Portland NORML News - Thursday, January 1, 1998

Man Says He's Not Guilty Of Pot Charge (Washington State
Medical-Marijuana Cultivator Clifton R. Messerschmidt)

From: "W.H.E.N." 
To: "Talk Group" 
Subject: HT: ART: Olympian - med mj arraignment
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 15:11:06 -0800
Sender: owner-hemp-talk@hemp.net

Man says he's not guilty of pot charge
The Olympian 1/1/98 By Joel Coffidis

A former Olympia resident who says he let a dying AIDS patient grow
marijuana in his basement pleaded not guilty Wednesday to a felony
marijuana-growing charge.

A half-dozen of the man's supporters - who advocate legalization of
marijuana for medical purposes - showed up at the arraignment.

Clifton R. Messerschmidt, 28, of Federal Way and formerly of Olympia,
entered his plea in front of Thurston County Superior Court Judge Gary

His trial is scheduled to begin the week of March 16, with a pretrial
hearing set for Jan. 29.

In mid-October, Olympia police seized 18 marijuana plants from the South
Capitol neighborhood home Messerschmidt rented. The seizure occurred about
three weeks before voters rejected an initiative that would have legalized
some medicinal uses of marijuana.

Messerschmidt was charged Dec. 19 in Thurston County Superior Court with
manufacturing marijuana. If convicted, he would face up to three months in

In an interview after Wednesday's arraignment, Messerschmidt said he let a
friend dying of AIDS grow the drug in his basement. The friend took care
of the plants when Messerschmidt was at work he said.

"There are too many people who know it wasn't my stuff," said
Messerschmidt, who said he hasn't drank alcohol or smoked marijuana for 10

"He's a friend of mine dying of AIDS," he said.

The friend had to temporarily live with his parents and could not take the
marijuana plants to his parents' home, Messerschmidt said.

Messerschmidt said he offered his friend the use of his basement.

"I certainly think that people who are dying should have access to
pain-control medication," he said.

The friend had tried a prescription medication, which contained an active
ingredient of marijuana, to ease his pain. But the medication had negative
side effects, Messerschmidt said.

"I commend the man for what he did," said Patrick Kelly, a member of the
Washington Hemp Education Network.

"I think he ought to get a civil award for what he did," Kelly said.

Phil Harju, senior deputy county prosecutor, declined comment about the
case Wednesday. But during an interview last week, Harju said it's against
the law to manufacture marijuana.

If someone wants to change the law, they need to work with legislators,
Harju said.

Wisconsin Marchers Wheel Into Madison (Medical Marijuana Caravan
Is 'High Times' Freedom Fighter Of The Month For January)

Newshawk: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.org)
Source: High Times
Author: Steve Wishnia
Pubdate: Jan., 1998
Contact: letters@hightimes.com
Website: http://www.hightimes.com/
Photo: by Jean E. Taddie shows James Dawson followed by Jack Rickert, in
wheelchairs, captioned: "Wisconsin Journey for Justice marchers (Jackie
Rickert, second) start another day."

Freedom Fighters of the Month


Madison, WI - Fifteen medical-marijuana patients spent a week last September
marching 210 miles from the small town of Mondovi to the state capitol here,
in a follow-up to last May's "Journey for Justice" in Ohio.

The march's arrival on Sept. 18 coincided with the introduction of a
medical-marijuana bill in the state legislature by Rep. Frank Boyle
(D-Superior). Boyle's bill would reschedule cannabis as a Schedule III drug - -
equating it with Tylenol/codeine, rather than with heroin - and create a
medical-necessity defense for patients with "acute, chronic, incurable or
terminal" illnesses, if their doctors say conventional treatment "is either not
effective or is causing severe side-effects."

Rep. Boyle says he decided to sponsor the bill because medical-marijuana
patients "convinced me this was more than worth the political risk." He argues
there's "absolutely no rational" to deny people medication that improves their
lives, especially when drugs like steroids, barbiturates and codeine are legal and
frequently prescribed.

However, Rep. Gregg Underheim (R-Oshkosh), chair of the Assembly Health
Committee, says the bill will not get a hearing. "It's not about medicine, it's
about intoxication," he says of the medical-marijuana movement. The
movement, he adds, will not have any credibility until it presents "sound
intellectual rationales, not aging hippies."

As the marchers passed through Black River Falls, Elroy, the Wisconsin Dells
and Sauk City, the reaction was "ninety-nine percent positive," says Steve
Wessing of Madison. "We had people running out to greet us in every town."
Wessing, 36, has spinal-process bifida, a back deformity, and uses cannabis to
prevent muscle spasms that could seriously damage his vertebrae.

"It was one of the biggest highlights of my life. I never realized there was so
much support out there," says Jacki Rickert of Mondovi, where the march
began on Sept. 11. Rickert, 47, suffers from Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, a
connective-tissue disorder in which her joints - including shoulders, thumbs,
knees and ankles - become dislocated very easily. If the dislocation isn't reset
within 20 minutes, she says, the muscles around the injured area get so tight
that "they're more like cable than muscle." But if she smokes a joint before
then, they relax in time.

Rickert, an active swimmer, horseback rider and gymnast before she was
diagnosed with the syndrome at 21, thought marijuana's muscle-relaxing effect
was a fluke the first time she discovered it. She was waiting in a hospital
emergency room when a friend invited her to step outside for a toke. "It was a
strange time to be lighting up a joint." She recalls. "I never thought in my
wildest dreams that this was a medicine."

By 1987, she was unable to sit up for more than 15 minutes at a time. She
smoked to get high occasionally - and "stumbled across" the effect again. "I was
playing Pac-Man, of all things," she tells HT. "I realized I'd been sitting up for
one and a half hours, and my score kept getting higher and higher." She soon
discovered that cannabis could help her control the dislocations and keep her
other medications down.

In 1990, Rickert was approved to receive cannabis under the now-defunct
Compassionate IND program, but the federal government has refused to
provide her with any. They urged her to take Marinol instead, when she says
made her tongue swell up so much she could barely fit a straw into her mouth.
Before her doctor died in 1993, she says, "he went through every channel, he
met every specification they asked for." Says march organizer Kay Lee, "She's
as legal as Elvy Musikka."

Rep. Boyle says that despite his medical-marijuana bill's imminent death,
getting the issue on the table is still worth the effort. "We have an obligation to
promote change," he tells HT. "The long term says we'll win."

Updated Web Page Radio Hosts And Yesterday's Transcript
(Darral Good On KIRO In Seattle)

Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 21:19:25 -0800
From: Darral Good 
To: hemp-talk@hemp.net
Subject: updated web page radio hosts and yesterdays transcript

Check out my transcript of my 12/31/97 conversation with DAVE ROSS
at http://www.hemp.net/~darral/local.html

I scored on two shows that day! one local and one national!

Lungren Doesn't Write Laws (Op-ed Clarifies California Attorney General's
Policies On 11362.5)

Subj: US CA: OPED: Lungren Doesn't Write Laws
From: Jerry Sutliff
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 15:27:19 -0800
Source: Oakland Tribune
Contact: triblet@angnewspapers.com
Pubdate: Thu, 01 Jan 1998


YOUR EDITORIAL, "Lungren Ignores the sick and dying," was obviously written
with a complete lack of regard for Attorney Dan Lungren's constitutional
duty to enforce California law.

You observe, "The problem with Proposition 215 is that the distribution of
marijuana has never been clearly addressed." Exactly. The law's authors
wrote a law that doesn't address the issue, so why do you blame the
attorney general for what you call a problem with a law he didn't write?
Surely, you don't advocate an attorney general for California who enforces
some laws and ignores others.

The Tribune incorrectly asserts, "Lungren wants to challenge the entire
proposition's legality." Lungren has been clear in stating that Proposition
215 is the law of the land enacted by the people. What your editorial
failed to note (although it appeared in an article in your paper the same
day) Is that Lungren has joined state Sen. John Vasconcellos in pushing for
a study into the harmful and potential medicinal benefits of marijuana.

Your absurd suggestion that Lungren is ignoring the sick and dying
perpetuates a sensationalist point of view that trashes the facts , the law
and the legal duties of the attorney general. There is a gulf between what
your inflammatory rhetoric promotes and what the law allows.

Rob Stutzmans - Attorney Generals Office -

Facilities Crisis Still Unsolved (Editorial By 'San Luis Obispo County
Telegram-Tribune' Blames California's Governor And Assembly For
Demagoguery, Failing To Remedy Resulting Funding Crisis For
Prisons And Schools)

Subj: US CA: Facilities Crisis Still Unsolved
From: Jo-D Harrison
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 15:28:13 -0800
Source: San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune
Contact: slott@sint01.sanluisobispo.com
Pubdate: Saturday, January 1, 1998
Author: Dan Walters
Section: Opinion
Page: B-4


SACRAMENTO - Gov. Pete Wilson, accompanied by law enforcement and victims
rights representatives, launched an advertising campaign Tuesday to warn
Californians of a new law that will sharply toughen penalties for those who
use guns in crimes.

The program - television spots and printed notices to inmates, probationer
and parolees - is dubbed "use a gun and you're done." Wilson said he wants
to "put gun-wielding criminals in jail for a very long time."

Few law-abiding Californians would argue the concept of hammering those who
use guns in crimes. That's why lock-'em-up measures are so popular with

Likewise, the single most popular thing that Wilson and lawmakers of both
parties have done in recent years is to redirect sate school aid into
reducing class sizes in elementary grades. Wilson will propose another
expansion of class-size reduction when the Legislature reconvenes next week
and wants to engrave the program permanently into law via an education
reform ballot measure next year.

There is, however, another facet to such trendy political actions as
locking up more criminals and putting school kids in smaller classes:
finding space to do both.

While Wilson and lawmakers have catered to the public, they have abjectly
failed to come to grips with the prison and school facilities crises that
have resulted. And when the Legislature returns to Sacramento, the
politicians will have only a few weeks to reach agreement on prison and
school construction programs if measures are to be placed before voters at
the June primary election.

Secretary of State Bill Jones is warning Wilson and lawmakers that bond
issues need to be enacted no later than Feb. 9 to be included in the June
voter's pamphlet - which is a virtual impossibility, given the serious
political conflicts that remain unresolved. But even if Wilson and
lawmakers want to push the envelope by authorizing a supplemental voters'
pamphlet, Jones says, they would have only another month.

The state has completed its last authorized prison, but Wilson and
lawmakers of both parties have been deadlocked for several years on what to
do next as prison populations continue to expand and approach the point
when even double-ceiling of inmates will be insufficient.

Although inmate populations have expanded slower than previously forecast
after the "three strikes and you're out" law was enacted, the state still
will run out of prison space around the end of the decade. Given the
three-year lead time needed to construct new facilities, the real deadline
for action may already have passed.

Class size reduction, meanwhile, has imposed new demands on a school system
that was already overcrowded, thanks to rising enrollment from a new baby
boom that began in California in the mid-1980s. Cafeterias and libraries
have been converted into emergency classrooms - mirroring the steps being
taken in the prisons to warehouse inmates - but a school housing crisis
grows worse by the moment while Wilson and lawmakers remain stalemated on
how to deal with it.

Educators want more state bonds and a lowering of the vote requirement on
local bond issues, but the building industry is demanding curbs on school
construction fees, and no one has found a magic formula that will also
garner the required two-thirds vote in the Legislature.

Locking up more violent felons and putting kids in smaller classes are fine
policies to pursue - but only if we're willing to shoulder the
multibillion-dollar costs that result.

Smoking Lawsuit Settled (California Family's Award From Lorillard Tobacco Due
To Asbestos Filters)

Subj: US: Smoking Lawsuit Settled
From: Art Smart 
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 15:27:26 -0800
Source: Houston Chronicle
Contact: viewpoints@chron.com
Pubdate: Thu, 01 Jan 1998
URL: http://www.chron.com/content/


SAN FRANCISCO -- Lorillard Tobacco Co. has paid more than $1.5 million to
the family of a California smoker who died of cancer, the first time a U.S.
cigarette maker has ever paid a smoking- related personal injury claim,
lawyers said Wednesday.

Milton Horowitz, a Beverly Hills psychoanalyst, died in 1996 from a type of
lung cancer attributed to the asbestos found in the filters of Kent
cigarettes that Lorillard manufactured in the early 1950s. Kent eventually
replaced them with cheaper, non- asbestos filters in 1956.

A San Francisco jury in 1995 awarded the family $1.3 million in
compensatory damages for medical and other expenses and $700,000 in
punitive damages. On Tuesday, Lorillard paid the compensatory portion of
the award, plus interest: $1,556,851.

William Ohlemeyer, Lorillard's attorney, said Wednesday the company likely
would continue to appeal the punitive portion of the award to the U.S.
Supreme Court.

He also contested the Horowitz description of the case as
cigarette-related, noting that the crucial factor leading to Horowitz's
death was asbestos, not tobacco.

New York Mayor Begins Second Term Targeting Drugs, Taxes
(Giuliani Eyes 'National Office')

Subj: US: New York Mayor Begins Second Term Targeting Drugs, Taxes
From: Jim Rosenfield
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 20:03:46 -0500
Source: Los Angeles Times
Author: Michael Blood, Associated Press Writer
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Pubdate: January 1, 1998


NEW YORK--Mayor Rudolph Giuliani began his second term Thursday by
promising to lead New York into an era of sustained prosperity, better
schools and lower crime, cementing the Big Apple's reputation as "the
undisputed capital of the world."

After years of resignation toward the ills of urban life, New York has
emerged as "a city of resurgence and a city of progress," Giuliani said.
"The best days are yet to come," he said.

Standing without an overcoat despite freezing temperatures, Giuliani took
the oath at City Hall before 5,000 invited guests, including his wife,
Donna Hanover, and their two children, Andrew and Caroline.

Unlike Giuliani's first inauguration in 1994, his 11-year-old son behaved
himself this time, sitting quietly next to his father. Giuliani was
upstaged four years ago when Andrew, then 7, joined his father at the
lectern and repeated some of the mayor's key lines, pumping his fist for
emphasis. Giuliani earned a return trip to City Hall by trouncing Democrat
Ruth Messinger in November, becoming the first Republican to win
back-to-back elections since Fiorello La Guardia, who served from 1934 to
1945. Giuliani begins his second term at a time when the city has seen its
fortunes soar, in part from a sharply reduced crime rate, a boom in tourism
and a bull market on Wall Street. In light of the turnaround, the mayor has
attracted notice as a prospect for national office and he has refused to
pledge to serve his full, four-year term.

In a half-hour speech that was short on specifics and surprises, Giuliani
sketched an unwaveringly upbeat picture of life in the city. He asserted
his administration had achieved an unrivaled change in direction, and that
the challenge now was to make permanent those improvements "with no one
left out, and no one left behind." Giuliani reassured New Yorkers he would
continue his campaign against street crime by hiring 1,600 more police
officers and expanding anti-drug initiatives.

"We can put unrelenting pressure on the people who try to destroy the lives
of our children -the drug dealers," he said.

Giuliani also said schools should end "social promotions," in which
students are advanced even if they fail to meet requirements to enter the
next grade.

Copyright Los Angeles Times

'Washington Post' Calls Medical Marijuana 'In' In 1998

Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 11:32:00 EST
From: VOTEYES57@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: Wa Post: Medical Marijuana is in in '98

DC's major daily declares Medical Marijuana in '98

Washington DC (January 1, 1998) Today Marc Fisher of the Washington Post's
Style Section declared that medical marijuana was "'In' for 1998."

