bill" and the "Compassionate Use Initiative of 1996;" now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That the Oakland City Council endorses the passage of H.R. 2618; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Oakland City Council authorizes the City manager to instruct the City's federal lobbyists to work in support of H.R. 2618; and be it further

RESOLVED: That, the Mayor and City Council hereby declare that it shall be the policy of the City of Oakland that the investigation and arrest of members of the Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Club for purchasing, selling and distributing marijuana for medical purposes shall be a low priority; and be it further

RESOLVED: That, the Mayor and City Council hereby declare that it shall be the policy of the City of Oakland that the investigation and arrest of persons for planting, cultivating, purchasing, and/or possessing marijuana shall be a low priority for the City of Oakland if such persons have been medically diagnosed as suffering from an illness or injury, the symptoms of which may be alleviated by the medicinal use of marijuana; and be it further

RESOLVED: That, the Mayor and City Council call upon the Alameda District Attorney to cease prosecution of persons involved in the medical use of marijuana; and be it further

RESOLVED: That if any provision of this resolution is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to any statute, regulation or judicial decision, or its applicability to any agency, person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this resolution and it applicability to any other agency, person or circumstance shall not be affected.








ATTEST: CEDA FLOYD City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the City of Oakland, California

Denmark To Allow Cannabis Coffee Shops?

John Yates writes: Denmark took a step closer to Cannabis legalisation over the May 4-5 weekend when the Socialist Folk Party passed a resolution calling for the establishment of Dutch style cannabis coffee shops in Denmark. The Social Democrat party spokesman on drugs, Poul Quist Jorgensen, welcomed the Socialist Folk Party resolution and said the two parties will work together to allow cannabis coffee shops to open in Denmark. The right wing Christian Democrat Party parliamentary leader, Peter Duestoft, said that "All experience shows that cannabis is the gateway to hard drugs" and that the Christian Democrat Party will oppose the moves. Wether the Kristian Krazies can prevent Denmarks coalition government from further liberalising Denmark's already liberal laws remains to be seen, but it looks like Danes will soon be able to enjoy a joint with their coffee in the cafes along Copenhagen's Vesterbrogade.

Methamphetamine - What's To Be Done?

Terry Liittschwager ( writes: There is a condition that we could do something about if we were truly serious about attacking the problem of methamphetamine abuse. We could stop random drug testing by urinalysis.

Methamphetamine is the most attractive drug insofar as reducing the exposure time to a positive drug test. The opiates and cocaine run to 4 days of exposure time. THC exposure time is measured in weeks. But the most quoted figure I've seen for methamphetamine is 48 hours. Thus, as one man said to me when explaining why he had stopped using marijuana and started using meth, "I can get high on Friday night and show up clean on Monday morning." His company had instituted random drug testing.

[Liittschwager included this article:]

Survey: Drug Tests No Deterrent
by The Associated Press
Eugene (Oregon) Register Guard, 4/21/96

NEW YORK - Companies are testing for drugs as much as they ever were, but a new survey released Wednesday by a leading management group found no evidence that it has any effect.

"Costs have increased tenfold since 1990 with very little statistical evidence of results," said Eric Greenberg, who conducted the survey for the American Management Association. "No finding of our survey efforts can confirm with statistical certainty that testing deters drug use."

If testing does deter drug use, researchers would expect to see a smaller percentage of workers testing positive over time. But the percentage of employees testing positive in 1995 remained flat, at 1.9 percent. At the same time, the number of companies testing remains about the same.

"That is not a good case for deterrence," he said.

Eighteen companies reported ending drug testing in 1995 because they found it wasn't cost effective, Greenberg said. On average, the companies responding to the survey spent $50,000 on drug testing in 1995.

The survey was conducted by mail in January among 961 companies that tested about 196,000 workers and more than 500,000 applicants during 1995. Its margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percent.

This was the first time the annual survey asked if companies kept statistical evidence on the impact of drug testing.

Only 5 percent said they had data showing lowered absentee rates or illness; 6 percent had data showing fewer disability claims.

[End quotes]

The Question For Candidates

The Oregonian continued its policy of manufacturing consensus with a brief article May 3 titled "Ask the candidates: U.S. Senate, Focus on drugs" (p. B3). Unfortunately, the 19-year-old Lewis & Clark College student who posed a question to Oregon candidates for Mark O. Hatfield's seat played into the paper's hands by asking a question almost guaranteed to elicit unfavorable responses.

