Portland NORML News - Friday, January 9, 1998

Alert - Feds Planning To Close Buyers Clubs (US Attorney In San Francisco
Expected To Issue Decree Closing All Dispensaries In California)

X-Sender: skubby@powernet.net
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 12:03:35 -0700
From: Steve Kubby (kubby@alpworld.com)

Defending The Rights Of Medical Marijuana Patients

Friday, January 9, 1998


As we predicted in a private letter to the buyer's clubs two weeks ago, a
statewide action to seize all assets of the clubs is expected to begin next
week. Look for an announcement today at noon from the US Attorney in San
Francisco, citing obscure drug laws, to justify their crimes.

Defending The Rights Of Medical Marijuana Patients

Board of Directors:
--Steve Kubby ,
--Ed Rosenthal 
--Laura Kriho 

For subscription changes, please mail to  with the
word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line.

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Details Of Fed Action To Close Clubs (Update Says US Attorney Michael J. Yamaguchi
Plans To Seek Injunctions)

X-Sender: skubby@powernet.net
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 13:08:31 -0700
From: Steve Kubby 

Defending The Rights Of Medical Marijuana Patients

Friday, January 9, 1998


SAN FRANCISCO. In an announcement today by U.S. Attorney Michael J. Yamaguchi,
the Federal government is taking the California Buyer's Clubs to court to
get injunctions against them, similar to the original injunction against the

Jeff Jones, the Director of the Oakland CBC today issued an urgent appeal
for defense funds to assist the 10-15 clubs which have been served by
federal agents today. Jones said he and the other staff intend to continue
operating. "We are not going to stop providing medical marijuana to
patients until we are in jail, or until a system has been established which
will provide patients with their medicine," said Jones.


US Department Of Justice Press Release Announces Lawsuits Against Six
California Cannabis Groups (Image File Posted Elsewhere)

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 19:46:57 EST
From: Steve Kubby (kubby@alpworld.com)
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: US DOJ Press Release on Clubs

Dear All,

I have posted today's statement by the U.S. Department of Justice regarding
the Federal Civil Suits filed against the Six California Cannabis Clubs:


[Portland NORML notes - The 3-page image file of the US Attorney's press
release has the headline, "Federal Civil Suits Filed Against California
Cannabis Clubs." It says the suits target six clubs in Northern California,
including Dennis Peron's club, Flower Therapy, the Oakland Cannabis Buyers
Cooperative, Santa Cruz CBC, Ukiah CBC and the Marin Alliance For Medical
Marijuana. The lawsuits charge the clubs with violating federal laws against
distribution of a controlled substance, claim federal laws supersede state law,
and that anyway, the clubs were giving unlimited amounts of pot to nonmedical
users. What California jury is going to buy this?]

Yamaguchi Statement - Suit To Close Cannabis Clubs
(Text Of Press Release From US Department Of Justice)

From: rgivens@sirius.com
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 13:26:47 -0800
Subject: Yamaguchi Statement- Suit to Close Cannabis Clubs

R. Givens notes:

The real issue is the persistent violation of the US Constitution by drug
prohibition laws and enforcement. The feds have NO authority to meddle in
STATE affairs. Neither is there Constitutional authority to regulate
medicine. The 10th Amendment reserves these rights to the States


US Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Northern District of California

January 9, 1998


SAN FRANCISCO, CA -- The United States today filed suit to stop the
operation of six "cannabis clubs" in Northern California. Michael J.
Yamaguchi, the United States Attorney of the Northern California District of
California, announced the filing of six civil lawsuits in federal court in
San Francisco and San Jose that seek to enjoin the operation of six clubs
which openly distribute marijuana to hundreds of individuals each week.

The investigation of the cannabis clubs was conducted by the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Justice Department's Civil Division
and the US Attorney's Office for the northern District of California. The
six clubs and ten individuals named in the lawsuits are:

Cannabis Cultivators Cooperative
Dennis Peron

Flower Therapy Medical Marijuana Club
John Hudson
Mary Palmer
Barbara Sweeney
Gerald M. Buhrz

Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
Jeffrey Jones

Santa Cruz Cannabis Buyers Club

Ukiah Cannabis Buyers' Club
Cherrie Lovett
Marvin Lehrman
Mildred Lehrman

Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana
Lynette Shaw

The federal lawsuits charge the cannabis clubs with the distribution of
marijuana, in violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act. Marijuana
is a Schedule I controlled substance under the Act, along with heroin,
mescaline, LSD, and other drugs that are unsafe for use under medical
supervision, have no currently accepted medical use, and have a high
potential for abuse.

Under the Controlled Substances Act, enacted in 1970, it is unlawful to
cultivate, distribute or possess marijuana, except for research approved by
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and registered with the Drug
Enforcement Administration. "We have acted to halt repeated and widespread
violations of the Controlled Substances Act," Yamaguchi said.

California's medical marijuana statute, Proposition 215, has no effect on
the applicability of federal drug laws, Yamaguchi noted. Although California
appears to have decriminalized the possession and cultivation of marijuana
by patients and "caregivers" for purported medical purposes under state law,
the federal law governing the distribution, cultivation and possession of
marijuana has not changed.

"The issue is not the medical use of marijuana, it is the persistent
violation of federal law. Under our system of federalism, laws passed by
Congress cannot be overridden or supplanted by state law. Federal law
continues to prohibit the distribution of marijuana at the cannabis clubs."
Yamaguchi said.

Federal law requires that drugs may be used for medical purposes only after
they have been proven safe, effective and reliable through a rigorous system
of research and testing. Before drugs are legally marketed and made
available to the public for medical purposes, appropriate tests in
controlled studies must show substantial evidence that the drug is both safe
and effective for its intended use in treating specified diseases or
conditions. Marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in the United
States and has not been approved by federal health authorities to treat
diseases or conditions.

Research into the medical benefits of marijuana, however, is currently being
funded by the National Institute of Health. If that or other research
indicates that marijuana might be medicinally beneficial, it could not be
legally marketed or made available for prescription use until it is reviewed
and approved for medicinal use by the Food and Drug Administration. "Until
marijuana's medical value is proven and a mechanism is developed for its
safe production and distribution, marijuana cannot legally be sold,
possessed or distributed in California or anywhere in the United States,"
Attorney Janet Reno noted.

Yamaguchi described the decision to proceed under the civil provisions of
the Controlled Substances Act as "a measured approach" that enforces federal
law, protects the public health, and sends a clear message regarding the
illegality of marijuana cultivation and distribution. "We will continue to
review our enforcement efforts on a case by case basis and may choose, in
appropriate cases to file criminal charges," Yamaguchi said.

While not directly relevant to the issues involved in the federal lawsuits,
officials sated that federal investigators determined that the cannabis
clubs distributed marijuana to individuals who did not claim to be in severe
pain or suffering from serious illness. Moreover, officials said, the clubs
were lax in verifying "patient" identifications and doctor's recommendations
and did not place limits on the duration of time which a "patient" could
purchase marijuana.

War On Patients To Escalate - Federal Government Announces Plan To Raid
Cannabis Buyers' Clubs (Marijuana Policy Project Press Release)

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 18:28:10 -0500
From: Marijuana Policy Project (MPP@MPP.ORG)
Subject: Federal Government Announces Plan to Raid Cannabis Buyers' Clubs
To: MPPupdates@igc.org

January 9, 1998

War on Patients to Escalate:
Federal Government Announces Plan to Raid
Cannabis Buyers' Clubs

San Francisco -- Today the U.S. Department of Justice announced its
plan to shut down the dozens of not-for-profit medicinal marijuana
dispensaries, known as Cannabis Buyers' Clubs (CBCs), throughout
California. CBC workers who refuse to comply will be arrested.

"The Clinton administration plans to subvert the will of California
voters by arresting the courageous caregivers who help seriously ill
patients obtain medicinal marijuana," said Chuck Thomas, director of
communications for the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy
Project. "Ironically, CBCs would not even be needed if the federal
government would allow licensed pharmacies to distribute medicinal

Proposition 215, passed by California voters in November 1996, calls
on the "federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for
the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in
medical need." While state and federal prosecutors have been working
to subvert Proposition 215, numerous city and county governments
throughout California have established regulations to allow tightly
controlled CBCs to operate.

"Local governments have passed laws to allow CBCs to give patients a
safe, affordable supply of marijuana," said the MPP's Chuck Thomas.
"CBCs undercut organized crime -- patients no longer need to buy their
medicine from drug dealers on street corners. How dare the cruel,
power-hungry federal government interfere with local laws that work?
This `Washington-knows-best' attitude results in drug policies that do
nothing but harm."

When the government starts raiding CBCs, the Marijuana Policy Project
hopes that the media will resist the urge to focus on the one or two
flamboyant CBCs. The public should know that the vast majority are
professional, well-regulated, and tightly controlled.



To support the MPP's work and receive the quarterly
"Marijuana Policy Report," please send $25.00 annual
membership dues to:

Marijuana Policy Project (MPP)
P.O. Box 77492
Capitol Hill
Washington, D.C. 20013


Clinton Administration Sues Six Marijuana Clubs ('San Jose Mercury News'
Notes Last May, A US Judge Blocked Federal Officials From Prosecuting
California Doctors, But That Ruling Did Not Stop The Feds From Going After
Patients And Their Caregivers)

Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 07:24:56 -0500
Subject: MN: US CA: Clinton Administration Sues 6 Marijuana Clubs
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn)
Source: San Jose Mercury News
Author: By Howard Mintz, Knight-Ridder Newspapers. San Jose Mercury News
Staff Writer Jeordan Legon contributed to this report.
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Pubdate: 9 Jan 1998
Editors note: It is unclear (to me) if this has actually been published
yet, or just put on the news wire for Knight-Ridder newspapers.


SAN FRANCISCO -- Putting its weight for the first time behind efforts to
undercut California's voter-approved Proposition 215, the Clinton
administration Friday filed a flurry of lawsuits seeking to shut down six
different Northern California marijuana clubs.

The U.S. Justice Department filed the lawsuits in federal courts in San
Francisco, Oakland and San Jose, attempting to finally resolve a conflict
between federal drug laws and the state ballot initiative approved by
voters in November 1996 allowing the sale of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Federal officials did not move to close San Jose's Cannabis Center, though
word of the Justice Department's offensive produced some panic among the
club's operators and patrons. ``I'm relieved (we were not sued), but I know
we're not out of the woods,'' said Peter Baez, the center's executive
director. ``The federal government will do everything it takes. I'm sure
our time will come.''

The lawsuits name two clubs in San Francisco, including the Cannabis Club
owned by Proposition 215 author Dennis Peron, as well as the Oakland
Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, the Santa Cruz Cannabis Buyers Club and
operations in Marin and Ukiah, Calif.

Justice Department officials are asking the courts to issue injunctions
that would force the clubs to stop selling pot, which presumably would put
them out of business.

Once decided, the lawsuits are expected to have implications for marijuana
clubs throughout California, as well as other states, such as Arizona, that
have enacted similar laws.

In announcing the lawsuits, U.S. Attorney Michael Yamaguchi did not explain
what led to the decision to target certain clubs, or why federal officials
elected to confine the initiative to the Bay Area.

However, other law enforcement officials said Friday that Northern
California has been the focal point of the medical marijuana debate and was
a logical battleground for determining whether the pot clubs can survive
under federal law.

The lawsuits hinge on what has always been considered the most vulnerable
aspect of Proposition 215 -- that marijuana is illegal under federal law,
trumping any state laws permitting its use or sale. ``The issue is not the
medical use of marijuana, it is the persistent violation of federal law,''
Yamaguchi said.