Organizers of the local ballot initiative to make marijuana available for
sick and dying patients in the District of Columbia, the AIDS advocacy group
ACT UP Washington, expressed enthusiasm. "We have worked long and hard to
make the case to the people of the District of Columbia that seriously ill
patients should not be criminally prosecuted if they turn to small amounts of
marijuana to ease their suffering." states ACT UP Washington spokesperson
Steve Michael, sponsor of DC's Initiative 57. "Our efforts have clearly had
an impact."

Notes Fisher of the Post, "We must rigorously
catalogue the year's events and spirit, and present the facts as we find

States Michael, "The spirit of initiative 57 will live in our successor
initiative. Dozens of our volunteers are ready to hit the streets of
Washington again in a big push for a quick certification. I appreciate their
energy and determination. ACT UP members working in concert with other local
activists groups like the Statehood and Green Party will hit the ground
running as soon as authorized by the Board of Elections and Ethics.

Michael, who is HIV+, co-authored a commentary published in the
editorial pages of the Washington Post disputing charges by drug Czar General
Barry McCaffery that the local, patient driven effort was part of an
internationally financed conspiracy to legalize drugs for recreational users.
Michael acknowledges that the all volunteer effort fell short by several
hundred signatures to place Initiative 57 on the DC ballot.

ACT UP Washington organizers are prepared to begin again, with an strong
team of volunteers including the DC Green Party, "Our folks are excited.

They're geared up ready to start again." Michael told the Washington Post in
a recent article.

The Washington Post also reported on a plan by a California public
relations firm funded by billionaire financier George Soros, to spend
$500,000 on an initiative against the efforts of local AIDS activists. Adds
Wayne Turner from ACT UP Washington, "We won't stand for these sleazy Soros
operatives coming into the District and profiteering off our work. After
talking to literally tens of thousands of District residents while gathering
signatures for 57, there's no tolerance out there for the big money pro-drug

Activists plan to relaunch their campaign for for the DC medical marijuana
initiative next month after a Board of Election hearing on Jaunary 9th.

following is the list of "In's" and "outs"




for more information cotact ACT UP Washington at 202-547-9404

Thinks Gray Reduced To Mean-Spirited Name-Calling (Carl Olsen Discredits
Altoona, Ohio, Police Chief's Lies About Proposition 215 And 11362.5
In California)

Subj: US IA: PUB LTE: Thinks Gray Reduced To Mean-Spirited Name-calling
From: "Carl E. Olsen" 
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 21:13:06 -0500
Pubdate: Thursday, January 1, 1998
Source: The Altoona Herald - Mitchellville Index
Section: Viewpoint - Letters to the Editor
Page: 4A
Mail: Post Office Box 427, Altoona, Iowa 50009
Fax: 515-967-0553


To the editor:

Regarding the comments of Altoona police chief John L. Gray ("Marijuana not
humorous" Dec. 25), I was disappointed that your newspaper would print such
a mean-spirited, ad hominem attack. If Gray had any evidence that someone
was smoking pot, it would be his duty to arrest that person, not call him
or her names in the newspaper. Once again, Gray demonstrates that he will
not investigate the facts, and that he has a complete disregard for the
truth. The people of Altoona would be well-served to find a law
enforcement officer with a better sense of justice and fair play.

Regarding Chief Gray's personal attack printed under the headline "Head
shops don't help patients" (Dec. 11):

Here are more facts that Chief Gray needs to know. While it is true that
the voters in California approved a broad medical marijuana initiative in
November of 1996, this only happened because for two years in a row
California's Gov. Pete Wilson vetoed more conservative medical marijuana
bills passed by the California State Legislature. Medical marijuana
activists were left with no choice but to take the issue directly to the
voters, and they made the law as broad as it could possibly be made.

The law approved by the voters in California allows patients and their
immediate caregivers to grow and possess marijuana on the oral or written
recommendation of a doctor. Since federal law prohibits the growing or
possession of marijuana, as well as the prescription of marijuana, the
initiative only protects patients and doctors from prosecution in state
courts. The federal government can still theoretically prosecute anyone
for possession of any amount of marijuana for any reason, although there is
a question of states' rights currently being considered in federal court in
Washington, D.C. Pearson v. McCaffrey, Case No. 97-CV-00462 (WBB)
("http://pw2.netcom.com/~zeno7/complain1.html"). Interestingly, a federal
court in San Francisco has recently ruled that the federal government may
not threaten doctors who simply recommend (not precribe) the use of
marijuana to their patients. Conant v. McCaffrey, Case No. C97-0139 FMS

Chief Gray is mistaken in his comments regarding the recent article in the
Dec. 8 issue of TIME magazine "Too High in California" regarding the San
Francisco Cannabis Buyers Club. Just this past week, a San Francisco,
California appellate court found that the club did not fit the definition
of an "immediate" caregiver and ordered the club to shut down. Because the
club was in full operation for several years prior to the passage of last
year's medical marijuana initiative, Chief Gray's comments about the club
being the result of the initiative are highly misleading.

I'm certainly delighted to know that Chief Gray has not violated Iowa's
medical marijuana law by arresting doctors for recommending marijuana to
their patients, as this would place him in violate of both state and
federal law. However, he would do well to stop referring to Iowa's medical
marijuana law as some scheme to sell crack cocaine to kids in candy stores.
Such tactics are worthy only of a runaway police state.

As for clearing the air in my room, I submit that the air in my room is
cleaner than the hot air Chief Gray is blowing from his bully pulpit as
chief of Altoona's police department.

Carl E. Olsen
Des Moines

Texas' Teen Smokers See New Law As A Drag ($250 Fine And Possible Driver's
License Suspension)

Subj: US TX: Texas' Teen Smokers See New Law as a Drag
From: Art Smart 
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 15:27:40 -0800
Source: Houston Chronicle
Contact: viewpoints@chron.com
Pubdate: Thu, 01 Jan 1998
Author: John W. Gonzalez and Steve Olafson
Page 1


Some Texas teen-age smokers say they'll be more discreet when they light up
their cigarettes today.

But don't expect them to go cold turkey, even with a new law that can
impose fines of up to $250 and possibly suspend teen-age driver's licenses.

"I think the new law sucks," said Josh Paiz, 14, a student at Lake Jackson
Intermediate School.

"We should have a right to do it. We're gonna die someday. We just may die
a little younger," said his 13-year-old buddy, Billy Terrill. He said his
parents, both smokers, sometimes buy him cigarettes -- a practice that is
still allowed under the new law.

"I told my mom and dad, 'When you quit I'll quit,' and they said, 'Can't
help you there,'" Terrill said.

Fourteen-year-old Matt Sharp's plan is simply to go underground.

"I think I won't smoke hardly in public," he said.

Some aspects of the tougher anti-smoking law, adopted by the Legislature
last spring, took effect Sept. 1. But the law's real bite comes into play
today with the penalty phase for tobacco consumption and possession by
people under age 18.

Endorsed by cancer-fighting groups and state health officials, the new law
makes possession, purchase, consumption or receipt of cigarettes or other
tobacco products by a minor a violation of the state health code. The
exception to that is when the minor is accompanied by an adult parent,
guardian or spouse -- meaning you can buy, smoke or chew tobacco if your
parents let you do it around them.

A violation is punishable by a fine of up to $250, but the fine would be
suspended if the violator attends a tobacco awareness program. A court also
may require the parent or guardian of the defendant to attend.

A young smoker who blows off the seminar and doesn't comply within 90 days
will wind up losing his driver's license for up to six months.

Several other smoking-related regulations arrived with the New Year,
including a requirement that retailers check the identification of all
buyers who look younger than age 27. Retailers also must begin training
employees in the new law and they must safeguard cigarette vending machines
to prevent unfettered access by minors.

While the state is only now cracking down on minors who possess tobacco,
some Texas cities are already doing so. Lubbock, for example, approved an
identical measure two years ago. Police there just last week charged a
17-year-old with illegal possession of tobacco.

The state anti-smoking law was authored by Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo,
who said it was needed because minors felt no punitive consequences from
prior laws, which made it a crime to sell tobacco to a minor but didn't
effectively punish young users.

The House sponsor, Rep. Hugo Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi, said the measures
were the kind of drastic steps needed to offset the pervasive influence of
tobacco advertising on children, which he said made Joe Camel and the
Marlboro man better known than Mickey Mouse or Barney.

Some youngsters said they were glad to see a statewide crackdown on an
unhealthy habit.

Cynthia Rodriguez, 16, a nonsmoking sophomore at Mayde Creek High School
near Katy, said the new law could be "a wake-up call for teen-agers who
need to be made aware that smoking is a serious issue. Actions need to be
taken so their eyes will be opened tothe hazards. This is for the benefit
of kids."

"Too many kids our age are smoking. They think it makes them look older or
they want to be different," said Sean Roden, 14, of Crosby.

Gina Monteleone, another Crosby 14-year-old, agreed. "If the new law makes
kids attend that class and then they stop smoking, that would be good.
Maybe kids need to think they could be caught," she said.

But Courtenay Morris, a sophomore at Clear Lake High School, wonders how
effectively the law can be enforced.

"Who's going to catch them?" asked the 15-year-old nonsmoker.

However, one young smoker is using the new law to gather her New Year's
resolve to quit -- along with her dad.

"I'm quitting now because of the new law," said 16-year-old Morgan
Wikowsky, a sophomore at Mayde Creek High School. "My dad is quitting with
me ... I've smoked two years, about a pack a day. It's real hard to quit
... I started because of friends."

Anti-Drug Battle Not Over, Texas Expert Warns (Jane Maxwell, Chief Of
Research For The Texas Commission On Alcohol And Drug Abuse)

Subj: US: Anti-drug battle not over, Texas expert warns
From: Art Smart 
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 15:27:32 -0800
Source: Houston Chronicle
Contact: viewpoints@chron.com
Pubdate: Thu, 01 Jan 1998
Author: Peggy Fikac of the Associated Press


AUSTIN -- A national report showing an overall drop in the number of
drug-related emergency room visits is far from a sign that the battle
against drugs is being won, a Texas drug expert said Wednesday.

Dallas figures included in the study show an increase in emergency room
visits by teen-agers involving cocaine, heroin or morphine and marijuana,
said Jane Maxwell, chief of research for the Texas Commission on Alcohol
and Drug Abuse.

She said she believes that trend would hold true in other Texas cities as well.

"I'd hate for people to be lulled into complacency thinking the numbers are
down when they're not," she said. "We still have a serious problem,
particularly among our young people."

The Drug Abuse Warning Network survey, which polled a sampling of U.S.
hospitals including Dallas, shows an overall 6 percent drop in the number
of drug cases at emergency rooms from 1995 to 1996.

The decrease is largely attributable to fewer cases involving legal drugs,
such as aspirin.

Cocaine, heroin and marijuana incidents remained steady overall, while the
number of cases involving methamphetamine and the psychedelic drug PCP

Barry McCaffrey, White House national drug policy director, said in a
statement when the report was released Tuesday, "The slight success we are
seeing encourages us to continue our hard work."

Maxwell said it's important to look at the breakdown of the figures by age,
adding that Texas was given such a breakdown for cocaine and crack; heroin
and morphine; and marijuana.

While the figures from the national survey include only the Dallas area,
she said she believes the trends would hold true for other parts of the
state because drug use doesn't differ that much.

"I don't see that many differences between Dallas and San Antonio and
Houston," she said. "I don't think Dallas is that different from the rest
of the state."

Emergency room mentions of heroin and morphine in the Dallas metropolitan
area went from 14.1 per 100,000 population in 1989 to 12.7 in 1995, then up
to 15.9 in 1996. That includes all age groups.

The study shows no reports of heroin- or morphine-related cases for those
age 12 to 17 from 1989 through 1995, Maxwell said. In 1996, the report was
9.5 per 100,000 population. Other findings:

* For those age 18 to 25, the Dallas report of heroin or morphine
involvement went from 18.6 per 100,000 population in 1989 to 17.2 in 1995,
then up to 31.5 in 1996.

* Regarding cocaine, emergency-room mentions in the Dallas metropolitan
area rose from 59.1 per 100,000 population in 1989 to 65.3 in 1995, then
dipped to 60.9 in 1996.

* For those age 12 to 17, the figures went from 33.3 per 100,000 in 1989 to
21.9 in 1995, then back up to 32 per 100,000 in 1996. In the 18-to-25 age
group, cocaine-related cases dropped from 140.9 per 100,000 in 1989 to
109.3 in 1995, then to 91.7 in 1996.

* Reports of marijuana-related cases increased slightly from 23.8 per
100,000 population in 1989 to 23.9 in 1995, then dropped to 22.9 in 1996.
That includes all age groups.

DAWN Statistics And A Must-Read (Excerpt From 'Marijuana Myths, Marijuana
Facts' Debunks Emergency-Room Propaganda)

Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 19:29:56 EST
From: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn)
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: DAWN statistics and a must-read

Regarding the recent "drug-related" ER visit hype, Pat Dolan asked:

>I have seen references to hospital admissions and to admissions to rehab
>courses for Mj users/abusers. I have never used Mj. I understood it was
>(a)relatively harmless and (b) non-addictive. What wd propel a user to
>become an abuser and what wd be the effects which wd cause him to seek help
>in a hospital emergency room?

It is amazing how much *lying* is going on in government and media about
what the recently reported DAWN statistics mean. As an erstwhile emergency
physician-and as someone who has just read Marijuana Myths Marijuana Facts-
I can assure you that the inferences drawn from the DAWN data regarding
marijuana are *invalid*.

Quoting from MMMF,

"For every drug-related hospital visit--what DAWN calls a "drug abuse
episode", hospital staff list up to five drugs that the patient reports
having used recently. This includes illicit drugs, prescription drugs, and
over the counter medications. Emergency room staff also record whether the
patient recently consumed alcohol."

As authors John Morgan and Lynn Zimmer explain, the fact that marijuana is
the most widely used illicit drug ensures that it will be widely "mentioned"
by people who find themselves in the ER for *non-marijuana related* reasons.
So use of the phrase "marijuana-related visit" and the like when analyzing
these data is simply *dishonest*. Of course, that never stopped the drug
warriors before, did it?

Now, I'd like to issue an appeal to all dpr activists to buy and thoroughly
read the eminently readable Marijuana Myths Marijuana Facts: A Review of the
Scientific Evidence. Speaking as someone who has made his living for the
past decade analyzing scientific research, this book is the *definitive*
hard-copy source of what the scientific evidence says--not just about the
health and psychological effects but also the effects of drug education and
punitive policies. The citations are exhaustive, the book is well organized
and well written, and it is cheap-- $12.95, especially since there are now 20
myths exploded, up from 14 in the previous version, including an important
new chapter on the myth that marijuana use can be prevented. There is also
an excellent conclusion on science, politics and policy. Call BookWorld
Companies at 1-800-444-2524 to order.

Although I consider myself well-informed on this issue, I learned many
interesting things from reading this book. For example, for a long time I
have been saying that "somebody should do a study" of whether the deep
breaths and breathholding typically employed in smoking marijuana is
actually effect in increasing the efficiency of smoking in terms of
achieving desired psychoactive effects. Well, it turns out there are three
such studies in peer reviewed journals. I had never heard of them. FYI,
apparently deep breaths and breathholding are not effective (very rapid
uptake through the lungs, apparently) and therefore these practices should
be discouraged. This harm reduction tip in itself is worth much more than
the cost of the book.

This book should be widely disseminated to politicians, the press, drug
'educators' and the like who can then be held completely accountable for any
subsequent unfounded assertions: "Is what you just said compatible with the
evidence you yourself have seen; if not, what other evidence do you have?"
We plan to do this here in NZ. I realize this sort of educational function
is also the rationale of the drug libraries, which will continue to be
vital to scholars, analysts, reformers, etc. But something about holding
this slim but substantial volume in your hand produces a feeling of
concreteness unmatched by anything in cyberspace. I suspect the same might
be true--perhaps even more so--for the uneducated out there. And they're
the ones we need to reach and convert.


The Criminalization Of Youth Culture (Survey By Public Agenda In New York
Finds Two-Thirds Of Baby Boomers See Teens As 'Rude,' 'Irresponsible'
And 'Wild')

Subj: US: The Criminalization Of Youth Culture
From: John W. Black
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 19:52:48 -0500
Source: Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Pubdate: 1 Jan 98
Section: Life & Style - page 1
Author: D. James Romero - Times Staff Writer


As teenagers, baby boomers forged a reputation for being free spirits. As
parents, they are becoming increasingly authoritarian.

The constant here is that the protest generation is highly principled,
focused on ideology, as it always has been. It's just that, now that
boomers have babies on board, the principles have changed: Drugs no longer
are tolerable, teenagers no longer should be out late at night, students no
longer should be able to wear whatever they want.

Indeed, boomer parents are making the '90s look like the '50s.

"There is an irony in a way, these onetime recreational drug users are
coming down hard on the very things they used to do," quips generational
historian Neil Howe, 46. "A generation that used to trust no one over 30
new wants to teach morals to everyone under 30."

Cities and states are restricting everything from skateboarding to
boomboxes, and experts say boomers are the main political force behind this
criminalization of youth culture. A recent survey by the Public Agenda
policy institute in New York found that two-thirds of adult Americans
describe teenagers with such negative adjectives as "rude," "irresponsible"
and "wild."

Another survey, by Princeton Survey Research Associates, found that almost
three-quarters of Americans feel that young people with low educations, dim
job prospects and poor values are a greater risk to this country than any
threat from a foreign power.

"There seems to be a wide breach between teenagers and adults," states the
Public Agenda report, "with adults looking at teens-preferably, in their
minds, from a safe distance-with anxiety and disappointment, not at all
certain that this generation bodes well for their communities or for the

The recent history of parenting has been marked by contradiction: Newfound
parental freedom (the notion that parents are people too and should enjoy
life) has coincided with evolving science about how profoundly childhood
affects adulthood.

While the '50s and '60s painted the quintessential picture of conservative
American family life (albeit with dysfunction lurking beneath the surface),
psychologists and historians point to the '70s as a modern low point, when
divorce became an easy out and popular culture held little regard for

In the '70s, movies depicted children as monsters and prostitutes ("Pretty
Baby") and public school funding began to unravel. (Proposition 13 in
California limited taxation for school funding.) By the '80s, psychologists
were widely critical of the effects of divorce and the freewheeling
lifestyle of some parents of the '70s.

But by then it was too late for an entire generation of young people raised
in one-parent families with too little love. Some of those very children
grew up to be demonized in the popular media (they were dubbed "child
predators") as they discovered drugs, guns and new form of family life-gangs.

But when baby boomers began having children en masse in the mid-'80, things

Minivan placards announced "Baby on Board" as parents woke up to child
abuse, school funding and child care.

"There is a sense of trying to protect kids, shelter them, entertain them,"
says historian Howe.

"Young people really need certain parameters," says Sunny Cloud, a
47-year-old-testing kit for parents. "It helps them grow up with a sense of
responsibility and respect for laws in society."

With television ratings, music warning labels and the coming of the V-chip,
"there is a feeling that boomers are fighting the culture," says Howe. "But
in way, they own the culture."

Still, as boomers have used their muscle as leaders in politics and media
to reign in childhood freedoms, some prominent voices-many of them from
boomers themselves-say the new rules go too far. Others say the rules have
become a cop-out for good old discipline, and that the it-takes-a-village
mentality needs to be supplanted by a former generation's attitude: that
good parenting starts at home.

Baby boomers are "producing a generation of bratty and out-of-control
kids," argues Wade Horn, a 42-year-old family psychologist who is president
of the National Fatherhood Initiative in Garithersburg, Md., a suburb of
Washington. "They're good at laying down rules for other children, but not
very good at laying down rules for their own."

Horn also disputes the notion that boomer fathers are more in tune with
their children than fathers past. "When four out of 10 children don't even
have a father in the household, how can you be optimistic that we're doing
it better than any other generation?" Wade asks. "It's simply not true. In
no other period have fathers been more disconnected to their children,
except in times of war and deadly disease."

"I think the promise that most of us made to ourselves, that our generation
is going to be different, hasn't paid off in the parenting," says Paul
Mones, a 45-year-old attorney and father of two who lives in Santa Monica.
"We haven't been so successful at the real stuff of being a parent. What
size are your kids' shoes? Do you help them with their homework?"

Michaael A. Males, author of "The Scapegoat Generation: America's War on
Adolescents" (Common Courage Press, 1996), has made a career of pointing
out the irony in America's anti-teen sentiment. He reports that Americans
aged 35 and older account for more than 40% of emergency room visits
involving cocaine, and that from 1980 to 1995 there was a 76% rise in
violent crime arrests of those aged 30 to 45.

"Kids today are being raised by the most violent, drug-abusing parents in
history," Males says.

Mones, who has defended many teenage criminals in court, says he thinks the
source of teen violence is the home itself. "When you look at kids who
kill, you just have to scratch the surface to find homes with mental
illness, domestic violence and child abuse."

"It's naive," says Horn, "to think that school uniforms and curfews will
make teenagers behave."

Control Issues (Emboldened By First Baby Boomer Bill Clinton, Who Has Endorsed
Daytime Curfews, Smoking Bans And School Uniforms, 'Los Angeles Times' Says
Adults Across The United States Are Experimenting With Unprecedented Controls
In An Effort To Both Protect And Punish The Young, Especially Teenagers)

Subj: US: Control Issues
From: John W.Black
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 07:34:20 -0500
Source: Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Pubdate: 1 Jan 1997
Section: Life&Style, page 1
Author: Lynn Smith - Times Staff Writer

Note: This article ties with, and was printed on the same page as, The
Criminalization Of Youth Culture by D. James Romero, previously posted.


With all the curfews, dress codes and other restrictions being imposed on
kids, are we raising a generation of upstanding citizens-or future leaders
of a police state?

For Nicole Eklund,a 16-year-old cheerleader from Simi Valley, coming of age
has meant getting used to police dogs sniffing for drugs at her school
locker, dress codes proscribing bare midriffs, and an official 10 p.m. curfew
seven days a week.

Leaders in her community-a suburb so benign she calls it "Anytown, USA" -
have expelled a kindergartner for bringing a pink squirt gun to school and
are considering, as state legislators plan to, a daytime curfew for people
under age 18.

What's more, living in California, she now is subject to a $75 fine and
community service if she ever smokes a cigarette, even if her parents give
it to her. Friends applying for their first driver's licenses this year
likely will be restricted from driving late at night or with other kids.
Those who engage in vandalism or graffiti may not be able to obtain
licenses at all and may have to stay home looking at blank TV screens-if
their parents can program a V-chip.

In Nicole's opinion, some of these efforts miss the mark. She thinks adults
should be preparing their children for the real world instead of
overprotecting them. "People learn by experience and mistakes," Nicole says.

Nevertheless, emboldened by First Baby Boomer Bill Clinton-who has endorsed
daytime curfews, smoking bans and school uniforms-adults across the country
are experimenting with unprecedented controls in an effort to both protect
and punish the young, especially teenagers.

Only a few years ago, it was fashionable to talk bout children's rights,
one of Hillary Clinton's original passions. We're not talking about
children's rights today," says William Strauss, a political commentator in
Washington, D.C. "We're talking about the right of the principal to probe
into their lockers and the duty of the child not to put anything in that

High courts already have ruled that some efforts have gone too far in
restricting liberties, but in general the controls are being met with open

"The thing that's remarkable is that there's no single ideological group
you can point the finger at for this renaissance of enthusiasm for
authority," says UC Berkeley law professor Franklin Zimring, whose book on
juvenile crime will be published this have discovered family values,' a
little bit 'the terror of youth violence' and a little bit of people now
interested in making laws for other people's kids."

"The public perception is that it isn't like it used to be, that kids are
doing more and more bad things at a younger and younger age, and the things
they are doing are worse than ever before," adds professor Thomas Nazario
of San Francisco, a specialist in children's law. "It is worse," Nazario
believes. "The only question is how much worse."

Zimring disagrees. He contends that fear of youth violence-often the
genesis of curfews and dress codes-has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Most of the "increase" in youth violence since the mid-1980s, Zimring says,
can be attributed to a reclassification of minor attacks as more serious
ones. While still disturbing, even those figures have been declining in
recent years.

However, in a recent survey of American cities, many officials attributed
dramatic decreases in juvenile crime precisely to an increase in
restrictions on children, namely daytime and nighttime curfews.

An estimated 35 regional jurisdictions, including the city and county of
Los Angeles, have daytime curfews, also known as antitruancy laws,
requiring children to stay off the streets during school hours. The
majority of schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District have
implemented policies requiring students to wear uniforms. New laws, rules
and policies are gaining steam almost everywhere.

In Long Beach, parents' enthusiasm for school uniforms, required at every
elementary and middle school for the past three years, spread this fall to
a high school where freshmen will begin a four-year phase-in.

At the nation's largest mall, the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minn.,
teenagers under 16 must have chaperons after 6 p.m.

This summer in King's County, Wash., law enforcement officials used a
helicopter to find and arrest underage drinkers partying in secluded areas.

One of the most puzzling and ironic aspects of the new wave of controls is
that they are being proposed and enforced by the Summer of Love generation,
one of the most pampered and individualistic groups of children ever raised
(see accompanying story). Some suggest the controls may be a reaction to
the disarray in the boomers' own lives.

When social problems appear overwhelming, adults historically have grasped
at whatever controls are handy, says psychologist Lawrence Steinberg of
Philadelphia, who is studying national juvenile justice reform. Steinberg
notes that clothing is a frequent target.

One of the problems with the current wave, Steinberg says, is that some
adults fail to distinguish between things that need adult control and
things that don't. In some cases, he argues, kids are given too much
freedom by the very same adults who are overly controlling in other areas.

"Censoring the kind of information that kids have access to over the
Internet is probably a lot less important than monitoring kids' whereabouts
in the after-school hours," Steinberg says.

As much or more than teenage crime or baby boomer hypocrisy, some
researchers suspect the new restrictions stem from fundamental changes in
adult attitudes toward teenagers.

Strauss theorizes that the shift is based on generational patterns that
alternate between over-and under-protection of children. "Parents tend to
raise children to become more like their own parents were than they
themselves were," Strauss says. "This is because of a self-correcting
mechanism in the way a society raises children."

The baby boomers were raised indulgently, but Generation Xers grew up in an
era when society had relaxed its grip on children, says Strauss. "'Now,
boomers are looking for their children to become like the World War II
generation: civic-minded, virtuous and stalwart, says Strauss. Over the next
few years, he predicts, we will see magazine covers praising youths, and
youths themselves returning to singable songs, teamwork and community
service. A return to wholesomeness already is evident from the popularity
of such your, clean-cut singing groups as Hanson, Strauss adds.

"Our advice to government is: Don't overbuild prisons. This is not a
generation you're going to want to stuff in prison. Our society will love

According to another theory, the new crackdown represents a historical
pattern in which adults tend to view young people differently depending on
economic and political circumstances.

When they are needed to serve in wars, for instance, they are considered
capable and responsible, says social psychologist Robert Enright, a
researcher at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. But in economically
insecure eras when they might be rivals for jobs, they tend to be viewed as
immature, disruptive and needing guidance for a longer developmental period.

The new "zero tolerance" and other policies represent "the first wave of a
new social experiment" to legislate social norms, says Enright. Asking for
moral improvement is not such a bad idea, he adds. "But it's a tightrope.
We might choke off their liberties, and have to be careful."

Complaints have begun to surface. Some fear that blanket policies such as
curfew allow too much discretion for officials who enforce them, opening up
the door for racial discrimination. Others say good kids get swept up in
the net.

Parents in central Los Angeles, for instance, were shocked in June when
13-year-old students on an errand for their teacher were handcuffed in the
hall by armed police looking for miscreants.

Even in family-friendly Monrovia, a group of parents is suing the city over
its award-winning anti-truancy ordinance. Rosemary Harrahill, a
home-schooling mother who has joined the litigation, says two of her
children have been stopped a total of 22 times by police. Like others, they
have been issued fluorescent identity cards to show police. Harrahill
likens the principle to Nazi restrictions in prewar Poland. "They've
targeted a class of people and they're children."

"The real question," says Mayor Robert T. Bartlett, "is do you adapt the
community to one or two families' concerns, or do you try to do the most
good you can for the most number of people in the community?" Citing
truants-and fining parents-often inspires parents to become more involved,
Bartlett says. "The gift we're giving them is, we're letting them know we

Even Harrahill admits she feels safe in the "charming, little, wonderful
city" but questions the price: Children becoming accustomed to a society
where they routinely are stopped and questioned by police during the day.

Last year, an appellate court struck down San Diego's nighttime curfew
ordinance as being unconstitutionally vague. The city consequently revamped
its law, which still allows police to arrest teens in public after 10 p.m.

Some students say locker searches, for example, lead to drugs being carried
in pockets or backpacks.

Nazario calls the controls a "quick fix."

"What we really need to do something about juvenile crime in America, is a
lot more resources being poured into education and into opportunity for
kids," he says. "Something has to be done for kids with no access to
after-school programs and the number of kids who live in poverty and
families who don't care or who are not there for them.

"Those are tough issues and cost money and time and are overwhelming for
people. Instead, we go to the law and try to spank kids for getting out of

Some officials who have implemented new restrictions are trying to temper
them with softer interventions as well. For instance, at the Mall of
America-where officials say as many as 4,000 kids used to gather on weekend
evenings-family activities such as basketball and choral singing have been
introduced on the weekends, along with the chaperon policy. Parents have
been recruited and paid $20 and hour to walk side by side with security
officers on patrol.

"If a security officer says, 'You need to stop that,' a young kid might
say, 'No, I don't.' With a mother, it's a lot harder to do that," says mall
spokeswoman Teresa McFarland. "In some cases, these mothers might even know
[the kid's] parents."

In the year before the new policies were enacted, McFarland says, there
were 394 arrests of youngsters under 17 for disorderly conduct at the mall.
In the year since the changes, there has been one.


Commonsense Drug Policy (Ethan Nadelmann Of The Lindesmith Center
In 'Foreign Affairs' Contrasts Harm Reduction Policies In Europe
With US Policy, Which 'Has Failed Persistently Over The Decades
Because It Has Preferred Such Rhetoric To Reality,
And Moralism To Pragmatism')

Newshawk: Ethan Nadelmann http://www.lindesmith.org/
Source: Foreign Affairs, Vol. 77 No.1.
Author: Ethan A. Nadelmann
Pubdate: January-February, 1998
Contact: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/
Editor's note: Our newshawk writes: "Commonsense Drug Policy" as published
in Foreign Affairs contained only one footnote. But over the next few weeks,
we'll be adding dozens of footnotes & links to this article [at]:



In 1988 Congress passed a resolution proclaiming its goal of "a drug-free
America by 1995." U.S. drug policy has failed persistently over the decades
because it has preferred such rhetoric to reality, and moralism to pragmatism.
Politicians confess their youthful indiscretions, then call for tougher drug laws.
Drug control officials make assertions with no basis in fact or science. Police
officers, generals, politicians, and guardians of public morals qualify as drug
czars-but not, to date, a single doctor or public health figure. Independent
commissions are appointed to evaluate drug policies, only to see their
recommendations ignored as politically risky. And drug policies are designed,
implemented, and enforced with virtually no input from the millions of
Americans they affect most: drug users. Drug abuse is a serious problem, both
for individual citizens and society at large, but the "war on drugs" has made
matters worse, not better.

Drug warriors often point to the 1980s as a time in which the drug war really
worked. Illicit drug use by teenagers peaked around 1980, then fell more than
50 percent over the next 12 years. During the 1996 presidential campaign,
Republican challenger Bob Dole made much of the recent rise in teenagers' use
of illicit drugs, contrasting it with the sharp drop during the Reagan and Bush
administrations. President Clinton's response was tepid, in part because he
accepted the notion that teen drug use is the principal measure of drug policy's
success or failure; at best, he could point out that the level was still barely half
what it had been in 1980.

In 1980, however, no one had ever heard of the cheap, smokable form of
cocaine called crack, or drug-related HIV infection or aids. By the 1990s, both
had reached epidemic proportions in American cities, largely driven by
prohibitionist economics and morals indifferent to the human consequences of
the drug war. In 1980, the federal budget for drug control was about $1 billion,
and state and local budgets were perhaps two or three times that. By 1997, the
federal drug control budget had ballooned to $16 billion, two-thirds of it for
law enforcement agencies, and state and local funding to at least that. On any
day in 1980, approximately 50,000 people were behind bars for violating a
drug law. By 1997, the number had increased eightfold, to about 400,000.
These are the results of a drug policy over-reliant on criminal justice
"solutions," ideologically wedded to abstinence-only treatment, and insulated
from cost-benefit analysis.

Imagine instead a policy that starts by acknowledging that drugs are here to
stay, and that we have no choice but to learn how to live with them so that they
cause the least possible harm. Imagine a policy that focuses on reducing not
illicit drug use per se but the crime and misery caused by both drug abuse and
prohibitionist policies. And imagine a drug policy based not on the fear,
prejudice, and ignorance that drive America's current approach but rather on
common sense, science, public health concerns, and human rights. Such a
policy is possible in the United States, especially if Americans are willing to
learn from the experiences of other countries where such policies are emerging.


Americans are not averse to looking abroad for solutions to the nation's drug
problems. Unfortunately, they have been looking in the wrong places: Asia and
Latin America, where much of the world's heroin and cocaine originates.
Decades of U.S. efforts to keep drugs from being produced abroad and
exported to American markets have failed. Illicit drug production is bigger
business than ever before. The opium poppy, source of morphine and heroin,
and cannabis sativa, from which marijuana and hashish are prepared, grow
readily around the world; the coca plant, from whose leaves cocaine is
extracted, can be cultivated far from its native environment in the Andes. Crop
substitution programs designed to persuade Third World peasants to grow legal
crops cannot compete with the profits that drug prohibition makes inevitable.
Crop eradication campaigns occasionally reduce production in one country, but
new suppliers pop up elsewhere. International law enforcement efforts can
disrupt drug trafficking organizations and routes, but they rarely have much
impact on U.S. drug markets.

Even if foreign supplies could be cut off, the drug abuse problem in the United
States would scarcely abate. Most of America's drug-related problems are
associated with domestically produced alcohol and tobacco. Much if not most
of the marijuana, amphetamine, hallucinogens, and illicitly diverted
pharmaceutical drugs consumed in the country are made in the U.S.A. The same
is true of the glue, gasoline, and other solvents used by kids too young or too
poor to obtain other psychoactive substances. No doubt such drugs, as well as
new products, would quickly substitute for imported heroin and cocaine if the
flow from abroad dried up.

While looking to Latin America and Asia for supply-reduction solutions to
America's drug problems is futile, the harm-reduction approaches spreading
throughout Europe and Australia and even into corners of North America show
promise. These approaches start by acknowledging that supply-reduction
initiatives are inherently limited, that criminal justice responses can be costly
and counterproductive, and that single-minded pursuit of a "drug-free society"
is dangerously quixotic. Demand-reduction efforts to prevent drug abuse
among children and adults are important, but so are harm-reduction efforts to
lessen the damage to those unable or unwilling to stop using drugs
immediately, and to those around them.

Most proponents of harm reduction do not favor legalization. They recognize
that prohibition has failed to curtail drug abuse, that it is responsible for much
of the crime, corruption, disease, and death associated with drugs, and that its
costs mount every year. But they also see legalization as politically unwise and
as risking increased drug use. The challenge is thus making drug prohibition
work better, but with a focus on reducing the negative consequences of both
drug use and prohibitionist policies.

Countries that have turned to harm-reduction strategies for help in alleviating
their drug woes are not so different from the United States. Drugs, crime, and
race problems, and other socioeconomic problems are inextricably linked. As in
America, criminal justice authorities still prosecute and imprison major drug
traffickers as well as petty dealers who create public nuisances. Parents worry
that their children might get involved with drugs. Politicians remain fond of
drug war rhetoric. But by contrast with U.S. drug policy, public health goals
have priority, and public health authorities have substantial influence. Doctors
have far more latitude in treating addiction and associated problems. Police
view the sale and use of illicit drugs as similar to prostitution-vice activities
that cannot be stamped out but can be effectively regulated. Moralists focus
less on any inherent evils of drugs than on the need to deal with drug use and
addiction pragmatically and humanely. And more politicians dare to speak out
in favor of alternatives to punitive prohibitionist policies.

Harm-reduction innovations include efforts to stem the spread of HIV by
making sterile syringes readily available and collecting used syringes; allowing
doctors to prescribe oral methadone for heroin addiction treatment, as well as
heroin and other drugs for addicts who would otherwise buy them on the black
market; establishing "safe injection rooms" so addicts do not congregate in
public places or dangerous "shooting galleries"; employing drug analysis units
at the large dance parties called raves to test the quality and potency of MDMA,
known as Ecstasy, and other drugs that patrons buy and consume there;
decriminalizing (but not legalizing) possession and retail sale of cannabis and,
in some cases, possession of small amounts of "hard" drugs; and integrating
harm-reduction policies and principles into community policing strategies.
Some of these measures are under way or under consideration in parts of the
United States, but rarely to the extent found in growing numbers of foreign


The spread of HIV, the virus that causes aids, among people who inject drugs
illegally was what prompted governments in Europe and Australia to
experiment with harm-reduction policies. During the early 1980s public health
officials realized that infected users were spreading HIV by sharing needles.
Having already experienced a hepatitis epidemic attributed to the same mode of
transmission, the Dutch were the first to tell drug users about the risks of
needle sharing and to make sterile syringes available and collect dirty needles
through pharmacies, needle exchange and methadone programs, and public
health services. Governments elsewhere in Europe and in Australia soon
followed suit. The few countries in which a prescription was necessary to
obtain a syringe dropped the requirement. Local authorities in Germany,
Switzerland, and other European countries authorized needle exchange
machines to ensure 24-hour access. In some European cities, addicts can
exchange used syringes for clean ones at local police stations without fear of
prosecution or harassment. Prisons are instituting similar policies to help
discourage the spread of HIV among inmates, recognizing that illegal drug
injecting cannot be eliminated even behind bars.

These initiatives were not adopted without controversy. Conservative
politicians argued that needle exchange programs condoned illicit and immoral
behavior and that government policies should focus on punishing drug users or
making them drug-free. But by the late 1980s, the consensus in most of
Western Europe, Oceania, and Canada was that while drug abuse was a serious
problem, aids was worse. Slowing the spread of a fatal disease for which no
cure exists was the greater moral imperative. There was also a fiscal
imperative. Needle exchange programs' costs are minuscule compared with
those of treating people who would otherwise become infected with HIV.

Only in the United States has this logic not prevailed, even though aids was the
leading killer of Americans ages 25 to 44 for most of the 1990s and is now No.
2. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that half of new HIV
infections in the country stem from injection drug use. Yet both the White
House and Congress block allocation of aids or drug-abuse prevention funds
for needle exchange, and virtually all state governments retain drug
paraphernalia laws, pharmacy regulations, and other restrictions on access to
sterile syringes. During the 1980s, aids activists engaging in civil disobedience
set up more syringe exchange programs than state and local governments. There
are now more than 100 such programs in 28 states, Washington, D.C., and
Puerto Rico, but they reach only an estimated 10 percent of injection drug

Governments at all levels in the United States refuse to fund needle exchange
for political reasons, even though dozens of scientific studies, domestic and
foreign, have found that needle exchange and other distribution programs
reduce needle sharing, bring hard-to-reach drug users into contact with health
care systems, and inform addicts about treatment programs, yet do not increase
illegal drug use. In 1991 the National aids Commission appointed by President
Bush called the lack of federal support for such programs "bewildering and
tragic." In 1993 a CDC-sponsored review of research on needle exchange
recommended federal funding, but top officials in the Clinton administration
suppressed a favorable evaluation of the report within the Department of
Health and Human Services. In July 1996 President Clinton's Advisory Council
on HIV/aids criticized the administration for its failure to heed the National
Academy of Sciences' recommendation that it authorize the use of federal
money to support needle exchange programs. An independent panel convened
by the National Institute of Health reached the same conclusion in February
1997. Last summer, the American Medical Association, the American Bar
Association, and even the politicized U.S. Conference of Mayors endorsed the
concept of needle exchange. In the fall, an endorsement followed from the
World Bank.

To date, America's failure in this regard is conservatively estimated to have
resulted in the infection of up to 10,000 people with HIV. Mounting scientific
evidence and the stark reality of the continuing aids crisis have convinced the
public, if not politicians, that needle exchange saves lives; polls consistently
find that a majority of Americans support needle exchange, with approval
highest among those most familiar with the notion. Prejudice and political
cowardice are poor excuses for allowing more citizens to suffer from and die
of aids, especially when effective interventions are cheap, safe, and easy.


The United States pioneered the use of the synthetic opiate methadone to treat
heroin addiction in the 1960s and 1970s, but now lags behind much of Europe
and Australia in making methadone accessible and effective. Methadone is the
best available treatment in terms of reducing illicit heroin use and associated
crime, disease, and death. In the early 1990s the National Academy of Sciences'
Institute of Medicine stated that of all forms of drug treatment, "methadone
maintenance has been the most rigorously studied modality and has yielded the
most incontrovertibly positive results . . . Consumption of all illicit drugs,
especially heroin, declines. Crime is reduced, fewer individuals become HIV
positive, and individual functioning is improved." However, the institute went
on to declare, "Current policy . . . puts too much emphasis on protecting society
from methadone, and not enough on protecting society from the epidemics of
addiction, violence, and infectious diseases that methadone can help reduce."

Methadone is to street heroin what nicotine skin patches and chewing gum are
to cigarettes-with the added benefit of legality. Taken orally, methadone has
little of injected heroin's effect on mood or cognition. It can be consumed for
decades with few if any negative health consequences, and its purity and
concentration, unlike street heroin's, are assured. Like other opiates, it can
create physical dependence if taken regularly, but the "addiction" is more like a
diabetic's "addiction" to insulin than a heroin addict's to product bought on the
street. Methadone patients can and do drive safely, hold good jobs, and care for
their children. When prescribed adequate doses, they can be indistinguishable
from people who have never used heroin or methadone.

Popular misconceptions and prejudice, however, have all but prevented any
expansion of methadone treatment in the United States. The 115,000
Americans receiving methadone today represent only a small increase over the
number 20 years ago. For every ten heroin addicts, there are only one or two
methadone treatment slots. Methadone is the most tightly controlled drug in the
pharmacopoeia, subject to unique federal and state restrictions. Doctors cannot
prescribe it for addiction treatment outside designated programs. Regulations
dictate not only security, documentation, and staffing requirements but
maximum doses, admission criteria, time spent in the program, and a host of
other specifics, none of which has much to do with quality of treatment.
Moreover, the regulations do not prevent poor treatment; many clinics provide
insufficient doses, prematurely detoxify clients, expel clients for offensive
behavior, and engage in other practices that would be regarded as unethical in
any other field of medicine. Attempts to open new clinics tend to be blocked by
residents who don't want addicts in their neighborhood.

In much of Europe and Australia, methadone treatment was at first even more
controversial than in the United States; some countries, including Germany,
France, and Greece, prohibited it well into the 1980s and 1990s. But where
methadone has been accepted, doctors have substantial latitude in deciding how
and when to prescribe it so as to maximize its efficacy. There are methadone
treatment programs for addicts looking for rehabilitation and programs for
those simply trying to reduce their heroin consumption. Doctors in regular
medical practice can prescribe the drug, and patients fill their prescriptions at
local pharmacies. Thousands of general practitioners throughout Europe,
Australia, New Zealand, and Canada (notably in Ontario and British Columbia)
are now involved in methadone maintenance. In Belgium, Germany, and
Australia this is the principal means of distribution. Integrating methadone with
mainstream medicine makes treatment more accessible, improves its quality,
and allocates ancillary services more efficiently. It also helps reduce the stigma
of methadone programs and community resistance to them.

Many factors prevent American doctors from experimenting with the more
flexible treatment programs of their European counterparts. The Drug
Enforcement Administration contends that looser regulations would fuel the
illicit market in diverted methadone. But the black market, in which virtually
all buyers are heroin addicts who cannot or will not enroll in methadone
programs, is primarily a product of the inadequate legal availability of
methadone. Some conventional providers do not want to cede their
near-monopoly over methadone treatment and are reluctant to take on addicts
who can't or won't commit to quitting heroin. And all efforts to make
methadone more available in the United States run up against the many
Americans who dismiss methadone treatment as substituting one addictive drug
for another and are wary of any treatment that does not leave the patient "drug

Oral methadone works best for hundreds of thousands of heroin addicts, but
some fare better with other opiate substitutes. In England, doctors prescribe
injectable methadone for about 10 percent of recovering patients, who may like
the modest "rush" upon injection or the ritual of injecting. Doctors in Austria,
Switzerland, and Australia are experimenting with prescribing oral morphine to
determine whether it works better than oral methadone for some users. Several
treatment programs in the Netherlands have conducted trials with oral
morphine and palfium. In Germany, where methadone treatment was initially
shunned, thousands of addicts have been maintained on codeine, which many
doctors and patients still prefer to methadone. The same is true of
buprenorphine in France.

In England, doctors have broad discretion to prescribe whatever drugs help
addicted patients manage their lives and stay away from illegal drugs and their
dealers. Beginning in the 1920s, thousands of English addicts were maintained
on legal prescriptions of heroin, morphine, amphetamine, cocaine, and other
pharmaceutical drugs. This tradition flourished until the 1960s, and has
reemerged in response to aids and to growing disappointment with the
Americanization of British prescribing practices during the 1970s and 1980s,
when illicit heroin use in Britain increased almost tenfold. Doctors in other
European countries and Australia are also trying heroin prescription.

The Swiss government began a nationwide trial in 1994 to determine whether
prescribing heroin, morphine, or injectable methadone could reduce crime,
disease, and other drug-related ills. Some 1,000 volunteers-only heroin addicts
with at least two unsuccessful experiences in methadone or other conventional
treatment programs were considered-took part in the experiment. The trial
quickly determined that virtually all participants preferred heroin, and doctors
subsequently prescribed it for them. Last July the government reported the
results so far: criminal offenses and the number of criminal offenders dropped
60 percent, the percentage of income from illegal and semi-legal activities fell
from 69 to 10 percent, illegal heroin and cocaine use declined dramatically
(although use of alcohol, cannabis, and tranquilizers like Valium remained
fairly constant), stable employment increased from 14 to 32 percent, physical
health improved enormously, and most participants greatly reduced their
contact with the drug scene. There were no deaths from overdoses, and no
prescribed drugs were diverted to the black market. More than half those who
dropped out of the study switched to another form of drug treatment, including
83 who began abstinence therapy. A cost-benefit analysis of the program found
a net economic benefit of $30 per patient per day, mostly because of reduced
criminal justice and health care costs.

The Swiss study has undermined several myths about heroin and its habitual
users. The results to date demonstrate that, given relatively unlimited
availability, heroin users will voluntarily stabilize or reduce their dosage and
some will even choose abstinence; that long-addicted users can lead relatively
normal, stable lives if provided legal access to their drug of choice; and that
ordinary citizens will support such initiatives. In recent referendums in Zurich,
Basel, and Zug, substantial majorities voted to continue funding local arms of
the experiment. And last September, a nationwide referendum to end the
government's heroin maintenance and other harm-reduction initiatives was
rejected by 71 percent of Swiss voters, including majorities in all 26 cantons.

The Netherlands plans its own heroin prescription study in 1998, and similar
trials are under consideration elsewhere in Europe, including Luxembourg and
Spain, as well as Canada. In Germany, the federal government has opposed
heroin prescription trials and other harm-reduction innovations, but the League
of Cities has petitioned it for permission to undertake them; a survey early last
year found that police chiefs in 10 of the country's 12 largest cities favored
letting states implement controlled heroin distribution programs. In Australia
last summer, a majority of state health ministers approved a heroin prescription
trial, but Prime Minister John Howard blocked it. And in Denmark, a
September 1996 poll found that 66 percent of voters supported an experiment
that would provide registered addicts with free heroin to be consumed in
centers set up for the purpose.

Switzerland, attempting to reduce overdoses, dangerous injecting practices, and
shooting up in public places, has also taken the lead in establishing "safe
injection rooms" where users can inject their drugs under secure, sanitary
conditions. There are now about a dozen such rooms in the country, and initial
evaluations are positive. In Germany, Frankfurt has set up three, and there are
also officially sanctioned facilities in Hamburg and Saarbrucken. Cities
elsewhere in Europe and in Australia are expected to open safe injection rooms


Cannabis, in the form of marijuana and hashish, is by far the most popular
illicit drug in the United States. More than a quarter of Americans admit to
having tried it. Marijuana's popularity peaked in 1980, dropped steadily until
the early 1990s, and is now on the rise again. Although it is not entirely safe,
especially when consumed by children, smoked heavily, or used when driving,
it is clearly among the least dangerous psychoactive drugs in common use. In
1988 the administrative law judge for the Drug Enforcement Administration,
Francis Young, reviewed the evidence and concluded that "marihuana, in its
natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to

As with needle exchange and methadone treatment, American politicians have
ignored or spurned the findings of government commissions and scientific
organizations concerning marijuana policy. In 1972 the National Commission
on Marihuana and Drug Abuse-created by President Nixon and chaired by a
former Republican governor, Raymond Shafer-recommended that possession
of up to one ounce of marijuana be decriminalized. Nixon rejected the
recommendation. In 1982 a panel appointed by the National Academy of
Sciences reached the same conclusion as the Shafer Commission.

Between 1973 and 1978, with attitudes changing, 11 states approved
decriminalization statutes that reclassified marijuana possession as a
misdemeanor, petty offense, or civil violation punishable by no more than a
$100 fine. Consumption trends in those states and in states that retained stricter
sanctions were indistinguishable. A 1988 scholarly evaluation of the Moscone
Act, California's 1976 decriminalization law, estimated that the state had saved
half a billion dollars in arrest costs since the law's passage. Nonetheless, public
opinion began to shift in 1978. No other states decriminalized marijuana, and
some eventually recriminalized it.

Between 1973 and 1989, annual arrests on marijuana charges by state and local
police ranged between 360,000 and 460,000. The annual total fell to 283,700
in 1991, but has since more than doubled. In 1996, 641,642 people were
arrested for marijuana, 85 percent of them for possession, not sale, of the drug.
Prompted by concern over rising marijuana use among adolescents and fears of
being labeled soft on drugs, the Clinton administration launched its own
anti-marijuana campaign in 1995. But the administration's claims to have
identified new risks of marijuana consumption-including a purported link
between marijuana and violent behavior-have not withstood scrutiny.(1)
Neither Congress nor the White House seems likely to put the issue of
marijuana policy before a truly independent advisory commission, given the
consistency with which such commissions have reached politically
unacceptable conclusions.

In contrast, governments in Europe and Australia, notably in the Netherlands,
have reconsidered their cannabis policies. In 1976 the Baan Commission in the
Netherlands recommended, and the Dutch government adopted, a policy of
separating the "soft" and "hard" drug markets. Criminal penalties for and police
efforts against heroin trafficking were increased, while those against cannabis
were relaxed. Marijuana and hashish can now be bought in hundreds of
"coffeeshops" throughout the country. Advertising, open displays, and sales to
minors are prohibited. Police quickly close coffeeshops caught selling hard
drugs. Almost no one is arrested or even fined for cannabis possession, and the
government collects taxes on the gray market sales.

In the Netherlands today, cannabis consumption for most age groups is similar
to that in the United States. Young Dutch teenagers, however, are less likely to
sample marijuana than their American peers; from 1992 to 1994, only 7.2
percent of Dutch youths between the ages of 12 and 15 reported having tried
marijuana, compared to 13.5 percent of Americans in that age bracket. Far
fewer Dutch youths, moreover, experiment with cocaine, buttressing officials'
claims of success in separating the markets for hard and soft drugs. Most Dutch
parents regard the "reefer madness" anti-marijuana campaigns of the United
States as silly.

Dutch coffeeshops have not been problem free. Many citizens have complained
about the proliferation of coffeeshops, as well as nuisances created by foreign
youth flocking to party in Dutch border cities. Organized crime involvement in
the growing domestic cannabis industry is of increasing concern. The Dutch
government's efforts to address the problem by more openly and systematically
regulating supplies to coffeeshops, along with some of its other drug policy
initiatives, have run up against pressure from abroad, notably from Paris,
Stockholm, Bonn, and Washington. In late 1995 French President Jacques
Chirac began publicly berating The Hague for its drug policies, even
threatening to suspend implementation of the Schengen Agreement allowing
the free movement of people across borders of European Union (EU)
countries. Some of Chirac's political allies called the Netherlands a narco-state.
Dutch officials responded with evidence of the relative success of their
policies, while pointing out that most cannabis seized in France originates in
Morocco (which Chirac has refrained from criticizing because of his
government's close relations with King Hassan). The Hague, however, did
announce reductions in the number of coffeeshops and the amount of cannabis
customers can buy there. But it still sanctions the coffeeshops, and a few
municipalities actually operate them.

Notwithstanding the attacks, in the 1990s the trend toward decriminalization of
cannabis has accelerated in Europe. Across much of Western Europe,
possession and even minor sales of the drug are effectively decriminalized.
Spain decriminalized private use of cannabis in 1983. In Germany, the Federal
Constitutional Court effectively sanctioned a cautious liberalization of
cannabis policy in a widely publicized 1994 decision. German states vary
considerably in their attitude; some, like Bavaria, persist in a highly punitive
policy, but most now favor the Dutch approach. So far the Kohl administration
has refused to approve state proposals to legalize and regulate cannabis sales,
but it appears aware of the rising support in the country for Dutch and Swiss
approaches to local drug problems.

In June 1996 Luxembourg's parliament voted to decriminalize cannabis and
push for standardization of drug laws in the Benelux countries. The Belgian
government is now considering a more modest decriminalization of cannabis
combined with tougher measures against organized crime and heroin
traffickers. In Australia, cannabis has been decriminalized in South Australia,
the Australian Capital Territory (Canberra), and the Northern Territory, and
other states are considering the step. Even in France, Chirac's outburst
followed recommendations of cannabis decriminalization by three
distinguished national commissions. Chirac must now contend with a new
prime minister, Lionel Jospin, who declared himself in favor of
decriminalization before his Socialist Party won the 1997 parliamentary
elections. Public opinion is clearly shifting. A recent poll found that 51 percent
of Canadians favor decriminalizing marijuana.


Both at home and abroad, the U.S. government has attempted to block
resolutions supporting harm reduction, suppress scientific studies that reached
politically inconvenient conclusions, and silence critics of official drug policy.
In May 1994 the State Department forced the last-minute cancellation of a
World Bank conference on drug trafficking to which critics of U.S. drug policy
had been invited. That December the U.S. delegation to an international
meeting of the U.N. Drug Control Program refused to sign any statement
incorporating the phrase "harm reduction." In early 1995 the State Department
successfully pressured the World Health Organization to scuttle the release of a
report it had commissioned from a panel that included many of the world's
leading experts on cocaine because it included the scientifically
incontrovertible observations that traditional use of coca leaf in the Andes
causes little harm to users and that most consumers of cocaine use the drug in
moderation with few detrimental effects. Hundreds of congressional hearings
have addressed multitudinous aspects of the drug problem, but few have
inquired into the European harm-reduction policies described above. When
former Secretary of State George Shultz, then -Surgeon General M. Joycelyn
Elders, and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke pointed to the failure of current
policies and called for new approaches, they were mocked, fired, and ignored,
respectively-and thereafter mischaracterized as advocating the outright
legalization of drugs.

In Europe, in contrast, informed, public debate about drug policy is
increasingly common in government, even at the EU level. In June 1995 the
European Parliament issued a report acknowledging that "there will always be a
demand for drugs in our societies . . . the policies followed so far have not been
able to prevent the illegal drug trade from flourishing." The EU called for
serious consideration of the Frankfurt Resolution, a statement of
harm-reduction principles supported by a transnational coalition of 31 cities
and regions. In October 1996 Emma Bonino, the European commissioner for
consumer policy, advocated decriminalizing soft drugs and initiating a broad
prescription program for hard drugs. Greece's minister for European affairs,
George Papandreou, seconded her. Last February the monarch of Liechtenstein,
Prince Hans Adam, spoke out in favor of controlled drug legalization. Even
Raymond Kendall, secretary general of Interpol, was quoted in the August 20,
1994, Guardian as saying, "The prosecution of thousands of otherwise
law-abiding citizens every year is both hypocritical and an affront to individual,
civil and human rights . . . Drug use should no longer be a criminal offense. I
am totally against legalization, but in favor of decriminalization for the user."

One can, of course, exaggerate the differences between attitudes in the United
States and those in Europe and Australia. Many European leaders still echo
Chirac's U.S.-style antidrug pronouncements. Most capital cities endorse the
Stockholm Resolution, a statement backing punitive prohibitionist policies that
was drafted in response to the Frankfurt Resolution. And the Dutch have had to
struggle against French and other efforts to standardize more punitive drug
laws and policies within the EU.

Conversely, support for harm-reduction approaches is growing in the United
States, notably and vocally among public health professionals but also, more
discreetly, among urban politicians and police officials. Some of the world's
most innovative needle exchange and other harm-reduction programs can be
found in America. The 1996 victories at the polls for California's Proposition
215, which legalizes the medicinal use of marijuana, and Arizona's Proposition
200, which allows doctors to prescribe any drug they deem appropriate and
mandates treatment rather than jail for those arrested for possession, suggest
that Americans are more receptive to drug policy reform than politicians

But Europe and Australia are generally ahead of the United States in their
willingness to discuss openly and experiment pragmatically with alternative
policies that might reduce the harm to both addicts and society. Public health
officials in many European cities work closely with police, politicians, private
physicians, and others to coordinate efforts. Community policing treats drug
dealers and users as elements of the community that need not be expelled but
can be made less trouble some. Such efforts, including crackdowns on open
drug scenes in Zurich, Bern, and Frankfurt, are devised and implemented in
tandem with initiatives to address health and housing problems. In the United
States, in contrast, politicians presented with new approaches do not ask, "Will
they work?" but only, "Are they tough enough?" Many legislators are reluctant
to support drug treatment programs that are not punitive, coercive, and
prison-based, and many criminal justice officials still view prison as a quick
and easy solution for drug problems.

The lessons from Europe and Australia are compelling. Drug control policies
should focus on reducing drug-related crime, disease, and death, not the
number of casual drug users. Stopping the spread of HIV by and among drug
users by making sterile syringes and methadone readily available must be the
first priority. American politicians need to explore, not ignore or automatically
condemn, promising policy options such as cannabis decriminalization, heroin
prescription, and the integration of harm-reduction principles into community
policing strategies. Central governments must back, or at least not hinder, the
efforts of municipal officials and citizens to devise pragmatic approaches to
local drug problems. Like citizens in Europe, the American public has
supported such innovations when they are adequately explained and allowed to
prove themselves. As the evidence comes in, what works is increasingly
apparent. All that remains is mustering the political courage.


Lynn Zimmer and John P. Morgan, Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A
Review of the Scientific Evidence, New York: Lindesmith Center, 1997.

Wine Might Lower Risk Of Blinding Disease (Report In 'Journal Of The
American Geriatrics Society' Finds Possible Benefit For Elderly With
Age-Related Macular Degeneration)

Subj: US: Wine Might Lower Risk Of Blinding Disease
From: Marcus-Mermelstein Family 
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 17:35:48 -0500
Source: Associated Press
Pubdate: 1 Jan 1998


NEW YORK -- Drinking moderate amounts of wine might lower the risk of an
eye disease that's a leading cause of severe vision loss and blindness in
the elderly.

In a large study of people ages 45 to 74, researchers found that wine
drinking was associated with lower rates of age-related macular degeneration.

The disorder, which impairs sight in about 1.7 million Americans over 65,
robs people of their sharp central vision needed for activities such as
reading and driving.

The study found the lowest risk in people who reported having only about
one drink of wine a month, but because of faulty recall that could really
be two or three drinks, said Dr. Thomas Obisesan, chief of the geriatrics
section at the Howard University Hospital in Washington.

Beer and liquor showed no significant effect on the risk of the disorder.

Obisesan and other researchers report the study in the January issue of the
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

Because of how the study was designed, it can't actually prove that wine
consumption lowered the risk of the eye disease. And it's not clear how
wine would reduce the risk of the disorder, researchers said.

Prior studies have concluded that moderate drinking reduces the risk of
heart disease.

For the new work, researchers examined data from 3,072 participants in a
huge federal study that was done in the 1970s. The participants had an eye
exam as part of that study, and 184 had the eye disease.

Prison Stats - US (United States' Incarceration Statistics)

Date: Thu, 01 Jan 1998 12:52:11
To: Mattalk@islandnet.com
From: Kathy galbraith 
Subject: Prison Stats-US

I got this from my friend Abby, who is a 58-yr.old Calif.
midwife wrongly imprisoned for attending homebirths.. don't know
the name of the publication:

Think About It:

There are over 5 million Americans in prison, on probation, or on

* The U.S. now has 1.6 million people in prison. This is a five-fold
increase since 1970 with a weekly net increase of 2,000 prisoners
4 new prisons would have to be built per week to accommodate this

* More than 94% of incarcerated men and women will be released from
prison and re-enter our communities.
About two-thirds will be re-arrested within 3 yrs.

* The U.S. has the highest per capita prison population of any country in
the world, including dictatorships. It is five to eight times higher
than other countries in the industrialized world.

* A study at the Brookings institution found that if the present rate
continues, more than half of America will be in prison by 2053.

* In many state budgets, prisons are now the fastest rising item. The
cost of building and operating U.S. prisons has grown to more than $31
billion a year from 6.8 billion in 1980. Budgets for operating prison
systems are increasing at the direct expense of social services,
health care, and education.

* Ten years ago California spent 14% of the state budget on higher ed.
and 4% on prisons. Two years ago it spent 9% on higher ed and 9% on
prisons. Now it spends more on prisons than it spends on higher education.
The Rand Corporation predicts that by 2002 the state of Calif. will spend
18% of its yearly budget on prisons which will leave 1% for higher education.

* Nonviolent offenders accounted for 84% of the increase in commitment
to state prisons between 1980 and 1992.

* The MA Dept. of Corrections spends an average of 29,604 a year
on each prisoner. The Boston school system spends an average of $5,500.
on each student.

* The vast majority of America's prisoners are between 18 and 24
years old.


* On any given day, one in every three African-American men
between the ages of 20 and 29 are in prison or jail, or on parole
or probation.

* According to a report entitled Racial Disparities in the
Criminal Justice System, published by the Rand Corporation, charges
against whites are reduced to lesser non-prison charges more frequently;
they are offered better plea bargains and are ordered incarcerated
much less frequently and for shorter sentences than blacks.

* As drug law enforcement resources continued to be focused on
minority communities, drug arrests of minorities increased at ten times
the rate for whites.


* It is estimated that 85% of people entering prison have significant
drug or alcohol problems.

* After nearly thirty year war on drugs in which approx.70% of
all federal prisoners are now incarcerated for drug offenses, drugs
are more plentiful, more pure, and cheaper on American streets than
ever before.

* In states like NY that have longer standing programs, studies
have shown that inmates who complete drug treatment are only half as
likely to return to prison as those who do not.

* A Calif. study showed that every $1. invested in solid drug
treatment saved $7. in future costs of crime and incarceration.


* As of 1995, Pell Grants (for college tuition) are no longer
available to prisoners. (The college program was one of the big
symbols of hope that someday you could get out of the ciminal-justice

* It is estimated that over 66% of ex-offenders are re-arrested
within five years. Over 35% return to prison. For those receiving
college degrees the recidivism rate was an estimated 7%.

* 75% of all NY State prisoners- who now number more than 68,000-
came from 7 communities in NY City. Those inner-city neighborhoods
were characterized by abject poverty, disintegrated families, unemployment
of at least 60% among black males between 18 and 35, a more than 50%
high school dropout rate among males and high incidence of AIDS, tuber-
culosis, and low-birthweight babies.

* Intensive alternative sanctions for non-violent offenders (which
usually involves confinement, restitution, restoration and community
service) costs about one fourth that of incarceration. The recidivism
rate is one half of those who are incarcerated.

* Since 1980 the number of prison guards in Calif. has risen to
over 23,400 from 4,800. Their average income is almost 10,000 more
a year than the average public school teacher in Calif. The prison
guard union gave $1 million to candidates for seats in the Legislature
in 1992 and provided $101,000 for the Three Strikes You're Out
Committee to help pass the sentencing law.

* There are thousands of mentally ill people incarcerated in
adult and juvenile facilities and most facilities in U.S. are not
equipped to care adequately for the mentally ill offender.

* The number of Calif. prisoners older than 50 is expected to
increase from 5000 in 1994 to more than 51,000 by 2005. Medical care
and maintenance for prisoners over age 60 is 69,000 per prisoner,
three times the average. Most crimes are committed by those in their teens
and twenties.


My friend said that the guards are vicious, violent, and inconsistent.
She asked one of them when he planned to retire.....

"The cops model inefficiency to the utmost. Irrationality and
inconsistency are what it taught. Hurry up and get it done so I can
do nothing, is the thought. A question is a bother. Employees here
probably wouldn't last in any for-profit business, as there are no
internal checks and balances. Large salaries are paid and the cops
brag about it. I asked one cop in his sixties when he was going to
retire and he said, "Why would I retire? At home I'd do nothin',
Here I get paid to do nothin'." The cop parking lot is loaded with
fancy cars...."

Please forward this to the DRC list...

Let's increase our efforts this
year to correct this terrible situation in the penal system..

Sad and mad,
Kathy Galbraith e-mail: GALBRAITH@upanet.uleth.ca
Public Access Internet
The University of Lethbridge

California Prisons Fact Sheet (Statistics On Inmates, Institutions,
Employees, Budget, Compiled By California Department Of Corrections)

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:58:45 -0500
From: Cheryl Dykstra & Scott Dykstra 
Organization: Dykstra Computer Repair Service
To: cannabis-patriots-l@teleport.com
Subject: CanPat> Prison breakdown of profits, budgets, parolees, race, etc....
Sender: owner-cannabis-patriots-l@teleport.com


January 1, 1998

About the Department

The California Department of Corrections operates all state prisons, oversees a
variety of community correctional facilities, and supervises all parolees during
their re-entry into society.

Budget: $3.7 billion (1997-1998 Budget Act)

Avg. yearly cost: per inmate, $21,098; per parolee, $2,145.

Staff: 43,991 currently employed including 38,402 in Institutions, 2,587 in
Parole, and 2,790 in Administration (about 27,193 sworn peace officers).

. . . and the State Budget

While it is the largest in terms of staffing, Corrections'
operating budget is just 7.6 percent of the state General
Fund in the 1997-1998 Budget Act.

About Construction

Since the early 1980s, Corrections has been involved in the largest prison
building program in the United States.

Cost: $5.27 billion;

Beds Completed: 47,844; Under Construction: 3,424.

Authorized/Proposed: 0; Total: 51,268.

Sites planned/under review: California City, Delano, Sacramento, San
Diego County, Solano County, and Taft.

About Prisons


33 state prisons ranging from minimum to maximum custody; 38 camps,
minimum custody facilities located in wilderness areas where inmates are
trained as wildland firefighters; and 6 prisoner mother facilities.


All Institutions: 155,276. One year change: 9,711. +6.7%.

Prisons: 145,258. Capacity: 72,444; Occupied: 200.5%.

Camps: 3,883. Capacity: 3,908; Occupied: 99.4%.

Community Facilities: 5,847 Outside CDC: 1,757 At large: 428

USINS (Immigration) Holds: 19,140.

Top 5 counties: 35.5% LA; 8.0% San Diego; 5.9% San Bernardino; 5.4%
Orange; 5.1% Riverside.


Males: 93.0% Females: 7.0% Parole Violators: 17.3%.

Race: 30.1% white; 31.0% black; 33.9% hispanic; 4.9% other.

Offense: 41.5% violent; 25.3% property; 26.4% drugs; 6.7% other.

Classifications (males): 31.8% Level I; 21.5% Level II; 24.5% Level III; 19.6%

Level IV; 2.5% Special Security.

Lifers: 17,765 LWOPs: 2,582 Condemned: 497

Avg Reading Level: Eighth grade Median Age: 32.

Employed: 57.3% Unavail: 29.5% Waiting List: 13.2%

Avg Sentence: 41.4 months; Avg Time Served: 22.6 months.

Commitment Rate: 388.3 per 100,000 Calif. population.

Assault Rate (per 100 ADP): 3.3 in '96; 3.2 in '95; 3.4 in '94.

Escape Rate (per 100 ADP): 0.05 in '96; 0.06 in '95; 0.05 in '94.

About Parole

FACILITIES: 31 re-entry centers, 1 restitution, 1 drug treatment, 1 boot
camp and 12 community correctional facilities (CCFs). Most are operated
by public or private agencies under contract to CDC. Parole staff monitor the
security measures and oversee the day-to-day operations of these facilities.

OFFICES: 130 parole offices in 71 locations. 4 parole outpatient clinics and 56


Total: 105,449. One year change: 4,514. +4.5%.

Paroled to committing county: 90.4% Paroled to another county: 9.6%

Region I (North/Central Valley): 21,024;
Region II (Bay Area/North, Central Coast): 21,691
Region III (most of LA County): 36,565;
Region IV (San Diego/San Gabriel Valley/S.Ca) : 26,169

Return rate (per 100 avg daily pop) with new prison term: 15.9;

Return rate (per 100 avg daily pop) as parole violator: 52.9

Top 5 counties: 29.4% LA; 6.5% San Diego; 5.7% Orange; 5.5% San
Bernardino; 3.9% Riverside.


Males: 89.9% Females: 10.1%

Race: 29.9% white; 26.2% black; 39.0% hispanic; 4.9% other.

Offense: 26.8% violent; 28.2% property; 34.3% drugs; 10.6% other.

Median Age: 34

Dr. Kleber At CASA ('The Chronicle Of Higher
Education' Reports On Columbia University's National Center
On Addiction And Substance Abuse)

Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 05:51:58 EST
From: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: Dr. Kleber at CASA

My brother sent me the October 3, 1997 issue of The Chronicle of Higher
Education which has a good article on Columbia University's National Center
on Addiction and Substance Abuse. Ethan Nadelmann is quoted as describing
Joseph Califano as "essentially a reincarnation of the old temperance
warriors." He also got the biggest picture!

Just to summarize (I still don't have OCR). The story begins with a
description of how reporters credulously copy down whatever Califano tells
them, such as his spin on that rat research we chewed on several months ago.
Califano: "The days of marijuana as a safe drug are over. This research has
crowned marijuana a 'hard drug'".

But the part that burn me the most comes from CASA's infamous medical
director, Dr Herbert Kleber, apparently the only Columbia U-tenured person
on the CASA staff. Kleber was quick to label the rat research as the
"smoking gun" he has been looking for linking marijuana use to the
production of cravings for hard drugs.

Quoting from the article:

"The argument that marijuana is a 'gateway drug' is key to [CASA's] goal. .
. For every 100 people who have tried pot, 28 have tried cocaine, and only
one uses cocaine weekly. . . .CASA's medical director, Herbert D Kleber,
responds that the risk that a marijuana smoker will try cocaine is no
different from -- and even greater than -- the risk that a smoker will get
lung cancer. 'The people who say most marijuana smokers don't try cocaine
either don't understand risk ratios, or disingenuously pretend not to,' he
says. He is convinced that there is a biochemical trigger that leads
marijuana users to seek other drugs. 'We just haven't found it yet.'"

Is 28 percent more than 50 percent, Dr. Kleber? Maybe Dr. K doesn't
understand what the word "most" means -- or is disingenuously pretending not
to. Either way, this guy is a disgrace to the medical profession and to
Columbia University. Isn't it amazing that Columbia would give tenure to
Kleber after they were burned by his cut-from-the-same-cloth fellow drug war
pseudo-scientist, Gabriel Nahas? Frankly, I don't think I'd trust any
research coming out of Columbia University -- not if this is how much
respect they have for the truth. BTW, Columbia's president, Gerge Rupp, is
on CASA's board of directors, along with Nancy Reagan and Betty Ford.

Something needs to be done about this situation. . . But what?


Drug Exception To Fourth Amendment (Excerpt From Dan Baum's
'Smoke And Mirrors')

Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 17:10:22 EST
From: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn)
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: Drug exception to Fourth Amendment

Somebody asked on the list if there really is a drug exception to the Fourth
Amendment's (supposed) protections. Anyone not aware of this fact should
read Dan Baum's excellent book, 'Smoke and Mirrors.' Baum describes in
chilling detail the dismantling of Fourth Amendment protections in the name
of the war on drugs. Here's a passage that sets the stage:

"In response to the activist Court of Earl Warren, conservatives adopted a
rallying cry that judges 'shouldn't legislate from the bench.' But in
decision after decision throughout the 1980's, the Supreme Court assembled
by Nixon, Ford, and Reagan rewrote the Fourth Amendment's protections
against police excess as actively as any Congress. The Court let police
stop cars at roadblocks and search them without a warrant. It let police
crack open a traveler's suitcase or a piece of private mail on the say-so of
a barking dog. It permitted the use of 'courier profiles' -- lists of such
characteristics as 'black with a Jamaican accent' that constitute sufficient
grounds to search a person in an airport without a warrant. It let police
spy through windows from low-flying helicopters and *then* get a warrant on
the basis of what they see. It permitted compulsory urine testing for
federal employees. It essentially revoked the Fourth Amendment rights of
schoolchildren by allowing warrantless searches of their lockers and
pockets. And it ruled that even if fenced and posted 'No Trespassing,' the
fields, barns, and outbuildings surrounding a home are not protected by an
expectation of privacy' and may be searched without a warrant. (para) Every
one of the 1980s cases that weakened the Fourth Amendment had one thing in
common: they all involved drugs. The Court shared both the national
distaste for illegal drugs and the conservative desire to use that distast
to empower the prosecution. Drug trafficking, the Court ruled at one point,
'is as serious and violent as the crime of felony murder.' The Court
followed the Drug War agenda of Reagan's White House so closely that
conservative Justice John Paul Stevens lamented in writing that the Supreme
Court had become little more than 'a loyal foot soldier' in the War on
Drugs." (pp.177-8)

All dpr activists should own and read this book, IMHO.


Re - Drug Exception To Fourth Amendment (Richard Lawrence Miller's
'Drug Warriors and Their Prey' Also Explains 'Drug Exception')

Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 19:40:44 EST
From: Gerald Sutliff 
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: Re: Drug exception to Fourth Amendment

At 05:10 PM 1/1/98 EST, David Hadorn wrote:

>Somebody asked on the list if there really is a drug exception to the Fourth
>Amendment's (supposed) protections. Anyone not aware of this fact should
>read Dan Baum's excellent book, 'Smoke and Mirrors.' Baum describes in
>chilling detail the dismantling of Fourth Amendment protections in the name
>of the war on drugs. Here's a passage that sets the stage:

Agreed. Another book I recommend is, 'Drug Warriors and Their Prey,' by
Richard Lawrence Miller. Warning! it is not for the faint of heart.
After you read these two books you will no longer wonder if there is a
"drug exception."

vty, jerry sutliff

Drug Exception To Fourth Amendment (Reply By Eric Sterling
Of The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation Notes It's The Drug
Exception To The Bill Of Rights)

Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 18:34:00 EST
From: "Eric E. Sterling" 
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: Drug Exception to 4th Amdt, etc.

>Somebody asked on the list if there really is a drug exception to the Fourth
>Amendment's (supposed) protections.

[What does "really" mean in this context?

There is nothing in the text of the Fourth Amendment, or elsewhere
in the Constitution, that is a "drug exception to the 4th Amendment. The
rulings of courts in drug cases have created what lawyers have been calling
a drug exception to the Bill of Rights for over a decade.--EES]

>David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn) replied to the question:
>"Anyone not aware of this fact should read Dan Baum's excellent book,
>'Smoke and Mirrors.' "

Dan is an excellent journalist and author, and his book is
excellent, but he is not an attorney.

The issues are much broader than the 4th Amendment. My speech to
the Colorado Bar Association, 92nd Annual Convention in September 14, 1990,
"The Bill of Rights: A Casualty of the War on Drugs," was published in
"Vital Speeches of the Day," November 1, 1990. There I outlined how all of
the Bill of Rights, including the 3rd, 7th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, as
well as the 13th and 14th Amendments, were being undermined by the war on

I spent a great deal of attention to focusing on the reliance of the
Congress upon its power to regulate interstate commerce (Article I, section
8) as its Constitutional basis for regulating individual drug use. I argued
that "the war on drugs is the cornerstone of an as yet unbuilt
edifice of totalitarianism.

Challenging the war on drugs is the most important issue
facing civil liberties and the preservation of the Bill of Rights."

If you want to read what other lawyers have written about "the drug
exception to the Bill of Rights" (more than the 4th Amendment is
implicated), you should read:

(1) Steven Wisotsky's article in the Hastings Law Journal, "Crackdown:
The Emerging 'Drug Exception' to the Bill of Rights," Volume 38, p. 889 (1987).

(1(a)) An excellent earlier article by Wisotsky is "Exposing the War on
Cocaine" in the Wisconsin Law Review, volume 1983 (1983).

Wisotsky is a law professor at Nova University Law Center in Ft.
Lauderdale, FL.

(1(b)) Also see Silas Wasserstrom, "The Incredible Shrinking Fourth
Amendment" in the American Criminal Law Review, vol. 21, no. 3, 1985.

(2) Wisotsky reviews these legal analyses in his excellent and
comprehensive book, which was published twice.


"Breaking the Impasse in the War on Drugs," Greenwood Press, 1986.
ISBN 0-313-24266-6


"Beyond the War on Drugs, Overcoming a Failed Public Policy,"
Prometheus Books, 1990. ISBN 0-87975-587-3

Both editions include a foreword by Thomas Szasz, MD.

(3) Yale Law Professor Steven B. Duke and Albert C. Gross, Esq., have
written an outstanding book:

"America's Longest War: Rethinking Our Tragic Crusade Against
Drugs," Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 1993. ISBN 0-87477-541-8 (hardcover)
I think I've seen it in softcover. The book has an excellent Foreword by
Kurt L. Schmoke

In particular read chapter 7, "Freedom Costs" with 130 footnotes to
the important court opinions, other legal materials and authorities.

(4) Richard Lawrence Miller wrote, _Drug Warriors and Their Prey: From
Police Power to Police State_ by Praeger Publishers, 1996. ISBN 0-275-95042-5

Miller's book follows his 1995 book, "Nazi Justiz: Law of the
Holocaust," also by Praeger, and has an extremely dire warning about what
the drug laws are really about and where their enforcement is taking us.

Miller's book, with over 35 pages of footnotes is a powerful
analysis about why this issue is not about "mere technicalities" of court
proceedings or "loopholes" as police and prosecutors would have us believe.
Miller concludes,

"I believe authoritarians are manufacturing and manipulating public
fears about drug use in order to create a police state where a much
broader agenda of social control can be implemented, using government
power to determine what movies we may watch, determine who we may love
and how we may love them, determine whether we may or must pray to a
deity. I believe the war on drug users masks a war on democracy."

Dan Baum's book is an excellent history of how drug policy came to
be. For a more comprehensive understanding of the change in how the 4th
Amendment is being applied -- the true test of what it "means," check out
the more in-depth analyses.

Both Wisotsky, and Duke & Gross, in addition to examining 4th
Amendment caselaw, have excellent comprehensive analyses of many of the drug
issues of interest to all drug policy reformers.

Eric E. Sterling, President
The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation
1899 L Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036-3804

202-835-9075 Fax--202-833-8561
Email: esterling@igc.org

http://www.cjpf.org (The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation)
http://www.ndsn.org (National Drug Strategy Network)

Report - GOP Is Stalling On Judges (Rehnquist Chides Senate Republicans)

Subj: US: Report: GOP Is Stalling On Judges
From: Marcus-Mermelstein Family 
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 16:54:15 -0500
Pubdate: 1 Jan 1998
Source: San Jose Mercury News
Author: David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com

Editor's note: The relationship between drug policy and
this and the following story is subtle but interesting. Drug cases are
clogging and backlogging the courts. Rehnquist is criticizing Senate
Republicans for stalling on Clinton appointments. In today's response
Hatch blames the courts themselves.


WASHINGTON -- Wading into a simmering dispute between Congress and the
White House, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist chided Senate Republicans
on Wednesday for stalling on President Clinton's judicial nominees.

In an annual report on the federal judiciary, the conservative chief
justice warned that delays have left one out of every 10 federal judgeships
vacant, threatening the quality of justice in federal courts.

``The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular
nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry, it should vote him up or
vote him down,'' Rehnquist said in his year-end report. ``Vacancies cannot
remain at such high levels indefinitely without eroding the quality of

The vacancy problem is ``particularly troubling'' on the West Coast,
Rehnquist noted. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is supposed
to have 28 judges, has only 18 judges to hear appeals from the nine-state

Since taking control of the Senate at the start of 1995, the Republicans
have adopted a go-slow strategy on court nominees. They have not voted down
a single Clinton nominee, but they have delayed action on dozens.

Rehnquist noted that while 101 judges were confirmed in 1994, only 17 won
Senate approval in 1996, followed by 36 in 1997.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who was
unavailable for comment Wednesday, has firmly denied the GOP is
deliberately stalling, saying he and his colleagues are closely
scrutinizing the backgrounds of Clinton's nominees to weed out ``liberal

The Republicans also blame the administration for the vacancy problem
because of its slow pace in submitting nominations.

The year-end numbers could bolster either argument. While 86 judgeships are
vacant nationwide, the administration has only 42 nominations pending
before the Senate.

Rehnquist's comments focused on the dozen Clinton nominees who have been in
limbo for more than a year.

Topping the list is University of California-Berkeley law Professor William
A. Fletcher, who was nominated for a seat on the 9th Circuit in April 1995.
His nomination is still pending, but Republican leaders say they plan no
further action to either confirm or reject Fletcher.

Administration officials and Senate Democrats cheered Rehnquist's comments.

``I think the chief justice is entirely right. No one has a right to be
confirmed, but they (Republicans) have an obligation to act,'' said
Assistant Attorney General Eleanor D. Acheson, who is in charge of
selecting judicial nominees. ``This process takes a very real and personal
toll on people whose lives and careers are put on hold.''

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee's ranking Democrat,
said he hoped Rehnquist's message ``will help shame the Senate into
clearing the backlog early in the new year.''

But the potential impact -- if any -- of the chief justice's remarks is

It also is hard to gauge the impact of judicial vacancies on the quality of

In recent years, judges have complained about the increasing workload in
the federal judiciary, but that is due mostly to a sharp rise in drug and
immigration cases.

Vacancies on the courts ``aggravate the problem of too few judges and too
much work,'' Rehnquist said.

Dan Lungren In 'Smoke and Mirrors' (California Attorney General
Facilitated Passage Of 1984 Omnibus Crime Bill As Congressman)

Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 20:00:14 EST
From: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn)
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: Dan Lungren in 'Smoke and Mirrors'

In rooting around my copy of Smoke and Mirrors (kindly provided by Jerry
Sutliff), I notice that the possible next governor of California, Dan
Lungren, rated a couple of mentions. In 1984, Lungren was enlisted by the
Reagan administration to facilitate passage of the Omnibus Crime Bill, which
gave "huge new powers to prosecutors."

"Republican congressman Dan Lungren came up with a parliamentary trick to
force passage of the big new crime bill. On September 25 he made a motion
to attach a brand-new House bill, identical to the [tougher] Senate bill, to
a 'must pass' appropriations bill and send it to the full House for a vote.
If the House delayed or failed to pass it, federal funding would freeze and
the entire government would be shut down. The House had spent months
tinkering with the Senate bill, rewriting portions and adding new sections,
but that work was out the window. What faced House Democrats now was a
straight up-or-down vote on what was essentially the Senate bill they'd
received in February. It was a 419-page bill, and under House rules only
five minutes of the debate was permitted.

"'The American people have shown in the latest poll that this is the number
one issue for them!' Lungren exhorted his colleagues. 'Do not worry about
next week! Do not worry about last week!' Faced with the choice of giving
in or leaving the government with no money to run on, the House voted yay."

I had forgotten the role Lungren played in bringing about the current
shameful prison situation in the United States. And we see his demagoguery
against drug use is no recent invention either.

The other thing occurred in 1986, when Lungren was arguing that merchants
who accept money from "drug dealers" should be penalized:

"Make it illegal for a dry cleaner or a grocery store to take money from a
drug dealer he argued, and if they do, seize the business. Put the merchant
in jail. 'The whole Len Bias story, it seems to me, suggests we have been
far too lenient,' Lungren said." (p.227)

"For newcomers, Len Bias was the college basketball player whose death
(supposedly) as a result of a cocaine overdose incited the US congress into
a frenzy of anti-drug legislation."

Perhaps these quotes could be used in LTEs or essays linking Lungren to the
police- and prison-state the US has become.

Finally, here's this gem from S&M:

"The same week Len Bias died, coincidentally, William Rehnquist was
nominated to replace Warren Burger as chief justice of the Supreme Court."



Minister In Drug Scandal 'Wants To Reveal Identity'
(England's 'Independent' Censors Itself)

Subj: UK: Minister in Drug Scandal 'Wants to Reveal Identity'
From: Zosimos 
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 15:28:01 -0800
Source: The Independent (UK)
Contact: letters@independent.co.uk
Pubdate: Thu, 01 Jan 1998


The minister whose son was allegedly caught dealing in drugs has spoken of
his frustration at being legally barred from revealing his identity.
Michael Streeter, Legal Affairs Correspondent, looks at the legal confusion
over the case.

The Sun newspaper said yesterday that it would not appeal against an
injunction won by the Attorney-General preventing it from naming the

But the Cabinet minister said he was frustrated that he was prevented in
law from going public about his predicament.

In an interview with the Mirror today, he said he had prepared a statement
before taking his son to the police but then found he was legally bound to
remain anonymous after the youth was arrested.

"I want to talk about this in public and reveal my identity but I have been
told I can't. Lawyers have said I haven't got any choice. I'm not in any
doubt about that," he said.

"That is obviously very frustrating because I am not the sort of person who
normally avoids confronting issues like this publicly." He added that he
had asked that his son be treated no differently from anyone else.

He also said that the arrest of the reporter who broke the story, Dawn
Alford, was nothing to do with him. "They [the police] make their own
decisions and that's always the way the police operate. It would be
outrageous if politicians were to interfere in who was arrested."

On Tuesday evening, Mr Justice Moses granted the Attorney-General, John
Morris QC, an injunction banning the Sun from publishing the name of the
minister's son. He ruled that while the Children and Young Persons Act 1933
protecting a juvenile's identity in court proceedings did not apply, under
the law of contempt publication could prejudice a trial, add to the burden
of any sentence and wrongly stop the trial judge banning publication of
identity during the case.

Dan Te, a media specialist at solicitors Lovell White Durrant, said the
ruling "strained" the law of contempt. Walter Greenwood, editor of
Essential Law for Journalists, praised the integrity of the
Attorney-General, but said the injunction "gave the appearance of double

Some observers saw the Sun's failed attempt to publish the name as a ploy
to draw attention from the rival Mirror, which ran the story before

Tim Ross, the legal spokesman for the Sun, said: "We felt we had good legal
grounds to name the minister but we have decided that arguments on both
sides were thorough and the judge took time to consider his judgement."

Paul Cavadino, principal officer of the National Association for the Care
and Resettlement of Offenders, defended the injunction, adding: "It is
important to remember that the anonymity rule exists to protect juvenile
defendants, not to protect their parents from embarrassment.".

The Tory spokesman on home affairs, Sir Brian Mawhinney, said the case had
become a "slow torture process" for the cabinet minister's family.

Meanwhile, Acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Brian Hayes has
rejected claims of political pressure. Ms Alford's arrest was part of
normal police practice and had not been ordered by the Crown Prosecution
Service, although they had been consulted as was standard in such cases.

Not Such Dopes (Letter To Editor Of London's 'Daily Mail' Notes Many
Accomplished People Have Used Drugs Other Than Alcohol)

Subj: UK: PUB LTE: Not Such Dopes
From: Richard Lake  (by way of Richard Lake )
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 16:55:55 -0500
Newshawk: webbooks@paston.co.uk (CLCIA)
Source: Daily Mail (London)
Section: Letters
Pubdate: 1 Jan 1998
Contact: letters@dailymail.co.uk


Alcohol kills more than 5,000 people worldwide daily and destroys millions
of relationships every hour.

Dr Anthony Daniels quotes two particular incidents of cannabis abuse (Mail)
and seeks to give the impression that the world has something to fear from
its increased use.

He asks to be shown a habitual taker of drugs and will then try to prove
how unhappy and unfulfilled they are /were. He can choose any of the
following: Baudelaire, Victor Hugo, Cocteau, Picasso, Coleridge, Keats,
Lewis Caroll, Oscar Wilde, Brecht, Edgar Allen Poe, Mark Twain.

Clive Stewart
Dusseldorf, Germany

The Summer Of Love - When Drugs Were Not A Problem
(1967 Scottish Government Report Released)

Subj: UK: The Summer Of Love - When Drugs Were Not A Problem
From: Zosimos 
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 20:57:53 -0500
Source: The Scotsman, Edinburgh, UK
Contact: Letters_ts@scotsman.com
Pubdate: 1 Jan 1998


DURING the summer of love in 1967, the newspapers were reporting shocking
stories that children were taking LSD and other hard drugs, writes Jenny

Faced with this threat to the health of the nation's youth, education
ministers hastily ordered a survey of hard drug use among children to be
conducted by medical officers of health (MOHs).

Scotland's MOHs were the first to report back, according to government
documents published today, and the news they brought was reassuring. "In
Dundee there is no evidence of a problem and seems to be no need for any
action to be taken," a Scottish Office memo of October 1967 states.

"In Edinburgh no instances of drug taking among school children appear to
have been drawn to the authority's notice. In Glasgow there is virtually no
problem as regards hard drugs and LSD so far as school-children and college
students are concerned, but quite a number of older school pupils and
college students resort to 'pep pills' at times of stress."

Thirty years on, 53 per cent of Scottish 16-year-olds in the summer of 1997
had tried illegal drugs before they left school, according to the
anti-drugs campaign Scotland Against Drugs.

It is difficult to compare this statistic with the 1967 survey, because
trying drugs is not the same as having a problem with hard drugs. Most
experimentation by teenagers today is with the soft drug cannabis, which
would probably have fallen outside the remit of the MOHs' inquiries.
Comparisons between 1967 and 1997 cannot be exact as attitudes to drugs are
much harsher today. For example, in 1967 Scottish doctors still routinely
treated heroin addicts as if they were sick and prescribed them medical
heroin, but, in the same year, the Dangerous Drugs Act came into force,
criminalising heroin, so that heroin addicts were sent to prison instead.

The scale of the problem has also changed. In 1967 there were 1,299
notified heroin addicts; in 1994 there were 22,000 notified heroin addicts
and an estimated 180,000 further addicts not registered with the health

In 1967, it was a school medical officer who discovered that youngsters
took pep pills when he "did a spot-check on a dozen young people being held
in the remand centre and had nine positive responses, and this surprised
him. The inspector of schools for the Glasgow area considers that the
situation there does not appear to be a cause for undue concern and
suggests that it would be best to leave it alone at this juncture."

It is hard to imagine a response as mild as "surprise" if nine out 12 young
people were found to be taking drugs today.

"A considerable number of MOHs in the areas where there appears to be no
problem doubted the wisdom of an active health education campaign lest it
should encourage adolescents to experiment with drugs," the memo notes,
preceding this year's findings of Edinburgh University's drugs expert Prof
Martin Plant by three decades.

"Quite a number of them, however, were providing health education on this
subject in their areas."

The idea of a national campaign of the type waged today by Scotland Against
Drugs was seen as a waste of time in 1967. "As regards the future, most
felt that a publicity campaign was neither necessary nor desirable," the
Scottish home and health department note says.