Instead of drawing attention to the impossible cost of arresting 6.6 percent of the population by asking a question such as, "How many marijuana offenders and other victimless drug-law violators do you want to put in prison, and how much will that cost?" the student was quoted as saying, "I would like to ask the candidates what they would do to reform the drug policy in the United States. Specifically, do they favor legalizing some drugs?"

Reformers as well as those who support current policy would benefit from understanding the counterproductive nature of the student's question. In the first place, asking a candidate for political office in Oregon what he or she would do to reform drug policy assumes that he or she would do anything at all except pour gas on the flames. Considering the evidence (see below) that the Northwest's largest daily considers any candidate who opposes current drug policy to be by that very fact not a "serious" contender, the first part of the student's question reveals naivete. Given candidates' perennial "get tough on drugs" bidding wars, and the unquestioningly favorable bias given to such messages by the mass media, it is necessary to bypass the standard manufactured ideological consensus if one is to introduce reality into the discussion. The question is not legalizing drugs, it's prisons, and how much candidates want to spend defying the law of supply and demand, and how much they will defund which programs in order to disrupt a small percentage of the illegal-drug market (thereby raising prices and drawing more people into the industry).

There were other pitfalls in the student's question about whether candidates might be in favor of "legalizing some drugs." For one thing, "some drugs" are already quite "legal," including by definition prescription drugs such as cocaine and opiates. Adults can also legally consume alcohol and tobacco, our most addictive and lethal recreational drugs, which kill 100 times as many Americans every year as all illegal drugs combined (about 100,000, 400,000 and 4,000, respectively). "Legalization" itself is a loaded word, and many if not most people assume that "legalization" would let people buy drugs from vending machines, like cigarettes, or convenience stores, like beer. Yet all of the progressive harm-reduction reforms and decriminalization efforts in Europe and elsewhere have taken place under a system of prohibition. Even when alcohol Prohibition proved a bloody disaster, reformers did not mount a campaign to "legalize" alcohol, but to place it under a realistic system of control. So the student's question about "legalization" would seem ideologically to ignore the history of how gains have been achieved in other places and other times.

That said, The Oregonian still seemed to take an active role in preventing a realistic discussion. Instead of framing the student's question in a realistic context, such as the May 21 election in Multnomah County for bonds and a levy for new jails for drug offenders, the editors gave about one-third of the article over to quoting President Clinton's latest platitudes about what he would do with $15.1 billion more. Instead of treating failed policies with some objectivity, the report glowingly reported the president's purported goals, and of course failed to mention that all of the new money would be borrowed from future generations.

"Ask the candidates" then reported "What the Democratic Candidates Say," or as it turned out, just four of the Democratic candidates, Harry Lonsdale, Tom Bruggere, Jerry Rust and Bill Dwyer. Three of the four stated they did not support "legalization." It might as well have been all four. The only person who hedged was Rust, who spoke up for medical marijuana, which 80 percent of the public already supports. And while Rust was not actually quoted as saying he opposed regulating marijuana for adults, a follow-up fax exchange with Portland NORML left no doubt that decrim is not on Rust's agenda. His campaign literature states that "warehousing first time drug offenders as criminals, instead of treating them medically, is not only ripping families apart, it's pushing Oregon into bankruptcy." Since Rust seems unaware that first-time up to eight-time burglars and car thieves etc. escape hard time because first-time, second-time and third-time drug offenders are crowding everyone else out, and since Rust offered no estimated cost for mandatory treatment for all 159,445 illegal-drug users in the state of Oregon, it seems he has not yet come to grips with reality any more than the other three candidates acceptable to The Oregonian.

"Ask the candidates" did not ask one very obvious question of Harry Lonsdale. That is, why did the former-millionaire-turned-campaign-finance-reform champion tell a statewide network-television audience April 21 that "We all know the drug war has failed" and then tell The Oregonian for this article that "As time goes on, more and more people are ready to legalize drugs ... I'm not ready for that yet, and I'm not sure I ever will be." That is such an obvious self-contradiction that Portland NORML contacted Lonsdale's office for a clarification. Given Lonsdale's obvious mental incapacitation, his subsequent lack of response was understandable, though his people did confirm that both statements were accurate. Since The Oregonian overlooked the absurdity of a candidate endorsing a policy he earlier had labeled a failure, one is left with the strong impression that the newspaper is more interested in squelching the discussion than informing it.

In any case, the fact that The Oregonian got four out of four candidates to speak against "legalization" should not allow the paper to maintain the illusion that reform is not on the table in the Oregon U.S. Senate race, or that reform is not even an issue worthy of discussion or debate.