Despite that potential conflict, California voters approved Proposition
215, which allows the possession and cultivation of marijuana if its use is
recommended by a doctor. Since then, medicinal marijuana clubs have opened
in more than a dozen cities throughout the state.

Even though Peron and other club owners vowed Friday to fight the federal
government, most officials familiar with the issue say the Clinton
Administration is certain to prevail in court.

``We've known all along that if the feds wanted to come in, there is a
conflict of law between California and the feds and the feds rule,'' said
Santa Clara County Assistant District Attorney Karyn Sinunu, who supervises
the office's policy on the issue. ``It's first-year law student stuff.''

Since the passage of Proposition 215, federal law enforcement officials had
for the most part remained on the sidelines while California Attorney
General Dan Lungren led the charge against the clubs, particularly against
Peron and his operation. In fact, Lungren's efforts were given a boost just
a few weeks ago, when a state appellate court in San Francisco ruled that
clubs like Peron's cannot sell the drug to patients.

Peron, who defiantly called Friday's federal action a ``show of contempt
for states' rights,'' has indicated he plans to appeal that ruling next
week to the California Supreme Court. Lungren, meanwhile, said through a
spokesman Friday that he welcomed the Clinton Administration's decision to
move against pot clubs.

In an interview earlier this week, Lungren also backed off from earlier
pledges to shut down all pot clubs in the state. Instead, he said he would
take a selective approach. ``The media has made Dan Lungren the czar
against illegal marijuana,'' he said. ``That's just crazy. I don't have the
resources to do that.''

Until now, the Clinton administration appeared unsure of how and whether to
back Lungren. Federal law enforcement officials have been locked in an
internal struggle over how to proceed against California's pot clubs since
at least this spring, when Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided
San Francisco's Flower Therapy Medical Marijuana Club.

Federal sources say that raid provoked heated debate within the Justice
Department, with disagreement among agencies over the best way to enforce
federal drug laws without appearing to trample on the state's voters, who
had enacted Proposition 215.

Last May, a San Francisco federal judge described the Clinton
administration's drug policy as ``fickle'' when she blocked federal
officials from prosecuting California doctors for recommending marijuana to
their patients. But that ruling had no impact on how the federal government
approached the clubs' sale of the marijuana.

Court papers filed in connection with the lawsuits demonstrate that DEA
agents about the same time began a five-month undercover investigation to
gather evidence that the clubs were violating drug laws by selling
marijuana. Yamaguchi said the ultimate decision to file civil lawsuits, as
opposed to charging club owners with criminal violations, was a ``measured
approach'' to the marijuana sales.

According to the government's court papers, DEA agents found that marijuana
was being cultivated in some of the clubs and smoked on the premises of
others, in addition to selling the drug. Like Lungren, federal officials
allege that the clubs have lax standards in distributing marijuana, which
under Proposition 215 is supposed to be sold only to patients with medical
conditions such as pain and nausea associated with AIDS and cancer.

Operators such as San Jose's Baez say their clubs are set up like medical
clinics. In fact, the DA's office and San Jose City Attorney Joan Gallo
have closely regulated the local cannabis club and found it in compliance
with Proposition 215, one reason officials said Friday they believe the
Justice Department decided against including Baez's club in its court fight.

But even those club operators who must now square off against the Justice
Department say they have been wrongly targeted. And they are hoping groups
such as the American Civil Liberties Union come to their defense.

``I thought we were one of the tightest run facilities in the state,'' said
Jeffrey Jones, head of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative. ``We've
abided by all the local resolutions and have had no problems. I don't know
where this came from, but I thought it could happen.''

There is no timetable for the courts to review the Justice Department's
lawsuits. The first step in the process may involving consolidating the six
cases before the same federal judge.

US Moves To Shut Down California Marijuana Clubs (Version From 'Reuters')

Subj: US CA: U.S. Moves To Shut Down California Marijuana Clubs
From: Richard Lake 
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 23:25:48 -0500
Newshawk: Marcus-Mermelstein Family 
Source: Reuters
Pubdate: Fri, 9 Jan 1998


SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Justice filed lawsuits
Friday in a bid to shut down six California marijuana distribution clubs on
the grounds they violated federal drug laws.

The civil lawsuits, filed in federal courts in San Francisco and San Jose,
marked the latest legal skirmish to rise from California's Proposition 215,
the 1996 voter-approved law that legalized marijuana use for people
suffering from AIDS, cancer and other serious ailments.

Michael Yamaguchi, U.S. attorney for northern California, told a news
conference the clubs were operating outside the boundaries of the federal
Controlled Substances Act, which makes it illegal to cultivate, distribute
or possess marijuana except for government-approved research.

``The issue is not the medical use of marijuana, it is the persistent
violation of federal law,'' Yamaguchi said. ``Under our system of
federalism, laws passed by Congress cannot be overridden or supplanted by
state laws.''

Local marijuana advocates reacted with outrage and vowed to fight the
lawsuits in court.

Dennis Peron, maverick founder of San Francisco's Cannabis Buyers Club,
said he would appear in federal court in 20 days to fight the government
request to shut down his organization.

``Until then, we're going to sell a lot of marijuana to our sick and dying
friends who need it,'' Peron said.

Peron, a gay Vietnam War veteran who led the successful campaign to
legalize medical marijuana use in the state, announced last month plans to
run for the office of California governor in 1998.

Peron's bid for governor pits him against his longtime nemesis California
Attorney General Dan Lungren, the hard-line conservative who was one of the
leading foes of Proposition 215.

NORML Opposes Federal Suit To Close California's Medical Marijuana Clubs
(California NORML Rebuts The Feds' Specious Excuses And Pledges To Support
Legal Efforts To Oppose The Lawsuits)

Subj: NORML Opposes Federal Suit to Close California's Medical Marijuana Clubs
From: Richard Lake 
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 06:02:06 -0500

NORML Opposes Federal Suit to Close California's Medical Marijuana Clubs

OAKLAND, Jan. 9, 1998: Declaring its unalterable support for
patients' right to medical marijuana, California NORML announced it will do
everything in its power to defend Prop. 215 by supporting legal efforts to
oppose a federal lawsuit aimed at shutting down California's medical
marijuana clubs.

The lawsuit, announced by Northern California U.S. District
Attorney Michael Yamaguchi, seeks to enjoin distribution of marijuana at
six medical marijuana clubs: the San Francisco Cannabis Cultivators' Club,
the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Club, San Francisco Flower Therapy, the Marin
Alliance for Medical Marijuana, the Santa Cruz Cannabis Buyers' Club, and
the Ukiah Cannabis Buyers' Club.

California NORML denounced the suit as an unconscionable federal
attack on Californians' right to medical marijuana under Prop. 215. "These
six clubs serve 10,000 seriously ill patients in Northern California," said
California NORML coordinator Dale Gieringer, "To throw them out on the
street hardly serves public health or safety. The only people who profit
by this deal are underground street dealers and government drug

Speaking at a press conference at the Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
Club, Oakland City Councilman Nate Miley emphasized the city's strong
support for the club, which is widely regarded as one of the state's model
medical marijuana dispensaries. The club has vowed to stay open so long
as it can fight the law.

In announcing the lawsuit, Yamaguchi claimed that federal law
supersedes Prop. 215, stating "The issue is not medical use of marijuana;
it is the persistent violation of federal law. "

In response, California NORML argues that federal powers are
limited by the Tenth and Ninth Amendments so as to protect Californians'
right to medical marijuana under Prop. 215. "The federal government is
trying to turn the Constitution on its head" argues Gieringer, "Nowhere
does the constitution give the federal government power to tell the states
what kinds of medicine their citizens may use. It took an amendment to
pass alcohol prohibition; where is the amendment banning medical

The government's complaint alleges that illegal use of controlled
substances such as marijuana has a "substantial and detrimental effect of
[sic] the health and general welfare of the American people." However,
NORML notes that this is factually incorrect in the case of medical

The government also alleges that the clubs' activities pose a
"substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce." However, NORML
argues that medical marijuana clubs distribute only small, personal-use
quantities of marijuana to patients within state, and therefore have no
effect on interstate commerce.

The government claims that federal agents bought marijuana at the
clubs. Clubs believe that agents falsified medical claims, relying on the
fact that federal threats against doctors have made it difficult for clubs
to obtain verbal verification of physician's recommendations from their

The clubs have 20 days to reply to the government's lawsuit in
court, unless the government seeks a temporary restraining order to shut
them down earlier. Six separate cases have been filed, one for each club.
If the courts grant an injunction, clubs will risk federal criminal charges
if they continue to operate. Should they continue to operate in civil
disobedience of the law, their cases may ultimately be decided by jury


Dale Gieringer (415) 563-5858 // canorml@igc.apc.org
2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114

CASA Report On C-SPAN (McCaffrey And Califano Hint At Sea-Change
In US Policy - Incarceration For Drugs 'A Failed Social Policy')

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 07:16:52 EST
Subject: CASA Report on CSPAN
From: "Clifford Schaffer" (schaffer@smartlink.net)
To: Multiple recipients of list (november-l@november.org)

The CASA Report press conference on their recent report is being shown
now. The four presenters at the press conference were Colson, Joseph
Califano, Barry McCaffrey, and Jeremy Travis, DOJ

Charles Colson says that mandatory minimums are the most
counterproductive policy possible and that violent criminals are being
released in order to jail nonviolent people on mandatory minimums. He
also said that drugs were just as available in prisons as on the street.

Items below in quotes are direct quotes.

McCaffrey said:

(I am here to) "stand with him (Califano) again on a CASA study"
"nearly 13 million of us use drugs regularly, nearly 4 million who are
addicted" "this is a failed social policy"

"it has become clear to me that when it comes to drug treatment, the
Federal Government won't be the solution" - states will.
in 20 of 23 sites more than 60 percent of adult arrestees test positive
for some drug.

"Fifty percent of the meth users who seek treatment do so because they
felt it causes criminal behavior."

(paraphrasing) we certainly must have treatment in the criminal justice
system "State of Delaware has some incredibly innovative programs."

While Colson talked a lot about the mandatory minimums, McCaffrey didn't
mention them. McCaffrey's main point was more treatment in prison.

Califano talked a lot about the increase in prisoners, saying that soon,
5 percent of all whites, and about 25 percent of blacks would spend some
time in prison. He said that more than one million people are in prison
because of drug or alcohol related crime. "One of every 144 Americans
adults is behind bars for a crime in which alcohol or drugs are
indicated." He made it clear that we were spending a lot of money doing
it and that most of the increase in the prison population was related to

Califano consistently DID NOT break out the difference between illegal
drugs and alcohol, in most of the charts. Then he said,
"We didn't understand it until we did this study, but the number one
drug implicated in violent crime in America is alcohol." He went
through charts on the relation of violent crime and drugs, showing
alcohol way ahead of cocaine and heroin. Marijuana was not on the

"Race in the prison population - these are some of the most disturbing
numbers" (then pointed to a chart which showed equal rates of drug use
in all races) "Drugs are the driving force here, not race"

"One of the reasons we are filling our prisons is because we are not
treating the people in prisons." His next chart was on the gap between
needed treatment and available treatment.

"These individuals in prison are going to be getting out again, and what
are they going to be like when they get out?" (I could swear I had
written that direct quote, but . . . .)

He then presented a chart showing the payoff in the reduction of crime
by drug treatment. If we gave drug treatment to every prisoner who
needed it, it would cost 7.8 billion per year. If it worked for ten
percent, it would return 8.26 billion. "There isn't a businessman in
America who wouldn't salivate at that return."

"Mandatory sentencing laws make no sense." "Mandatory sentence laws are
really a round-trip ticket back into jail and a life of crime."

Califano suggested that any Federal support of state prisons should be
conditioned on treatment being available in those prisons.

"The cost of building a prison cell in NY State today is $153,000."
Charles Hynes, DA, Kings County, NY He stated that huge savings could
be had from treatment.

Califano: "We are still looking at this population as if they were
Bonnie and Clyde, or major drug lords, . .. our prisons are wall to wall
with drug addicts and alcoholics. We need a fundamental change in the
way we look at them."

McCaffrey: "There are probably a quarter of a million people who should
not be in prison . . (but should be in treatment) .. . out in the
community." "Madame Taxpayer, you are going to like drug treatment in
the prison system."

Califano: "We do need law enforcement . . . we need to make drugs less

McCaffrey said that the problem with a drug user probably started when
they started smoking pot and using other drugs, triggering a permanent
brain change setting themselves up for addiction later.

They didn't get it all right, but I heard a lot of things that I and
others have been saying in speeches for several years.

Full Text Of CASA Report On C-SPAN Online

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:01:46 EST
From: "Kelly T. Conlon" (conlonkt@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA)
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: Re: CASA Report on CSPAN

On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Clifford Schaffer wrote:

> The CASA Report press conference on their recent report is being shown now.
> The four presenters at the press conference were Colson, Joseph Califano,
> Barry McCaffrey, and Jeremy Travis, DOJ

Full text is available online:



CASA Converted? (Assessment Of CASA Press Conference By Mark Greer
Of Media Awareness Project)

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 06:52:53 -0800
From: Mark Greer (MGreer@mapinc.org)
Subject: CASA Converted???


There was an absolutely fascinating CASA press conference with Joe
Califano and Barry McCaffrey and a couple of others on C-Span-II
yesterday. I caught a replay late last night. It was the first time I
have ever seen these two without being outraged at lies and

The upshot was that they admitted that the drug use/incarceration model
of drug offenders was destined to fail. CASA conducted a survey recently
(faxed to many of you by Eric Sterling and the CJPF). They have
apparently come to the conclusions that we have known for years. We
can't keep putting drug users in prison because we're going broke. They
had charts and graphs showing how incarceration rates had increased and
how the reason for the increase was drug arrests. They also called
attention to the fact that a very high percentage of all criminals use
drugs regularly or were under the influence when arrested. They mostly
lumped legal and illegal drugs together. They did however show how
minuscule the rate of illicit drug use was as a factor in crime as
compared to alcohol and admitted that this was a big revelation to them.
Marijuana was not mentioned anywhere except that McCaffrey alluded to
keeping kids from trying it and obliquely inferred it was a gateway drug
but it was very obviously missing as a factor in drug
related crime.

They did not go so far as to say our drug laws were flawed (directly)
but did say that drug treatment in prison, some of the treatment models
including a spiritually based program run by one of the other panelists,
and drug courts were a wonderful alternative to imprisonment and that
the eventual objective of dramatically reducing drug related
incarceration was both cost effective and inevitable. This was in my
view a major change of policy and seems to be backed by ONDCP and the
justice department.

They were proud as peacocks at having "discovered" that which we have
been preaching for years but I think this marks a fairly significant
move in our direction if action is actually taken. The end result of
this policy is of course forced treatment and forced drug testing which
is as distasteful to most of us as our drug laws are but beginning to
undermine the incarceration and prison growth rates could begin to
reduce some of the ever increasing growth of the prison and criminal
justice system, could begin to erode support for existing drug policy
and could reduce the number of individuals who support the incarceration

I called C-Span and was told that a call back this (Friday) afternoon at
202 626 7963 would get me scheduling info. It will very likely re air
this afternoon and/or this week end. I'll try to get it on tape and give
a better rundown on what was said but I highly recommend catching it if
possible. It appears to be a very significant change in direction and I
would like to hear the reaction of others to see if they view this as
significant as I did.

Mark Greer
Media Awareness Project (MAP) inc.
d/b/a DrugSense

A Christmas Miracle? (Another Account Of CASA Press Conference
Reports McCaffrey And Califano All But Admitting The Drug War Has Been
A Complete Failure, Announcing A 'Second Front In The War On Crime')

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 00:16:33 EST
Subject: A Christmas Miracle...?
From: "Tom Murlowski" (tmurlow1@san.rr.com)
To: Multiple recipients of list (november-l@november.org)

Hi, all-

I hope you were all watching C-Span-2 tonight. A press conference
took place today at CASA (Center for Alcohol and Substance
Abuse). Attending were Gen. Barry McCaffrey and Director Joseph
Califano, among others. They stated a commitment to a different approach
to drug policy in this country. They called it "The Second Front in the
War on Crime".

They did everything but admit that the drug war has been a complete

Mr. Califano called prisons 'monuments to failure'.
Mr. Califano expressed his complete dismay at mandatory sentencing.
Mr. Califano stated that over a quarter million federal inmates simply
don't belong in prison.

They had charts and facts and figures that showed emphatically and
repeatedly that present policies JUST DON'T WORK!!! A complete waste of
taxpayers money. Treatment is 300% more cost effective and 1000% more
efficient at dealing with recidivism. 80% of the federal prison
population should be removed from other 'incorrigible prisoners',
effectively treated, and returned to society. On and on and on. It was
positively surreal.

These are the men that dictate drug policy in America, folks. Am I being
overly optimistic in thinking that someone in the Clinton administration
has finally pulled his or her head out of his or her ass? (My money's on
Gen. McCaffrey as the driving force behind this. Remember H.R. 2610?).
Can this be the beginning of the end? Or am I being naive and hopeful to
a fault?

I'm under no illusions. My sweetie's not getting out of jail tomorrow.
Legislation needs to be introduced, and fought for, and we have to make
sure the current prisoners of the drug war aren't forgotten. We all have
to keep up the fight. But whether you're fighting for medical marijuana,
full decriminalization, or just to free a loved one from some insane and
cruel prison sentence, we have won a significant victory today, I think.

I would welcome comments or observations from any of you who caught this
press conference today. I almost feel like it was a dream.
May the gods smile upon us all.

Tom Murlowski
Regional Director/Webmaster
The November Coalition
5150 Balboa Arms Drive #E14
San Diego, CA 92117
E-mail: tom@november.org
Web: http://www.november.org

More On New Tack By CASA, McCaffrey And Califano
(Where To Look For Transcript Of Report By Public Broadcasting's
'NewsHour With Jim Lehrer' )
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:48:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Turmoil 
To: hemp-talk@hemp.net
Subject: Re: HT: Fwd: A Christmas Miracle?
Sender: owner-hemp-talk@hemp.net

I saw Mr. Califano on PBS (Macneil-Leher) last night, and I was amazed. I
thought he sounded all the world like a legalization activist. He maid
all the points in this article, in addition he stressed that the NUMBER 1
problem drug, especially in relation to violence was alchohol. He stressed
this several times, he had statsitics for the numbers of people arrested
under the influence of various drugs. I wish I had a transcript, it was
pretty amazing. It looks like on their site, that there may appear a real
audio segment in a few days, that would appear at



Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:47:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Turmoil (turmoil@hemp.net)
To: hemp-talk@hemp.net
Subject: HT: drugs in prison

There is now a transcript of a Jim Lehrer news hour interview with Joseph
Califano and Rep. Bill McCollum (R) Florida - at

It's interesting reading.


Califano Sees Some Light (Untitled 'Associated Press' Wire Story
On The CASA News Conference)

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 19:49:50 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service 
From: Richard Lake 
Subject: MN: US: Wire: Untitled RE: Califano Sees Some Light
Newshawk: Kevin Zeese (kevzeese@laser.net)
Source: Associated Press
Pubdate: Fri, 09 Jan 1998

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A group pressing for increased spending on prison drug
treatment programs reports that 80 percent of the adults in U.S. prisons
are locked up because of criminal activity linked to drug and alcohol abuse.

The report by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse urged
governments, particularly the states, to spend more money to help those 1.4
million inmates kick their habits before they are returned to society. In
addition, the report said prisoners need other services such as job
training, health care and religious instruction.

``The most troublesome aspect of these grim statistics is that the country
is doing so little about them,'' Joseph Califano, president of the Columbia
University-based center, told a news conference Thursday. ``We are talking
about an incredibly insane (prison) system that doesn't make that kind of

At the same gathering, President Clinton's top drug adviser said the
government has begun to spend more on treatment as it focused its efforts
on keeping the nation's teens and children from turning to drugs.

But Barry McCaffrey, director of the White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy, said the federal government alone can't be the solution.
``This is a law-enforcement no-brainer to move toward treatment,'' he said.

The retired Army general said federal spending on treatment programs grew
from $1 billion to $3 billion in the last five years and that government is
experimenting with new programs.

The 281-page drugs report said the tripling of America's prison population,
from 500,000 in 1980 to 1.7 million in 1996, was due mainly to criminal
acts influenced by drugs and-or alcohol.

Most of the inmates, more than 1 million, are housed in state prisons.

Of the 1.7 million total, 1.4 million adult men and women were incarcerated
for behavior influenced by alcohol or narcotics. Among the 1.4
million are parents of more than 2 million children, the report said.

Charles Hynes, the district attorney for Brooklyn, N.Y., said a program
allowing drug offenders to seek residential treatment instead of
imprisonment had helped 325 people since it began in 1990. More than
two-thirds are still employed and paying taxes instead of collecting
welfare, he said.

Alcohol Or Drug Link Found In 80 Percent Of US Prisoners ('New York Times'
Version Of CASA, Califano And McCaffrey Story)

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 19:43:40 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service 
From: Richard Lake 
Subject: MN: US: NYT: Alcohol or Drug Link Found in 80 Percent of US Prisoners
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Source: New York Times
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Pubdate: Fri, 9 Jan 1998
Author: Christopher S. Wren


NEW YORK -- Illegal drugs and alcohol helped lead to the imprisonment of
four out of five inmates in the nation's prisons and jails, a three-year
study has found.

The report, which was released Thursday by the National Center on Addiction
and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, determined that of 1.7 million
prisoners in 1996, 1.4 million had violated drug or alcohol laws, had been
high when they committed their crimes, had stolen to support their habit or
had a history of drug and alcohol abuse that led them to commit crimes.

But while 840,000 federal and state prisoners needed drug treatment in
1996, the report said, fewer than 150,000 received any care before being

"The most troublesome aspect of these grim statistics is that the nation is
doing so little to change them," Joseph Califano Jr., the chairman of the
center that sponsored the report, said in a foreword.

Califano, who served as secretary of health, education and welfare under
President Jimmy Carter, said that releasing inmates without treating their
drug or alcohol addictions was "tantamount to visiting criminals on society."

Such negligence, he said, only sustained the market for illegal drugs and
supported drug dealers.

Alcohol, more than any illegal drug, was found to be closely associated
with violent crimes, including murder, rape, assault and child and spousal
abuse. Twenty-one percent of state prisoners convicted of violent crimes
committed them under the influence of alcohol alone, the report said. Three
percent were high on crack or powder cocaine and only 1 percent on heroin.

According to the report, 69 percent of federal prisoners, 76 percent of
state prisoners and 70 percent of local jail inmates used drugs at least
once a week during the month before they were locked up.

The report did not deal with drug and alcohol abuse by 3.8 million others
on probation and parole, but Mark A.R. Kleiman, a professor of public
policy at the University of California at Los Angeles, estimated that
people under the supervision of the criminal justice system consumed 60
percent of the cocaine sold in the United States.

The report, titled "Behind Bars," said drug abuse fueled recidivism. In
state prisons, it said, 81 percent of inmates with five or more convictions
have used drugs regularly, compared with 63 percent who had two prior
convictions and 41 percent who were first-time offenders.

The report also said the number of inmates and prisoners in the nation had
more than tripled since 1980.

While the link between drugs and crime is already widely accepted, the
report made a strong case for doing more to break the connection.

Califano said in an interview that imposing long mandatory sentences on
addicted drug felons "makes no sense" because it removes their incentive to
undergo treatment in order to get out of prison.

Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, the retired Army officer who directs the White
House's national drug policy, said the study was consistent with a recent
Justice Department forecast of drug use, which showed that more than 60
percent of adult males arrested for felonies at 20 of 23 American
metropolitan areas had tested positive for at least one illegal drug.

The Clinton administration has pushed through legislation that requires
states to test prisoners and parolees for drugs in order to receive new
federal money for prisons.

McCaffrey said he would convene a conference in Washington on March 23 to
examine treatment in the criminal justice system.

"You've simply got to address compulsive drug-using behavior if you want to
reduce crime in America," he said.

The report's researchers, led by Steven Belenko, drew upon an array of
government documents, including Bureau of Justice statistics and Census
Bureau surveys.

Study Links Drugs To 80 Percent Of Incarcerations ('USA Today' Version
Of CASA Report Notes By 2000, One Out Of 20 US Residents Will Spend Time
In Jail, Including One Out Of 11 Men And One Out Of Four Black Men)

Newshawk: KJBLeu (KJBLeu@aol.com)
Source: USA Today
Author: Gary Fields
Pubdate: 9 Jan 1998
Contact: editor@usatoday.com


WASHINGTON - Eighty percent of people behind bars were involved with
alcohol or other drugs at the times of the crime, a report says.

And, alcohol plays a role in a greater number of violent crimes than crack or
powder cocaine, according to the report by the National Center on Addiction
and Substance Abuse at Columbia University in New York.

The three year study released Thursday found that 1.4 million of the 1.7 million
people serving time in the nation's jails and prisons committed crimes while
they were high, stole property to buy drugs, have a history of drug or alcohol
abuse or are in jail for violating drug or alcohol laws.

The 281-page report concludes that criminal activity because of drugs and
alcohol is the overwhelming reason the nation's prison population has risen
nearly 239% since 1980, when 501,886 people were behind bars.

"People think prisons are full of James Cagney types and psychopaths, but they
are actually full of alcoholics and drug addicts, and we can deal with that
through treatment," says Joseph Califano Jr., president of the center and
former secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.

But few of the hundreds of thousands of people who could be turned into
respectable taxpayers and parents are ever treated, Califano says. Instead, they
are released back into the community as criminals.

"We're not protecting the public safety because we aren't treating the problem,
and we're supporting the illegal drug market because we are just sending
customers back."

Among the study's findings:

- - Taxpayers spent $38 billion in '96 to build and maintain the nation's 4,700

- - By 2000, one out of 20 U.S. residents will spend time in jail. That includes
one out of 11 men and one out of four black men.

- - By 2000, taxpayers will pay $100 million a day to incarcerate criminals.

- - Repeat offense rates are direcdy linked to drug use. Forty-one percent of
first time offenders in state prisons used drugs regularly, while 81% of the
people with five or more convictions were habitual drug users.

One of the study's key findings is the prevalence of alcohol in violent crimes.
Twenty- one percent of the people serving time for violent crimes - including
murder, rape, spousal and child abuse and assault - were under the influence of
alcohol at the time the crime was committed. Only 3% of the violent offenders
were under the influence of crack or powder cocaine.

Jack Levin, director of the Program for the Study of Violence and Social
Conflict at Northeastern University in Boston, says the role of alcohol in
violence is not surprising. Neither is the fact that most people ignore that role,
he says.

"It's easy to look at crack addicts as devants and perverts prone to violence," he
says. "It's much harder to see people at a cocktail party that way because that
requires us to look at ourselves."

Congressional Panel Releases Documents Linking Tobacco Companies
And Scientists ('Chronicle Of Higher Education' Reports The Documents Reveal
Many Studies That Have Been Widely Assumed To Be Valid Were Quietly Funded
By Tobacco Companies, Were Not Peer Reviewed And Were Designed To Understate
The Dangers Of Smoking)

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:50:57 -0500
Subject: MN: US: Congressional Panel Releases Documents Linking Tobacco
Companies and Scientists
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Marcus-Mermelstein Family 
Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education
Section: Government & Politics
Author: Douglas Lederman
Pubdate: January 9, 1998
Contact: editor@chronicle.com
Website: http://chronicle.com

Note: The Tobacco Documents on the House Web site are at


Many Of The Studies Were Not Peer Reviewed And Were Designed To Understate
The Dangers Of Smoking

WASHINGTON - A House of Representatives committee last month released
thousands of pages of subpoenaed documents that shed new light on a
long-running campaign by the tobacco industry to quietly influence -- and
sometimes suppress -- scientific research on the health-related effects of

That tobacco companies sponsored academic research is not a surprise; the
industry has long acknowledged using separately incorporated groups to
finance studies that were peer reviewed and, in many cases, scientifically

The new documents, however, provide new evidence about what has been
revealed only recently: that the tobacco companies, through their lawyers,
funneled money to sponsor research that was not peer reviewed and that was
designed, in many cases, to understate the dangers of smoking.

The fact that the companies' lawyers approved the research enabled the
lawyers to shield the study results from public view, under the legal
principle of attorney-client privilege. That meant that the lawyers could,
if they chose, insure that any unfavorable results never saw the light of
day. The approach also insured that scientists themselves could be kept
from testifying against the industry in court if their research was
critical of tobacco.

Representative Thomas J. Bliley, the Virginia Republican who heads the
House Commerce Committee, subpoenaed the documents in November from four
tobacco companies that are defendants in a lawsuit brought by state
officials in Minnesota. Mr. Bliley made the papers public after the judge
hearing the Minnesota case, Kenneth J. Fitzpatrick, ruled that they were
not protected by attorney-client privilege, because they contained evidence
of crime and fraud.

The top Democrat on the Commerce Committee, Representative John D. Dingell
of Michigan, said in a statement that the papers reveal a "massive funding
of 'helpful' researchers," a process in which, at the direction of their
lawyers, the tobacco companies "appeared to fund the entire livelihood of
dozens of researchers."

A preliminary review of the documents suggests that some scientists and
institutions indeed received significant sums from the "special projects"
funds overseen by the companies' lawyers.

A summary of the money spent from those funds in one year, 1989, shows at
least $1.6-million flowing to about 15 projects. One of the recipients,
Washington University, received $300,000 that year, and as much as $500,000
in other years, to support a cancer-immunology laboratory at its medical

Paul E. Lacy, a professor emeritus of pathology who helped coordinate the
Washington project, said the lab focused on basic research that had
"nothing at all to do with smoking." He said the tobacco companies never
pressured the university or tried to shape its work in any way.

"I think they were enthralled with the research that was being done, though
that may sound corny to you," said Dr. Lacy.

Another beneficiary of the tobacco largesse was Gary L. Huber, who received
funds from the industry for 25 years of work at Harvard University, the
University of Kentucky, and the University of Texas Health Center at Tyler.

In a January 1989 letter released by the House panel, a lawyer for Shook,
Hardy, & Bacon, the Kansas City, Mo., firm that coordinated the
special-projects fund, proposed that it cover as much as half of Dr.
Huber's salary to free him to do a massive review of existing studies on

"Purchase of Dr. Huber's time in this manner will enable him to spend more
time selecting and analyzing the most significant scientific literature for
our use," the letter said. It added that his work would prove "especially
useful" in developing "state-of-knowledge arguments," presumably for use in
liability trials.

Dr. Huber and officials of the Texas health center said they were wary of
accepting money from the tobacco companies and were perplexed about the
lawyers' role. But they secured promises that "we were going to publish our
information freely and openly," said Richard Kronenberg, executive
associate director for clinical affairs at the health center.

Although some of Dr. Huber's work questioned the dangers of tobacco, both
he and Dr. Kronenberg said that over the years he was involved with the
tobacco companies, they had seen no evidence that the companies ever tried
to influence their work or suppress negative reports.

But last year, lawyers for states seeking to sue the tobacco companies
showed Dr. Huber internal tobacco-company documents that convinced him he
had been duped. One document said the companies had sponsored his work at
Harvard as a way of improving "public relations, political relations,
position for litigation, etc." Dr. Huber said the documents also made clear
to him that the tobacco industry had, by withholding damaging information
about its products, "delayed scientific progress by 10 to 15 years."

He decided to testify against the tobacco companies in litigation brought
by state officials in Texas. The companies have sought to suppress his
testimony, citing the fact that the work he did was covered by
attorney-client privilege. A judge will rule on that question soon.

Dr. Kronenberg said that the Texas center would never enter into such an
arrangement today, and no longer accepts tobacco money. "It gets to the
heart of who should support research, and what kinds of research money
should an academic institution take," he said. "Do you take from the
pharmaceutical industry but not tobacco? At this point, I'd say Yes,
because the tobacco industry has shown itself to be corrupt from the
standpoint of manipulating academic institutions and researchers."

Researchers and experts on scientific ethics say deciding whether to accept
tobacco money is one thing; much harder, they say, is resolving issues
raised by Mr. Dingell in a letter he wrote to accompany the recently
published tobacco documents: Do researchers tell their institutions enough
about the "nature of their financial support?" Do universities exert enough
oversight over the nature of the research their scientists conduct?

Such questions are crucial at a time of dwindling federal support for
research, said Marcel C. La Follette, a professor of international
science-and-technology policy at George Washington University. "We can't
afford" to stop accepting private research money, she said, "but it's very
important for universities to attack this issue of how funding can be
accepted, how researchers' independence and integrity can be protected
within the institution."

More disclosure by researchers to their institutions, and more oversight of
researchers by the institutions, will help, said Paul J. Friedman, a
professor of radiology at the University of California at San Diego. "But
the protections won't come easily, because when you close one loophole,
somebody finds another.

"To paraphrase, the price of honest research is eternal vigilance."

Colleges Eye Restrictions On Promotions By Brewing Companies ('The Chronicle
Of Higher Education' Reports Administrators On Campuses Across The US
Are Reconsidering Lucrative Relationships Between Their Athletic Departments
And The Alcoholic-Beverage Industry)

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:45:44 -0500
Subject: MN: US: Colleges Eye Restrictions on Promotions by Brewing Companies
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Marcus-Mermelstein Family 
Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education
Section: Athletics Page: A57
Author: Jim Naughton. Julianne Basinger contributed to this article.
Pubdate: January 9, 1998
Contact: editor@chronicle.com
Website: http://chronicle.com


But Lucrative Advertising On Televised Games Is Unlikely To Be Stopped

When McKinley Boston was director of men's athletics at the University of
Minnesota-Twin Cities in 1994, he negotiated a contract with the Miller
Brewing Company that allowed the brewer to install signs in the
university's athletics arenas and to use Minnesota's mascot, the Golden
Gopher, in the company's advertising.

That contract, worth $150,000, expired in June. This past fall, the
university's athletics department asked Dr. Boston, who is now
vice-president for student development and intercollegiate athletics of the
university system, about signing a similar contract, worth $225,000, with a
different brewer.

This time, he said No.

"Being in a new position, I was able to get a big-picture view of what was
happening," says Dr. Boston, who announced his decision last month. Over
the fall, that picture included the alcohol-related deaths of students at
the Louisiana State University and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology; the need for 14 students from the Twin Cities campus to enter
alcohol-rehabilitation programs; and an increase in alcohol-related
assaults on that campus.

"I just personally felt like it was the right thing to do," Dr. Boston says
of his decision. "I just felt like we were sending students a mixed message."

Because the university's negotiations with the Minnesota Brewing Company
were almost complete, however, he chose not to leave the brewer in the
lurch, and recommended shortening the deal to one year instead of three.
The decision still must be approved by Mark G. Yudof, the system's president.

Administrators in Minnesota are not the only ones rethinking the
relationship between college athletics programs and the alcoholic-beverage

Last fall, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill joined Baylor
and Brigham Young Universities in the small group of those that refuse
alcohol advertising in their arenas and on radio broadcasts of games.

In November, California State University at Fresno removed from its arena
an inflatable silver tunnel that resembled a can of Coors Silver Bullet
beer after a player had left the men's basketball team to deal with a
substance-abuse problem.

And last month, the Big Ten and Pacific-10 Conferences failed in an effort
to persuade the city of Pasadena not to sell beer at the Rose Bowl.

"I think it is unnecessary and inappropriate for institutions of higher
learning to lend themselves to this kind of advertising, especially given
the kinds of alcohol-abuse problems that most campuses are facing," says
William DeJong, director of the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and
Other Drug Prevention.

Jeff Becker, vice-president for alcohol issues at the Beer Institute, a
lobbying organization sponsored by the industry, says that beer companies
abide by a strict marketing code, and that people like Dr. Boston are
"making a connection between beer signs and alcohol abuse that doesn't exist."

The National Collegiate Athletic Association does not collect information
on its members' relationships with the beer and wine industries. Frank D.
Uryasz, the N.C.A.A.'s director of sports sciences, says most colleges do
not sell beer or wine in their athletics facilities. "But when a college is
using an arena off-campus, then you are going to see beer sales," he adds.

Postseason football games are a case in point. According to Dave Jacobs,
general manager of the Rose Bowl Operating Committee, beer is sold at 15 of
the 16 bowl games recognized by the N.C.A.A. Only the Fiesta Bowl, which is
held on the campus of Arizona State University, does not sell beer. More
than 103,000 fans attended the 1997 Rose Bowl, and purchased about 30,000

Many institutions that do not sell beer at their games have a commercial
relationship with a brewing company or a local distributor, says Wally
Renfro, director of public affairs for the N.C.A.A. Typically, these
relationships involve arena advertising, but at Fresno, Miller Lite has
sponsored a men's basketball game this season, and the team's coach, Jerry
Tarkanian, appears in advertisements for Budweiser. The university will not
say how much money it receives from the arrangement, in which the beer
company receives extra advertising and a high profile in the program.

Elise Lenox, director of alcohol-abuse prevention at Stanford University,
says she understands the pressure on athletics directors to increase their
budgets. "We are fortunate to have Pepsi as a major sponsor, and that is
the only sign you see on our scoreboard," she says. "But I think that for
schools that aren't well-resourced, it is very tempting to accept the
industry's money."

The prevalence of beer advertising aimed at college students, she argues,
creates "the impression that everyone is drinking all the time," and leads
some students to assume that if they are not drinking alcoholic beverages,
they are missing an important part of collegiate social life.

But Jason Giebel, a junior majoring in advertising at the University of
Minnesota, disagrees. "At our age, we don't get intrigued to try everything
we see," he says. "Just seeing a sign for a beer is not going to make you
want to take a drink."

In 1989, Richard D. Schultz, who was then executive director of the
N.C.A.A., met stiff resistance, both from within the association and
without, when he attempted to reduce the visibility of alcohol advertising
in college athletics.

"The beer companies were major advertisers for some of our members, and we
got a lot of pressure from breweries other than those that sponsored the
telecasts," says Mr. Schultz, who is now president of the U.S. Olympic

He succeeded in persuading the membership and the television networks to
lower the proportion of beer-and-wine advertising to one minute per hour on
telecasts of N.C.A.A. championships; restricting the space devoted to beer
and wine in the programs and scorecards for N.C.A.A. championships to 14
per cent; and prohibiting beer companies from sponsoring championships.
"That was as far as we could go," he says, "because of the networks.

"They had concerns about their contracts with advertisers, and their sales,
and certain First Amendment rights that they believed everybody had."

CBS did not respond to telephone calls. Ronnie Faust, director of corporate
communications at ESPN, which also televises N.C.A.A. championships, says
the network does not "divulge financial figures."

Mr. Schultz left the N.C.A.A. in 1993, and the issue has not been pursued
by his successor, Cedric W. Dempsey.

The restrictions have had little impact on the amount of alcohol
advertising on college-sports broadcasts, because the rights to
regular-season games are controlled not by the N.C.A.A., but by individual
conferences, most of which have no restrictions on such advertising.

Because the beer industry is perhaps the biggest commercial supporter of
college athletics, the development of restrictions is unlikely, says Joel
Nielsen, associate athletics director at Wake Forest University.

"For the networks to turn them away, that would be cutting their own
throats," he says. "And for the conferences to request it would be
shortsighted. Your rights fees would go way down."

Without some kind of collective action, however, Ms. Lenox of Stanford says
it will be difficult for individual institutions to break "this link that
has been established through the years between sports -- collegiate and
professional -- and beer."

A bill sponsored by U.S. Representative Joseph P. Kennedy II, a
Massachusetts Democrat, would restrict the content of alcohol advertising
between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Its aim is to minimize children's exposure to
cartoon-like advertising characters such as the Bud-Light penguin and the
Budweiser frogs. The measure is currently before the House Commerce
Committee, and an aide to the Congressman says its prospects are "not
particularly bright."

Nor is the issue on the N.C.A.A.'s agenda. "I find it hard to imagine that
our membership would begin to develop legislation that on a national basis
would restrict the members in their relationship with advertisers," says
Mr. Renfro of the N.C.A.A.

That pleases Mr. Becker, of the Beer Institute. "If you had to choose the
best audience in the world for a beer advertiser, it is 21-to-34-year-old
men who participate in sports and are avid sports fans," he says.

The fit with the college-football audience, he says, is "hand in glove."

Drug Prohibition To Blame (Letter To Editor Of 'Houston Chronicle'
Rebuts Paper's Opinion That Drugs Are Destroying American Users
While Corrupting Law Enforcement And Politicians)

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 22:23:43 -0800
Subject: MN: US TX: PUB LTE: Drug Prohibition to Blame
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Art Smart 
Source: Houston Chronicle
Contact: viewpoints@chron.com
Pubdate: Fri, 09 Jan 1998
Website: http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/


The Chronicle's Dec. 30 editorial ("Anti-drug force") said illegal drugs
are "destroying a generation of young American users, while corrupting law
enforcement and politicians in Latin America countries from Mexico to

I have devoted most of my life to studying drugs and you're wrong. Drug
prohibition causes corruption -- the drugs themselves are incapable of it.

Corruption caused by drug prohibition occurs all over the world, and is not
confined to Latin America.

A rational drug policy, requiring all drugs to be regulated by government
agencies instead of allowing them to be manufactured and peddled by
criminals with little or no interest in the public's welfare, would reduce
the harm currently being caused by drugs and would eliminate the harmful
effects of drug prohibition.

G. Alan Robison
Executive Director, Drug Policy Forum, Houston

Judicial High In California - By William F. Buckley, Jr. (The Conservative
Columnist Thinks The DEA Overstepped In Stealing The Computer
Of Millionaire Author And Medical-Marijuana Patient Peter McWilliams)

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 23:21:51 -0500
Subject: MN: US CA: Judicial High In California - by William F. Buckley, Jr.
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Marcus-Mermelstein Family 
Source: Medical Marijuana Magazine
Contact: http://www.marijuanamagazine.com/
Editors note: Our newshawk writes: "This is a piece written by William F.
Buckley (certainly a "brand name" journalist) and posted on Peter
McWilliams' web site." We do not, as a rule, post items from publications
which are only web based. This is an exception.


Long live California, even if we aren't always sorry we don't live there.
The news two days ago was something on the order of a Whiskey Rebellion
mounted by Californians who want to smoke their cigarettes, dammit, and to
hell with that new law that makes smoking illegal except in your own
cellar. Where will it end? The scent of rebellion has reached New York
City, where the mayor has hesitated to sign the new law making it illegal
to advertise cigarettes within a thousand feet of a school-building. Do we
have the beginning of a national movement?

And of course California is the crucible of the medical marijuana movement.
That mess makes the Augean stables look like spilt tea. What happened is
Proposition 215, passed in November of 1996. What it says is that a doctor
can authorize in writing or orally the use of marijuana by any patient
seeking relief from the assorted pains marijuana usefully addresses; and
authorized patients may cultivate their own supply of marijuana. The law
has been criticized for reasons implausible and plausible. It is, really,
quite dumb for lay critics of marijuana to prattle on about how there are
other means (pills) to bring equivalent relief to those who suffer. That
question is as easily disposed of as taking the testimony of one or one
hundred people who have tried the pill without effect, but get relief from
smoking marijuana. On the other hand it is obviously true that people who
egged on Proposition 215 professing only concern for the afflicted are,
many of them, just plain rooters for marijuana legalization.

Which brings the story to Peter McWilliams. I have for him the reverence
you have (those of you who use word processors) for the person who
introduced you to the computer. He wrote a book about computers so lucid
and engaging it became a best-seller. He went on to become a syndicated
columnist on cyberworld, but simultaneously he pressed other pursuits,
poetical, photographic, and philosophical. He is the absolute Number One
anarchist in America on matters having to do with personal conduct. He has
paid a heavy price for pursuing his passions, suffering now from AIDS and
from cancer.

Now Peter McWilliams is a publisher (Prelude Press) whose books have made
ten appearances on the New York Times best-seller list, and this time
around he retained one Todd McCormick to do a book on marijuana growing --
for the afflicted. Mr. McCormick proceeded to grow, in a pasture behind a
little house in Bel Air purchased with money advanced by McWilliams, not
one marijuana plant but four thousand. McCormick had had experience in
Amsterdam and was engaged in writing a book on the general subject. Bang!
Six thirty in the morning, nine DEA agents crash into McWilliams' house
finding him at work on his computer. They simultaneously tell him he is not
under arrest and handcuff him. They spend three hours going over every
piece of paper in his house (they find one ounce of marijuana, which is
within the California legal limit) and walk away with his computer. That is
the equivalent of entering the New York Times and walking away with the
printing machinery.

Well, the ACLU, which is right twice a day, is on to the McWms' ((sic))
case and is asking the right questions and there will be interminable
arguments and counter-arguments, and a certain amount hangs on the outcome,
given that a finding of guilt on all counts including conspiracy to
manufacture and sell marijuana could put McWilliams away with a life
sentence and a four million dollar fine. There are those who believe that
is going too far; on the other hand there are also those who believe that
24 hours in the cooler is also going too far, to say nothing of nine agents
at 6:30 A. M. barging into your house with handcuffs.

There is, obviously, a judicial shortcircuit in play here. California says
something that sounds like Okay. On the one hand there is the federal war
on drugs, with General Barry McCaffrey up there like George S. Patton
defying all obstacles to pressing his war. The difference is that Patton
succeeded and McCaffrey is not succeeding and never will. Anthony Lewis of
the New York Times reminds us that in 1980 the Feds spent $4 billion on the
drug war, now $32 billion and the number of people in jail on drug charges
went up by the same multiple of eight: from 50,000 to 400,000. How to proceed?

Not, one hopes, with more dawn break-ins and removal of computers. Peter
McWilliams reports an ironic turn. For his illness he smokes every day. But
after you do that for a few weeks you cease to get a high. Marijuana
becomes just something that stops nausea, eases pain, reduces intraocular
pressure, relaxes muscles, and takes the "bottom" out of a depression. So
where do we go from here? To jail?

Washington A Test Market For Anti-Drug Ads ('Washington Post'
Notes The Federal Government Is Funding An Anti-Drug Series
Of Television Ads Debuting In Washington, DC)

Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:56:08 EST
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: "Kelly T. Conlon" 
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: "This is your Brain on Drugs"... its baaaack!

The fact that the rhetoric of the PDFA hasn't progressed much further
beyond the "fried egg" commercial of the late 1980s is remarkable. What
are these guys smoking?

Source: Washington Post
Contact: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Pubdate: Friday, January 9, 1998
Author: Maria Elena Fernandez, Washington Post Staff Writer


The woman in the commercial smashes an egg to show what a brain on drugs
looks like, then claims the yolk dripping from the frying pan is what a body
on drugs feels like. Then she goes on a rampage breaking plates and glasses,
declaring: "This is what your family goes through."

The television ad -- part of a $195 million anti-drug advertising campaign
launched by the White House and aimed at America's youth -- was one of four
spots previewed yesterday by 200 fourth-, fifth- and sixth-graders at
Lafayette Elementary School in Northwest Washington. The fast-paced,
thought-provoking ads, which began airing on local television stations in
Washington last night, will be viewed locally in 11 other cities before they
are shown nationally in June.

Marijuana Clogs Lungs With Tar (Letter To Editor Of 'Toronto Star'
Cites Evidence Disproving Contention Of Canadian Council On Drug Abuse)

From: creator@islandnet.com (Matt Elrod)
To: mattalk@islandnet.com
Subject: Sent: LTE: Marijuana clogs lungs with tar
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 10:50:30 -0800
Sent To - 'Toronto Star'
Lines: 42

To the editor,

Concerning the letter of Jan. 9 from Fred Bruford of the Council on Drug
Abuse, (Marijuana clogs the lungs with tar), Mr. Bruford cited a 1988 study
by Dr. Donald P. Tashkin of UCLA which he claims concluded, "marijuana
smokers inhaled into their lungs three times as much tar as did tobacco

This is not correct. The study compared the tar content of cannabis leaves,
(not the commonly smoked flowers), to the tar content of tobacco, and
concluded that, back in 1988, cannabis leaves contained, on average, three
times more tar that tobacco leaves. It did not conclude that cannabis
smokers inhaled three times as much tar as tobacco smokers.

A later eight-year study of cannabis smokers by Dr. Tashkin, published in
Vol. 155 of the American Journal of Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine
(1997), concluded, "Neither the continuing nor the intermittent marijuana
smokers exhibited any significantly different rates of decline in [lung
function]" as compared with those individuals who never smoked marijuana.
The study went on to say, "No differences were noted between even quite
heavy marijuana smoking and nonsmoking of marijuana." These findings
starkly contrasted with those experienced by a control group of
tobacco-only smokers who suffered a significant rate of decline in lung

A study completed over four years ago, (NTP TR 446, NIH Publication No.
94-3362, U.S. D.H.H.S., National Toxicology Program.), gave huge doses of
the primary therapeutic constituent of cannabis, tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC), to rats and mice by stomach tube, and looked for cancers and other
evidence of toxicity. In both mice and rats, in both males and females,
"the incidence of benign and malignant neoplasms ... were decreased in a
dose-dependent manner", meaning that the more THC the animals were given,
the fewer tumors they developed. This may be due in part to THC being an
extremely potent stimulant of the natural, (and prohibited), cancer
fighting hormone melatonin.

Matthew M. Elrod Phone: 250-[867-5309]
4493 [No Thru] Rd.
Email: creator@islandnet.com
Victoria, B.C.

[Elrod is responding to this letter, appearing in the same day's 'Toronto Star']

>Newshawk: carey.ker@utoronto.ca
>Pubdate: Friday, 09 January 1998, Letters, page A21
>Source: Toronto Star
>Contact: LetterToEd@thestar.com
>It is outrageous that Terry Parker was given a platform
>under the header "Letter of The Day" to give false
>information about marijuana (Marijuana long known as a lung
>cleaner, Dec. 31).
>The accurate reality about the effects of marijuana on the
>lungs was established in 1988 by researcher Dr. Donald P.
>Tashkin of UCLA, California. His study concluded that
>marijuana smokers inhaled into their lungs three times as
>much tar as did tobacco smokers.
>When his study was published, Tashkin said: "The bottom line
>is that smokers of just a couple of joints a day cannot lull
>themselves into a false sense of security that they will
>escape the pulmonary consequences of smoking just because
>they're smoking so few joints."
>The true information is that marijuana clogs the lungs!
>Fred Burford
>Council on Drug Abuse


Marijuana-Growing Causes Fire ('Not Uncommon For Us To Find Marijuana
At A Fire, But It Is Unusual To Find An Operation Of This Scale,'
Says Firefighter In London, Ontario, According To 'London Free Press')

From: creator@islandnet.com (Matt Elrod)
Subject: Marijuana-growing causes fire
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 08:54:20 -0800
Lines: 51
Source: London Free Press (Ontario)
Contact: editor@lfpress.com

January 9, 1998


CREDIT: By Jonathan Sher -- Free Press Reporter

It's not often firefighters joke about the smell of smoke but it's
not every day they're called to extinguish a fire caused by a
large-scale marijuana operation.

"We were tripping over stuff. There were pot plants everywhere,"
London District Fire Chief John Griffeth said of a fire Thursday at a
home on Huron Street.

The rented house was sparsely furnished with a television and
refrigerator, leaving the rest of the residence for a pot-growing
operation, firefighters said.

The fire was sparked by electrical cords used to power the pot
operation, Griffeth said.

Firefighters arrived at the residence about 8:30 a.m. and put out the
fire within 15 minutes.


"It was almost a laboratory. The pot was growing upstairs in several
bedrooms . . . . There were extension cords, water hoses, ventilation,
upstairs and downstairs. The pot was bagged in the basement," he said.

"It was definitely too big for just personal use -- it was for

"It's not uncommon for us to find marijuana at a fire. But it is
unusual to find an operation of this scale," he said.

No one was found at the residence.

London police seized the marijuana and have launched an
investigation. Griffeth said police know the identity of the renter,
but did not disclose his name.

The fire began from an electrical cord that went through a floor
joist to the basement, the fire marshal's office determined.

Burning inside the floor, the fire produced thick smoke that caused
$50,000 damage, Griffeth said. But while a part of the basement
ceiling collapsed, the marijuana plants escaped unscathed.

The Week Online With DRCNet, Issue Number 24 (Weekly News
From The Drug Reform Coordination Network)

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 19:52:00 EST
Sender: drc-natl@drcnet.org
From: DRCNet 
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue #24

January 9, 1998 -- ISSUE #24

( To subscribe to this list visit
http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html or

We've extended our year-end offer for free copies of
Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts -- just donate $30 or more
to DRCNet, and we'll send you a copy of the book, worth
$12.95, plus a year's membership worth $25. Send your
checks to: DRCNet, 2000 P St., NW, Suite 615, Washington,
DC 20036, or use our secure credit card form at



2. WAR ON PATIENTS TO ESCALATE: Federal Government
Announces Plan to Raid Cannabis Buyers' Clubs


subscribers are urged to respond!










14. "SMOKE A JOINT, LOSE A LIMB?": Pending Mississippi Bill
Threatens Dismemberment For Convicted Drug Violators







Hello again, and Happy New Year to all of our friends and
subscribers. Thanks to everyone who took the time to e-mail
their holiday wishes to us. Please know that although many
of you told us how happy you were to have us around, we are
even happier to have you out there, writing letters, sending
us your local stories and generally raising your voices
against this disastrous War.

While 1997 was certainly an exciting year for the reform
movement, it is beginning to look as if 1998 will turn out
to be THE year that the war becomes an albatross hanging
around the necks of its supporters. Mandatory minimum
sentences, medical marijuana and needle exchange all figure
to see positive movement at both the state and federal
levels this year in the US, and cannabis legalization will
be one of the major issues in Europe over the next twelve

In June, the United Nations will be holding its first-ever
Special Session of the General Assembly on the issue of
narcotics. This will be an event which will capture the
world stage, and plans are already in the works for a
weekend of protest events to take place around the globe to
coincide with the opening of the session. DRCNet will be
participating in a leadership role in those plans, and will
be providing ongoing info on the developments to this list.
So stay tuned.

In November, voters in a number of states will be voting on
drug policy-related ballot measures. This will provide an
opportunity not only to change laws, but to widen the debate
on the national stage. Our subscribers have already
contributed mightily to the growth of that debate, and, with
aggressive plans getting underway to promote this service
and bring in thousands of new subscribers, that impact will
increase exponentially this year.

So stay tuned, and stay active. The tide has turned and
momentum is now in our favor. With the drug warriors
certain to furiously defend the faltering regime to which
their stars are hitched, it is more important than ever to
make our case, and to make it well. Keep in mind that one
day your children or grandchildren will learn in school
about this sad chapter in the history of American and global
justice and compassion, and you will be able to tell them
with well-deserved pride that you were a part of the
solution. And that will be a message which will serve them

Adam and Dave


2. WAR ON PATIENTS TO ESCALATE: Federal Government
Announces Plan to Raid Cannabis Buyers' Clubs

The following is a press release from the Marijuana Policy
Project, http://www.mpp.org:

San Francisco -- Today the U.S. Department of Justice
announced its plan to shut down the dozens of not-for-profit
medicinal marijuana dispensaries, known as Cannabis Buyers'
Clubs (CBCs), throughout California. CBC workers who refuse
to comply will be arrested.

"The Clinton administration plans to subvert the will of
California voters by arresting the courageous caregivers who
help seriously ill patients obtain medicinal marijuana,"
said Chuck Thomas, director of communications for the
Washington, DC-based Marijuana Policy Project. "Ironically,
CBCs would not even be needed if the federal government
would allow licensed pharmacies to distribute medicinal

Proposition 215, passed by California voters in November
1996, calls on the "federal and state governments to
implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable
distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need."
While state and federal prosecutors have been working to
subvert Proposition 215, numerous city and county
governments throughout California have established
regulations to allow tightly controlled CBCs to operate.

"Local governments have passed laws to allow CBCs to give
patients a safe, affordable supply of marijuana," said the
MPP's Chuck Thomas. "CBCs undercut organized crime --
patients no longer need to buy their medicine from drug
dealers on street corners. How dare the cruel, power-hungry
federal government interfere with local laws that work?
This 'Washington-knows-best' attitude results in drug
policies that do nothing but harm."

When the government starts raiding CBCs, the Marijuana
Policy Project hopes that the media will resist the urge to
focus on the one or two flamboyant CBCs. The public should
know that the vast majority are professional, well-
regulated, and tightly controlled.

(Stay-tuned to the DRCNet rapid-response-team for info on
how to help with this situation.)



DRCNet has learned, from sources within the European
Parliament, that all 60 of British Labour's EP members have
received direct orders from 10 Downing Street to vote
against the adoption of the recommendations contained in the
report prepared by the EU Parliamentary Commission on Drugs.
The report's recommendations included the adoption of a
harm-reduction approach to the use of drugs and the
decriminalization of possession of cannabis, among other
things. You can read the report online at
http://www.drugtext.nl/eu/drugseu.html. (DrugText is
maintained by DRCNet advisory board member Mario Lap, our
source for this exclusive.)

The vote, which is tentatively scheduled for Monday, January
12, comes at a time when the debate over the legal status of
cannabis has reached a furious boil in the UK. (See story

In addition, the Blair government has apparently ordered the
60 to vote in support of Swiss Amendments to the report
which would reaffirm a strict Prohibitionist stance. These
amendments will be available online soon, and DRCNet will
keep you updated.


subscribers are urged to respond!

1998 has just begun and already it is becoming apparent that
this will be the year when the Drug War loses its sacrosanct
status as a policy above question in respectable circles.
In the past two weeks, both Ann Landers, the scion of
sensible heartland values, and Anthony Lewis, nationally
syndicated columnist, have taken the opportunity to lambaste
America's repressive and counter-productive drug policy.

Ms. Landers' criticisms were leveled in, of all places, her
annual Christmas column, in which she said, in part:

"The 'war on drugs' has turned out to be a colossal failure.
The number of homicides is staggering. Guns and knives are
standard equipment among teenagers.... While alcohol is
still the most abused drug of all, marijuana and stronger
substances like crack cocaine and heroin are common-place in
junior and senior high schools. The dropout rate is
appalling. Why should a kid stay in school when he can get
rich dealing drugs? This is the message that too many young
people are getting."

Ms. Landers' brave stance presents an enormous opportunity
to educate millions of people, both in the US and abroad,
who are concerned about "drugs" but who have not given a
thought to the wisdom of Prohibition. It is imperative that
she hear from us, and that we make it clear that drug policy
reform is vital to both the health of nations and the well-
being of children. Contact information (including e-mail)
for Ms. Landers is included below.

Anthony Lewis, in his column of Monday, January 5,
highlighted Ethan Nadelmann's recent piece in Foreign
Affairs magazine. Lewis' piece ran in papers across the
country, including The New York Times, the Boston Globe, and
the International Herald-Tribune.

Lewis' column is titled "The Noble Experiment" (a reference
to America's failed alcohol prohibition) and it closes with
the following paragraph: "A good many Americans, including
police chiefs and doctors, believe that it is time for a
change in our failed drug policy. It is our political
leaders who are afraid to change. It will take someone with
the courage to say that the emperor has no clothes - someone
like Senator John McCain - to end our second, disastrous
noble experiment."

We at DRCNet urge all of you to take a moment to send a note
to Ms. Landers, papers which carried the Lewis column, and
to Senator McCain (to urge that he take Mr. Lewis' advice
and stand up on the issue.)

CONTACT INFO: You can send letters to Ann Landers, c/o
Chicago Tribune, 435 North Michigan Avenue, P.O. Box 11562,
Chicago, IL 60611.

Reaction to the Anthony Lewis piece can be sent to your
local paper, if it was carried, or else e-mail to

Senator John McCain can be contacted at 241 Russell Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC 20510,

You can read Ethan Nadelmann's article from Foreign Affairs
at http://www.lindesmith.org/library/foreigna.html



In issue #23 of The Week Online, we told you about the
"Light in the Window" campaign being promoted by the
November Coalition, designed to draw attention to the
hundreds of thousands of non-violent drug offenders who are
in prison. However, we neglected to acknowledge the person
and organization who originated it: Richard J. Schimelfenig
of the Delaware Cannabis Society and Delaware NORML. The
idea seems to be catching on and spreading. Please visit
the original light in the window web site at



On January 1, former federal prosecutor Rudolph Giuliani
took the oath of office to begin his second and final term
as Mayor of New York City. As expected, drugs were high on
his list of priorities.

"Four years from now, when the next mayor of New York City
stands here, I want the newspapers and the magazines around
the nation to be writing about how New York City led America
to a drug-free America."

Giuliani promised to hire an additional 1,600 cops, and to
get more aggressive against the drug trade. These promises
come on the heels of a Guiliani initiative to crack down on
drug sales within Washington Square Park, famous centerpiece
of Manhattan's Greenwich Village. Over the past several
weeks, both buy-and-bust and sell-and-bust operations have
been run in the park, which encompasses two square blocks.

Aaron Wilson of the Partnership for Responsible Drug
Information, a New York-based organization promoting a
dialogue on drug policy, told The Week Online, "The
Washington Square Park initiative demonstrates, in
microcosm, the problems with enforcement-based policies.
The dealers are still around the park, but now they're on
the side streets, where people live. It's the classic push-
down, pop-up problem. You can install surveillance cameras,
as Giuliani is already doing, and chase the trade around,
but it doesn't go away, it just moves." Wilson added, "And
the entire strategy ignores the fact that most of the drug
trade in New York is conducted indoors, with beepers and
home delivery, or through networks of friends. Guiliani's
road to a 'drug-free New York' will be littered with the
lives of thousands more young African Americans and Latinos,
which is not the way that rational people should want to
ring in the new millennium."



On December 31, Reuters News Service reported that New
England is now the fastest-growing US market for Colombian
heroin. George Festa, DEA special agent in charge of New
England told Reuters "The purity of the product is what
really concerns us. We've made street buys with purity of
95%, even 97%."

That level of purity simply dwarfs the potency of heroin
available in the past. This trend has had two major
effects. The first is that heroin can now be snorted or
smoked, rather than injected, which tends to cut down on the
sharing of syringes, and thus the spread of AIDS. The other
side, however, is that the ability to use heroin without
injecting it could lure new users who would not have tried
the drug otherwise. Reuters reports that bags of heroin are
available on the streets of Boston for as little as $4. The
skyrocketing purity, the low price, and the fact that large
quantities of Colombian heroin are making it all the way up
to New England is a striking indication of just how
ineffective the strategies of interdiction and enforcement
have been in controlling the black market.

George Kenney, a long-time harm-reduction advocate now
working with Community of Color Outreach in Roxbury
Massachusetts, told The Week Online, "There's certainly no
shortage of heroin on the streets up here, and they're
right, it is cheap. The state health department has finally
started a pilot needle exchange program, and it seems to be
going well, but its not enough to address the problem.
There are so many sea ports up here, its just impossible to
keep the stuff out. We need to get less punitive, and start
spending more time thinking about how to reach people where
they are, instead of threatening them and chasing them back
into the shadows, so that we can help them to move into
recovery, or at least help them to stabilize their lives so
that they can prepare to make the decision to get clean."



This week will, or should, mark the beginning of the Federal
Government/Partnership for a Drug Free America mass media
campaign. The campaign, which will combine up to
$195,000,000 of taxpayers' money with matching donations
from business and media entities, will kick off in twelve
test cities, er, soon. The campaign was originally
scheduled to begin last October, and was later put off until

The campaign will feature ads on TV and radio, as well as an
Internet presence, which has yet to be formally outlined.
Commenting on the Internet portion of the plan, Drug Czar
Barry McCaffrey told CNN's Sunday Morning, "we're going to
go on the Net and talk to children and their parents about
why drugs will kill you."

In the past, the Partnership's ads have been criticized for
being based on hysteria, rather than on facts, and that
these tactics tend to lead kids to disregard otherwise
important information on the real dangers of specific

Dr. Joel Brown, Director of the Center for Educational
research and Development, and author of "In Their Own Words"
as study of California's school-based anti-drug program,
told The Week Online, "As a scientist, there is no evidence
that media campaigns prevent anyone from using drugs. What
we need to do is to begin the process of providing help to
the kids that need it, and to provide real, factual
information about these substances so that we can avoid the
tragedies which come from a lack of knowledge."

Asked, by CNN's Sunday Morning whether he still believes in
interdiction, McCaffrey answered that "you still have to
work with our international partners," but "that's going to
be a supporting aspect of a prevention, treatment strategy."
DRCNet would note that of the more than $17 Billion in 1997
federal anti-drug spending, less than one third was
earmarked for education, prevention and treatment combined.

You can find Dr. Brown's study, "In Their Own Voices" on the
Lindesmith Center web site, at http://www.lindesmith.org.



This Week, the San Francisco Chronicle reports on the work
of Father Leonidas Moreno, a Catholic priest in the town of
Pavarando, in northwestern Colombia. Pavarando has recently
become a virtual refugee camp, housing as many as 10,000
people who have fled the southern part of the country to
escape violence and death at the hands of paramilitary
groups and aerial bombardments by the Colombian army in the
province of Riosucio.

The Center for Research and Popular Education told The
Chronicle that a campaign, begun in mid-December by
paramilitary groups, aims to "cleanse" the Riosucio region
of political insurgents and their alleged supporters, and
has led to the massacre of dozens of peasants.

It is well-known, though rarely admitted, that the
paramilitary groups are aligned with elements in Colombia's
military. It is also widely understood that these groups
perform much of the "dirty work" of a military that has
gotten a great deal of international attention due to its
abominable record on human rights. Late last year, the
Clinton Administration agreed to provide $150 million
dollars in military aid and equipment to Colombia to support
its "anti-narcotics" efforts in the southern half of the
country. The real purposes for which the equipment would be
used was muddled by Colombian officials however who told the
press that it was free to use it however it saw fit within
the southern, rebel-controlled half of the country.

According to a Human Rights Watch report cited in the
Chronicle article, paramilitary groups grew and multiplied
soon after the US government sent a team of CIA and US
Military "advisors" to Colombia to improve the "efficiency
and effectiveness" of their military. The report also notes
that this cooperation between the US advisors and the
Colombian military "provided a blueprint for... a secret
network that relied on paramilitaries not only for
intelligence but to carry out murder."

The brutality of these groups is also well-documented, with
innumerable reports of the killing, often by machete, of
women and children, as well as live dismemberments.

Coletta Youngers of the Washington Office on Latin America
spoke with The Week Online about the situation in Colombia.

"The paramilitary groups originally emerged out of an
alliance between the Colombian military and the landowning
and economic elites, who set up what were then known as
Vigilantes. Major drug traffickers, of course, represent a
portion of those elites. The groups were legal, and
operated in outright cooperation with the military until the
late 1980's when they were outlawed. Ties to the military
remained strong after that, although those relationships
vary from region to region."

"As to the military aid that the US recently promised to
Colombia, that aid has been delivered only to the police,
navy and air force. The aid which has been earmarked for
the army has been held up because under the Leahy bill, the
US government is prohibited by law from providing assistance
to individual military units which have been responsible for
human rights violations and which have not been held
accountable by trial. Due to the recent spate of massacres
in the southern, coca-growing region of the country, they
are still searching for a unit of the Colombian army which
would be eligible under this provision."

You can visit the web site of the Washington Office on Latin
America at http://www.wola.org. Human Rights Watch has a
site at http://www.hrw.org.



On December 22, Panamanian officials announced that
negotiations had been completed which would turn Howard Air
Force base into a "multi-national" anti-narcotics center
rather than have it revert to Panamanian control when the
canal is turned over in 1999. 2,000 US troops will be
stationed at the base.



Signatures are now being collected throughout the state of
California for a 1998 ballot initiative which would legalize
the cultivation of hemp for industrial purposes in that
state. 433,269 valid signatures will be required to qualify
the initiative for the ballot in November of '98. The
initiative was proposed by Sam H. Clauder II.

For more information, or to send a donation, contact:
Sam H. Clauder II cdpr@gte.net
Alan Mason grassroots@worldnet.att.net
Clifford Schaffer schaffer@smartlink.net

NOTE: DRCNet will let you know as soon as the language of
the initiative is available on the net.



For nearly two weeks, the question was the talk of Britain:
"Who was the prominent cabinet minister whose son was caught
dealing cannabis to an investigative journalist?" British
law forbids the publication of the names of minors accused
of crimes, and so a court order had been issued which
effectively banned the naming of the government official.

But in an age of electronic communications, governments are
finding that of all prohibitions, the prohibition of
information is hardest of all to enforce. In fact, by the
time the court order was lifted, and it was revealed in the
British press that the minister in question was none other
that drug warrior Home Secretary Jack Straw, there was
barely a soul in England who had not already heard the news.

Straw's 17 year-old son allegedly sold approximately $17
worth of cannabis to a reporter who was following up on a
tip she had received concerning the young man's activities.
The reporter subsequently went to local police to turn over
the small bag of marijuana, and to tell them how she had
gotten it. She was immediately arrested for possession. At
this time, neither the youth nor the reporter are expected
to face more than a stern warning from the magistrate.

But the implications of the incident have gone much deeper
than the legal outcome of the case. Britain, awash in a
debate over the legal status of cannabis ever since the
Independent on Sunday newspaper began its highly publicized,
and widely supported legalization campaign in September, is
now in the throes of a raging national argument. Straw,
whose office is ultimately responsible for drug control
policy in Britain, had already been at the center of the
storm with his repeated admonitions that legalization of
cannabis was simply out of the question, and assurances that
it would not happen. Recent events have not made his job as
PM Tony Blair's drug war mouthpiece any easier.

Straw will get to share some of the burden now, however, as
this week marked the official beginning of the term of the
UK's first Drug Czar, Jack Hellawell. Hellawell, along with
Straw, has been buffeted in recent months with calls for a
Royal Commission to study the issue. True to the
prohibitionist M.O. however, they have steadfastly refused
to consider naming a commission, even as they claim that
they "welcome debate". Many members of Parliament in
England, including several from Blair's Labour Party, have
called for a change in the law. And despite the wishes of
the ruling party, and prohibitionists across England, that
call seems to be getting louder.

A recent call-in poll by The People newspaper found 83% of
respondents in favor decriminalization. And while polls of
that type are notoriously unscientific, the result at least
indicates that proponents of change are more actively
concerned with the issue than their opponents. Combined
with the stunning recent recommendations out of the French
Ministry of Health conference on drug policy, as well as the
report by the European Union Parliament's committee on drug
policy and other related events on the Continent, the issue,
and the call for reform, is not going to go away anytime
soon. We'll keep you posted.



On Jan. 2, the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, a
group made up of many of the nation's chiefs of police,
released a stunning report on the prospects (or, rather, the
lack thereof) for enforcement to have an impact on the
problems associated with drugs. The report notes that
despite vastly increased spending, law enforcement has
failed to make a dent in either supply or demand, and
indicates that upholding the law is in many cases harmful
and counterproductive. "On one hand, there is the public
expectation that they (police officers) will uphold the law
and proceed against drug offenders," the report says, "on
the other hand, it is widely recognized that street-level
policing can actually lead to harm to both drug users and

The report notes that cannabis laws, and their enforcement,
may well have the effect of pushing users toward the
purchase and use of harder drugs, and points out that
efforts targeting drug dealers had been singularly
ineffective. It goes on to cite the steady increase in
availability, and decline in price of drugs on the street as
just one indicator of the failure of enforcement as a tool
of drug policy. The report comes several months after the
federal government cancelled, at the last minute, a proposed
experiment in heroin maintenance modeled on the successful
Swiss trials. That decision brought much condemnation from
both inside and outside the government. Australian press
reports at the time claimed that the US State Department had
made substantive back-room threats against Australia's legal
opiate industry if the trials were held.

To find out more about the reform movement in Australia,
visit the web site of Family and Friends for Drug Policy
Reform at http://www.wps.com.au/druglawreform/.


14. "SMOKE A JOINT, LOSE A LIMB?": Pending Mississippi Bill
Threatens Dismemberment For Convicted Drug Violators

(This story reprinted with permission of the NORML
Foundation, http://www.norml.org).

Jan. 8, 1998, Jackson, MS: Persons found guilty of
possessing marijuana in Mississippi could face the removal
of a limb if proposed legislation becomes law. House Bill
196, introduced by Rep. Bobby Moak (R-Lincoln County),
authorizes "The removal of a body part in lieu of other
sentences imposed by the court for violations of the
Controlled Substances Law."

NORML Executive Director R. Keith Stroup called the measure
"political posturing at its most extreme. This is a truly
barbaric proposal that shocks the conscience." Moak told
reporters that he introduced the legislation because he felt
the state wasn't doing enough to combat drug use. Moak
admits, however, that the measure has slim chances of
passing. Provisions in the bill mandate that the convicted
person and the court "must agree on which body part shall be


-Peter Kempner for DRCNet

On Jan. 7, 1998 the Fairfax County Virginia School Board
reversed itself and rescinded the five-day suspension, and a
thirty-day suspension from extracurricular activites, of a
twelve year-old student on charges of possession of drugs.
The suspension, originally imposed under the school's "zero-
tolerance" policy, had so angered the girl's family that
they had retained an attorney to fight it. In the end, the
charges were dropped at a hearing presided over by Don P.
Sheldon the school districts Area I superintendent. In his
decision Sheldon wrote "Because of her otherwise unblemished
disciplinary record, her good academic record, and the
particular facts involved, I have decided to clear Nicole of
this charge and not impose any disciplinary action." The
offending substance? Advil.

The school policy under which the suspension was originally
imposed makes no differentiation between illegal drugs such
and legal medications. In addition, Regulation 2102.3,
which describes the types of "nonprescription drug not
authorized as medication" includes "aspirin, Tylenol,
gargles, ear drops, eye washes, ointments, Pepto-Bismol,
cough suppressants and the like." The attorney for the
student told the Washington Post, "We're not disputing the
regulation in regard to illegal drugs, or even prescription
medications ... We're talking about the fact that school
officials are interpreting the policy to cover all kinds of
.. products. From that standpoint, a student could never
know what is right or wrong."

The incident which brought on the charges took place on a
school bus when another girl asked the student whether she
had something for a headache. The student pulled a small
bottle of Advil from her bag, but remembering school policy
against handing out medications, decided not to give the
pills to her schoolmate. It was too late, however, as the
bus driver had seen the bottle and promptly reported it to
school authorities.

(Read about similar incidents and other youth issues in
issue #1 of Highlights from the Week Online, at


-Peter Kempner for DRCNet

This week in Buena Park California, Reverend Wiley Drake of
the First Southern Baptist Church announced plans to launch
a ballot drive to place on the ballot an initiative aimed at
giving jurors the option to reject unjust laws. The measure,
if passed, would require judges to instruct jurors that they
have the right "to acquit the defendant, or find him/her not
liable for damages" if they, the jury, find that a law is
unjust or that the application of it would be unjust.

Drake and the First Southern Baptist Church were each found
guilty in July 1997 of four misdemeanor counts of violating
city laws by housing the homeless at the church. The pastor
claims that jurors on the case later apologized "for their
misguided conviction" in the case.

This is not the first time that the doctrine of "jury
nullification" has been touted as a citizen-based solution
to fighting unjust laws. Law school professor Paul Butler
from the George Washington University Law School has been
teaching his students jury nullification for years as a way
to fight unjust drug laws which he feels disproportionately
target African Americans and other minorities. Many critics
of jury nullification say that if passed this initiative
would be found unconstitutional because it violates a
person's right to equal protection under the law.



Leading drug policy reform organization seeks highly skilled
master's-level public policy director. Must understand
major reform issues: medical marijuana, pain control, asset
forfeiture, mandatory minimums. Will build coalitions,
develop action strategies and coordinate advocacy efforts
with new allies to advance shared agenda. Will prepare
testimony and policy papers. Exceptional communication
skills, familiarity with public health and criminal justice
issues essential. Send resume and salary requirements to:
Public Policy Search, Drug Policy Foundation, 4455
Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite B-500, Washington, DC 20008-
2328. (A more lengthy description of the position will be
made available on the DRCNet web site next week.)



It was a bitter cold New Year's Day in New York City, and
Rudolph Giuliani, former US Attorney, had just taken the
oath of office to officially begin his second, and by law
his final term as mayor. His inaugural speech, delivered to
a group of 5,000 shivering but loyal supporters, was vintage

In it, Giuliani took much of the credit for the 30%
reduction in crime during 1997. That the reduction in crime
mirrored a stunning national trend, or that much of it can
be explained by factors which are out of the control of
politicians, were not mentioned. This came as no surprise,
however, as Giuliani has amassed such a reputation for
expansive self-evaluation that New York Magazine is
currently running an ad campaign which describes their
publication as "perhaps the only good thing in New York for
which Rudy hasn't taken credit." (Last month a state court
threw out Giuliani's lawsuit against the magazine for the
unauthorized use of his name.)

But perhaps the statement which showed the greatest level of
hubris (in New York we call it "chutzpa") was not one in
which Giuliani took credit for something he had done, but
one in which he anticipated credit for something he plans to
do. Standing in his suit jacket on that bitterly cold
podium, Rudy said (with a straight face, we're told) "Four
years from now, when the next mayor of New York City stands
here, I want the newspapers and magazines around the nation
to be writing about how New York City led America to a Drug-
Free America." As a first step toward his planned
annointment as the St. Patrick of the Drug War, Giuliani
plans to hire 1,600 additional cops.

To be sure, Rudy had been less than secretive since his re-
election in November about his plans to focus on drugs in
his second term. As a prelude, a police initiative had
already been operating whose goal is to eliminate drug-
dealing from Washington Square Park, in the middle of
Greenwich Village. Reporters from local papers who have
visited the park have indicated that this effort isn't going
very well, with "smoke" still being offered regularly to
visitors in and around the famous site. But Giuliani has
reiterated his determination to clear the park of dealers,
going so far as to install surveillance cameras at various
locations and instituting reverse stings, or "sell-and-
busts" with undercover officers posing as dealers and
arresting would-be buyers of nickel and dime bags.

The operation in the park, and the difficulties in making it
work, only serve to illustrate the absurdity of a "drug-
free" New York City, much less a drug-free America.
Washington Square Park is two square blocks of relatively
open real estate, with very few places for drug dealers to
hide. The fact that intense focus on even this tiny area,
out of a city of enormous geographical size and a population
of around 8 million, cannot make the drugs disappear, ought
to show Rudy that even he cannot make the Drug War work.

Rudolph Giuliani's hopes for receiving credit for leading
all of America toward "drug-freeness" from his office in
City Hall are an indication of his future plans. A rising
star in the Republican Party despite their well-documented
spats over such issues as his endorsement of Democrat Mario
Cuomo in the New York's last gubernatorial race, Rudy has
set his sights on national office. The buzz in New York
political circles is that his next race will be for the
governorship, with an eye toward the White House. That
governorship is currently held by George Pataki, the man who
defeated Mario Cuomo in a result which surprised many
people, not least of whom, Rudolph Giuliani. Pataki is also
said to be interested in a run for the White House.

But the question, albeit one which would have sounded
ludicrous a very short time ago, is whether a staunch
prohibitionist, one who continues to tout a law-enforcement
approach to the drug problem, will even be electable by the
time Rudy is ready to run for President. Judging by
international events, and the rising movement for reform in
America, the War, at least as Rudy knows it, could well be
over by then. Or at least it should be seriously winding
down. Where will Rudy and his sell-and-bust operations be

To be fair, Giuliani probably does not belong to the most
vile class of drug warrior. He is, in the words of long-
time reform activist Aaron Wilson, a "true believer." From
all indications, Rudy honestly thinks that enough firepower,
or surveillance, or prisons, can win the war. The question,
then, is whether his enormous ego will prevent him from
learning from his mistakes, and from the mistakes of others.
Because if not, there is a good chance that he will make the
error of trying to prove himself right at all costs --
arresting and brutalizing thousands upon thousands of his
own constituents in an attempt to beat them into submission.
Such tactics, in arguably the most important city in the
free world, could shine a huge spotlight on the inherent
failure of Prohibition, and greatly hasten its demise. But
perhaps this wouldn't hurt Rudy's chances for national
office at all. Because if that happens, and the Drug War
ends, he'll be totally justified in taking the credit.

Adam J. Smith
Associate Director



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 8-14

Back to Portland NORML news archive directory

Back to 1998 Daily News index (long)

This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/980109.html