Editorial - Remembering The Way We Once Were (Release Of 1967 Scottish
Public Records Shows 'There Never Was Much Of A Party To Miss')

Subj: UK: Editorial: Remembering The Way We Once Were
From: Zosimos 
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 21:17:24 -0500
Source: Scotsman
Contact: Letters_ts@scotsman.com
Pubdate: 1 Jan 1998


THINGS are not what they used to be - but then, they never were. Many
people who grew up in the 1960s have spent years wondering how they managed
to miss all the fun. How did the "permissive society", sex, drugs and rock
and roll pass them by so completely? Woodstock may have been playing in the
local fleapit but in the average Scottish town flower power seemed to be
confined to neatly-kept herbaceous borders in the local park. It was as
though your invitation to the party had gone astray.

Now, with the release of public records from 1967, the truth can at last be
told: there never was much of a party to miss. Whatever was going on
elsewhere, Scottish teenagers in the Sixties neither turned on, tuned in,
nor dropped out unless they were tuning in to Dr Who. Then, as now, there
was public concern over drug use.

The difference 30 years ago was that public fears were almost entirely
misplaced. Indeed, Scottish Office officials took the sensible view that
going on about "the problem" might make for a self-fulfilling prophecy. In
reality, there was little to worry about.

Times have changed since then, of course, but it is fascinating to consider
the extent to which the myth of the Sixties has taken root. London's King's
Road and Carnaby Street may have been at the cutting edge of fashion, drugs
use and sexual politics. For much of the rest of Britain, in contrast, the
transition from the grey, staid Fifties to the op-art Sixties was much less
dramatic. In some Scottish towns we could mention people are still waiting
patiently for it to happen.

But then, this year's batch of records still provide some fascinating
contrasts with the present.

Given the condition of trade unionism today the chances of any government
contemplating the use of troops to break a strike, as Harold Wilson did
when Liverpool dockers struck, are remote. The condition of sterling today
- - "the pound in your pocket" - in no sense resembles its state when Labour
was forced into devaluation. Theatre censorship is now thankfully an
almost-forgotten thing of the past. In 1967 Britain's problem with Europe
was how we might enter the then EEC, not Euroscepticism.

So it goes. Thirty years from now, no doubt, someone will be looking back
in amusement at all the talk about a New Britain, mocking our fashions or
ridiculing our quaint fears. History, in all things, is the great leveller.

Down But Not Out (CIRC Joint Operation To French Lawmakers
Seeks Open, Honest Debate On Cannabis)

Resent-Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 18:55:18 -0800
From: creator@islandnet.com (Matt Elrod)
To: mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com
Subject: Down but not Out
-------- Forwarded message --------
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 21:28:44 -0500}
From: edward dawley <100745.1510@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:creator@hempbc.com" , cclist@hempbc.com

Down but not Out

In spite of heavy government pressure, the CIRC in Paris continues the
struggle. Below is a press release that they have asked me to send to you.

Dec. 10, 1997
Joint operation

This very day, The Collectif d'information et de recherches cannabiques
(Collective for Information and Research on Cannabis) aka the CIRC,
sent its manifesto entitled "Cannabis, lettre ouverte aux législateurs"
( Cannabis, an Open Letter to the Lawmakers) to the 577
members of the French House of Representatives.

The CIRC did this because:

millions of people enjoy the effect of cannabis;
this soft drug is more and more tolerated;

every day thousands of young people break the law;

prohibition deprives thousands of ill people of the benefits of cannabis;

cannabis has been the cause of 50,000 arrests in France last year;

Europe is moving towards more pragmatic policies;

the debate takes place everywhere in French society except in the

The CIRC, continually subjected to police and judicial harassment, enclosed
in its package a joint of grass grown in France. For the CIRC, this
symbolic gesture serves not as an incitement to cannabis consumption but
rather an incitement to the opening of a debate on the role of cannabis in a
modern society. The representatives have indeed received their joint through
the mail. They were surprised but, amused or shocked, the majority of those
interviewed by the media came out in favour of a real debate on the legislation
of drugs. The best of the book and the letter which was enclosed with it can be
consulted (in French) on the CIRC's web site.

The book (in French only) has been published by L'Esprit Frappeur. It is
sold by the CIRC and all good bookshops at a democratic price : 10 French
francs (about $2 US).

CONTACT:Jean Pierre Galland tel. 00 33 1 40 09 69 85

fax. 00 33 1 40 09 69 71

73/75 rue de la Plaine
75020 PARIS

Antiprohibitionist Action Report, Year 4, Number 1 (Monthly Roundup
For Activists Of International Drug Policy Reform News, From CORA In Italy)

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:08:26 EST
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: Cora.Belgique@agora.stm.it

Antiprohibitionist action report

January 1, 1998 - (Year 4) #1



Radical | Association federated with Antiprohibitionist | the Transnational
Coordination | Radical Party


OLD - Observatory of laws on drugs


European campaign for the revision
of international conventions


Via di Torre Argentina 76
00186 ROME
E-mail: cora.italia@agora.stm.it


Rue Belliard 97
c/o European Parliament
Rem 5.08
Tel:+32-2-230.41.21 - 646.26.31
E-mail: cora.belgique@agora.stm.it


*CORAnet http://www.agora.stm.it/coranet (in Italian)


Director: Vincenzo Donvito
All rights reserved





Stockholm, 9.1.98 - The biggest Scandinavian newspaper Aftonbladet
published two pages about CORA, defined as a mafia association. The article
is completed by 17 identity photos: these of MEPs who adhere to CORA-PAA:
Parliamentarians for Antiprohibitionist Action, the campaign led by CORA
for the revision of the international conventions on drugs.

Strasbourg, 14.1.98 - The MEPs who featured in the Swedish newspaper
Aftonbladet made a demand to the hierarchy of the European Parliament at
the plenary session as to whether elements for a trial exist. The President
of the EP will formally protest to the Swedish authorities when he visits
Sweden in the coming weeks.



Strasbourg, 14.1.98 - A delegation of the Mafia Incorporated met
journalists, MEPs and the public in order to express their worries about
the dAncona report, whose objective is the decriminalization of soft drugs
and therapeutic freedom. The two mafia leaders Frank DellAlbone and Olivier
Dups, escorted by two bodyguards with machine-guns, explained that
legalization of drugs would cause enormous damage to the drug mafia who
earns its money through the prohibitionist regime.
At the end of the press conference, the two drug barons revealed their real
identities: taking off the sunglasses and borsalino hats, Gianfranco
DellAlba and Olivier Dupuis, MEPs for the Lista Pannella, declared to have
set up this scenario with the aim of drawing public attention to the
dramatic effects of prohibitionism and, in particular to the economic
interests of organized crime, who would of course vote no to the dAncona



Strasbourg, 15.1.98 - The European Parliament decided to send back the
dAncona report to committee for further examination. The rapporteur, Hedy
dAncona (Dutch Socialist, President of the Committee for Civil Liberties
and Internal Affairs and former Health Minister), has expressed hope that
the referral of the report back to committee - due to the large amount of
amendments by both prohibitionists and antiprohibitionists - would permit
the finding of a compromise and a stronger support for the proposal towards
a resolution so that it could be voted at the plenary.
The report - approved in committee with 17 votes in favour, 11 against and
4 abstentions - had found firm opposition from the conservative and
prohibitionist MEPs, allied to British Labour and Scandinavian MEPs (their
refusal to support the rapporteur of their own political group caused great
disconcert amongst their colleagues). In contrast, Radical and Green MEPs
(except Scandinavians) were ready to vote in favour of the report.


For the second year in a row, the General Procurator of the Supreme Court
of Appeal calls for the controlled distribution of heroin in Italy. Judge
Galli Fonseca, has reiterated what common sense suggests, i.e. that
criminality is not produced by drugs, but by prohibitionism, a policy that
denies the right to therapy, treatment and sanitary help to addicts.
Moreover, it leaves the monopoly of substances to organized crime.
Pretending to abolish "evil" prohibition abolishes the right for addicts to
have a life and jeopardize the security of the society.
CORA thinks that the time has now come for the Minister of Health to
"authorize" what the law already set: the right to effective treatments and
the freedom of therapy.


CORA has presented to the EP a petition that calls for the freedom of
treatment and the right to therapy for physicians and addicts around the
Union an in every Member States. The appeal has been endorsed by dozens of
citizens, physicians, psychologists, University Professors, psychiatrists,
politicians, social operators and parliamentarians. Ensuring the freedom of
therapy to medics means to ensure the right to be cured to drug-addicts,
respecting the free circulation of citizens. Europe cannot ignore the
positive experience of some of its cities any longer. The time is now ripe
for antiprohibition policies on drugs; freedom of treatment could be the
first step.


On January 13, Radical founder and leader, Marco Pannella will be tried for
having delivered 250 grams of hashish during a TV program aired on December
1995. This nonviolent action followed analogous actions organized in
previous months in Piazza Navona and at the Porta Portese market.
Contrarily to precedent cases, the prosecutor initially asked for the
dismissal of the case, now the judge - pushed also by the indicted himself
- has asked for the re-opening of the trial with the imputation of free
delivering, and for instigating people to consume hashish. Mr. Pannella
risks up to 6 years in jail. A next hearing has been scheduled for February
3. Other 25 antiprohibitionist activists, among which many directors of
CORA, the Transnational Radical Party and the Lista Pannella are under
indictment or are being tried for civil disobedience performed in Rome,
Milan and Bologna.


United Nations Drug Control Programme, (UNDCP) UnderSecretary-General, Pino
Arlacchi, has signed an agreement with the Talibans for the progressive
eradication of crop - opium poppy - and its conversion. The deal was
recently criticized by EuroCommissioner Emma Bonino and by large sectors of
the international public opinion. Critics point out that Mr. Arlacchi is
dealing with an illegitimate regime that denies and violates the most
elementary human rights.

The proposal of the Mayoralty of Rome and the Region of Lazio regarding the
experimentation of a controlled distribution of heroin to Roman addicts has
finally initiated a political debate: the center-left coalition and the
radicals are in favor, the center right is against.

The case of William Straw, 17, Mr. Blair's right arm Jack Straw's son,
recently discovered while dealing, has provoked an earthquake in the
British political and media world. The journalist who bought some cannabis
from the guy has been arrested - a rare case of arrest in investigative
journalism. The case has re-opened a debate on the legalization in the
country. Jack Straw opposes the legalization but favors medical cannabis.

After the failure of prohibition, the time has come to change the U.S.
policy on drugs. Two articles - one of which by the Director of the
Lindesmith Center founded by George Soros - advocate the decriminalization
of cannabis and call for the controlled distribution of heroin and harm
reduction policies.

Alfred McCoy, an expert on heroin trafficking, has written a book titled
"CIA's Complicity in the World-wide Drug Trafficking" in which he condemns
the counterproductive effects of the American repressive policies on the
(CAMBIO 16-29/12)

The discovery of 10,000 checks coming from an account operated by the Cali'
cartel, which were probably used to corrupt some influential members of the
Colombian political scene, enlarges the scenario of public corruption
involving journalists, politicians and bankers.

The Governor of Chihuahua, Francisco Barrios, estimates that half a billion
dollars per year is used by the Narcos of Juarez City in order to corrupt
journalists, politicians and the police.
(EL PAIS 9/1)

Vienna - the local approach to the drug question is based on prevention,
madicare, substitution and public security. The "Vienna Approach" has given
positive results: during the last three years deaths by OD, as well as the
percentage of consumers, has diminished. Since 1996, there are less
youngsters involved in the business and/or in rehab centers. Despite this
success, in the rest of the country the policy remains a mixture of
repression, moderation and toleration.

In the Voralberg area, deaths by drugs started 20 years ago. Since then 179
people (148 men) have died. Almost half of them died by overdose, the rest
for drug-related questions: AIDS, hepatitis, suicides, incidents, killings.

Hannover - Researchers at a local support center are carrying out tests on
ecstasy outside discos. The initiative is considered with favor by
politicians and the judiciary, with skepticism by the police. The latter
fears that the whole operation can favor dealers and send an assuring
message to young people.

Bern - On January 7, the "Citro" police operation, which targets drug
trafficking, started. 75 officers out of 575 members of the local police,
will be mobilized in order to make the city less appealing to dealers and

In 1997, in the Bremen Region 46 people died by drugs, 30% less than the
previous year. The city has lost the old appeal to narco-tourism.
Nevertheless, all over Germany there remains an increase in the use of hard

The historic "Way of Silk" between Europe and Asia has become the way of
narcotics. The are many couriers and they are all poor, the police is
corrupted, the barons of drugs are a sort of popular heroes. The trip
starts in Afghanistan, which has become the leader of opium production in
the world (2,800 tons a year), at the Afghani border a kilo of opium costs
$50, when it reaches Osch, in central Asia, it is $500, eventually it goes
to Saint Petersburg, where it is refined. When the product called heroin
reaches Germany, costs 80 German marks per gram.

In 1992, Agron Musaraj became the Minister of Internal Affairs of the first
democratically elected Government of Premier Berisha. According to some
countrymen Mr. Musuraj used to have strange contacts with Switzerland, and
apparently is the most powerful dealer of Albania. After the last
elections, he moved to Greece where apparently he lives a very wealthy

During the opening of the "Judicial Year", the General Prosecutor of the
Supreme Court of Appeal, Ferdinando Galli Fonseca, has proposed the
controlled distribution of heroin to serious addicts. The statement has
been received with criticism by the center-right coalition and some other
sectors of the public opinion. 47% of Italians recently interviewed for a
survey, oppose the idea. The center-left Government is prudent because it
says that there is no majority on the proposal.
STAMPA, 11-12-13-14/1, NEUE ZUERCHER ZEITUNG 12/1)

In November the Minister of Health, Bernard Kouchner, expressed his
personal favorable position on medical cannabis. Mr. Kouchner has recently
received a request to import 10 kilos of marijuana for medical purposes.
The request was filed by the Movement for the Controlled Legalization (MLC)
founded by the French lawyer Francis Caballero.

Some Italian missionaries and a journalist have been menaced by the local
drug dealers. According to a denounce by Father Luigi Moretti, in 1997 mobs
have killed at least 70 people in the small missionary community of Capitan
Bano on the Brazilian border.
(CORSERA 14/1)


Yes, I want to be member (send by Email, or fax, or Mail)

Name and Surname ........................................

Address, Post code, City, State ..........................................

Email .....................................

Occupation .............................................

Date of Birth ..............................

Phone	home ..............
	office .................
	fax ......................
	mobile .....................

and I am enclosing a membership fee of .....................
By means of
		/Postal Order to CORA
		/Crossed Cheque	to CORA
		/ccp (only in Italy)
		/Bank Account (choose below)
		/Credit Card type ...........................................
Date ......................

Austria 800 ATS, Belge 2000 Bfr, Denmark 500 DKK, Finland 400 FIM, France
330 FF, Germany 100 DEM, Great Britain 35 GBP, Greece 5000 GRD, Ireland 20
IEP, Italy 100.000 LIT, Luxembourg 2000 Lfr, The Netherlands 100 , LG,
Portugal 5000 PTE, Spain 5000 ESB, Sweden 500 SEK

- no. 010381 to CORA, Deutsche Bank (Abi 3002, Cab 03270), Italy
- no.10067.00101.1032083440/4 to CORA, France
- no. 310107591981 to CORA, Belge

- c.c.p. 53362000 to CORA, Via di Torre Argentina 76, 00186 Roma



The articles posted here are generally copyrighted by the source publications. They are reproduced here for educational purposes under the Fair Use Doctrine (17 U.S.C., section 107). NORML is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit educational organization. The views of the authors and/or source publications are not necessarily those of NORML. The articles and information included here are not for sale or resale.

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: http://www.druglibrary.org/

Next day's news
Previous day's news

Back to 1998 Daily News index for January 1-7

Back to Portland NORML news archive directory

Back to 1998 Daily News index (long)

This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/980101.html