Because of that manufactured impression, and to promote a realistic discussion of the issue, Portland NORML faxed a letter to each of the seven candidates for the U.S. Senate, including three candidates not queried by The Oregonian, Democrat Anna Nevenich and Republicans Jeff Lewis and Gordon Smith. Each candidate was asked simply, "How many illegal-drug consumers would you like the taxpayers to lock up? A number please." Included with the question were government statistics documenting the number of illegal-drug users in Oregon and what it would cost to build jails for all of them.

Aside from Jerry Rust, whose reply was nonresponsive, the only candidates who replied were Nevenich and Lewis, both of whom gave very favorable replies (reprinted verbatim below).

So if Portland NORML had been able to pose the question, "Ask the candidates" would have revealed that all of the so-called major candidates for U.S. Senate were unable to respond to an obvious question about a very expensive public policy. It would have also shown that the only two candidates who were responsive, Nevenich and Lewis, both favored radical reform. The entire episode shows how public policy is not really created by political parties, elected officials or even the voters, but manufactured by a small clique of journalism majors too biased even to realize that the future of their industry is dependent on hemp paper.

In that context, candidates as well as the Big O would do well to consider the words of Hardy Myers, running for Oregon Attorney General, quoted in an Oregonian article titled "Attorney general candidates span personality spectrum" (May 5): "Myers says he is running at a time of 'national crisis in government, a crisis of confidence in our ability to govern ourselves by our democratic institutions.' ... Ineffective government programs, a campaign finance system that limits public office to the rich or those able to raise large sums of money, and law-breaking government officials have contributed to the crisis, he says" (p. C6).

Those who remember the '60s and '70s and the remarkable unpopularity of government in some circles back then may have forgotten an important lesson - that illegal-drug usage can increase dramatically when such usage becomes associated with a popular anti-government political philosophy. That the federal government continues blindly to step up the war on some drug users even as its own credibility and popularity evaporate just might at some point in the future lead to another explosion in illegal-drug consumption. Since young people in their late teens and 20s are the heaviest consumers of such drugs as well as the group most harmed by policies that defund education in order to build prisons and spread propaganda, it's pretty clear where to watch for such a development.

Here are the responses from Lewis and Nevenich:

Jeff Lewis for U.S. Senate Committee
215 W. 10th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401
(541) 345-6908, Fax: (541) 345-1288

May 7, 1996
Phil Smith
Portland NORML [etc.]

Dear Mr. Smith:

In response to your fax today, my answer to your question, "How many illegal-drug consumers would you like the taxpayers to lock up?" my answer is zero. I am opposed to jail sentences for any victim-less crimes.

I would like to see drug use combated with education and rehabilitation. I would like to see the profits taken out of the illegal drug market, which may mean some method of legalizing use with protections against access by minors.

I would appreciate your thoughts on how to achieve the above goals.

Jeff Lewis

Nevenich wrote:
Dear Mr. Smith,

Our country faces serious crime, health, and environmental problems, all of which could be linked to Cannabis. In order to reduce these problems, I favor the legalization of Cannabis for personal use by adults, and especially for patients with illnesses. I also favor the legalization of industrial hemp to shift Oregon's economy away from unsustainable logging industries.

As a registered nurse, I realize that marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, and that it has been proven beneficial to patients with AIDS, Cancer, Glaucoma and other harmful ailments.

As a defender of civil rights, I believe that an individual has a right to act in ways that do not harm others. While there are links to violence with crack, crystal meth, and alcohol, I believe that marijuana produces no such effects and in fact, may even decrease violence.

Our current policy of filling prisons with nonviolent consumers of a naturally growing plant is based on irrational fears, untrue propaganda and misperceptions. Not only is this self-destructive to our nation, but it is also constitutionally questionable.

However, to adequately prove this to the nation, I believe we must conduct careful scientific studies of crime rates and other factors during the initial years of legalization - an experimental trial period. Therefore, if the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act passes in November, for which I would vote yes, then I would encourage careful study to prove to ourselves, and the nation, that legalization of marijuana will solve far more problems than it would create. I hope this answers your questions, and if you have more, or would like to help me in my campaign, please contact our campaign headquarters at [503] 796-7996. Thank you for your questions and good luck in your efforts.

Anna Nevenich
U.S. Senate Candidate

Nevenich's mailing address is: 921 SW Morrison St., #506, Portland, OR 97205



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 News Releases page.

This URL: