------------------------------------------------------------------- Methods, Safety Scrutinized After Shootout ('The Oregonian' Examines Tactics Of Portland's Marijuana Task Force In Wake Of Officer's Death During Warrantless Break-In - 'Knock-And-Talks' Result In Busts Only Half The Time - Electric Company Acts As Member Of Task Force - In 1996, Task Force Arrested 733 People, Confiscated $2.1 Million In Cash, Property, Including 42 Houses, 14,425 Cannabis Plants Valued At Nearly $29 Million - $2,000 Each) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 18:30:12 -0500 From: "R. Lake"
Subject: MN: US OR: Methods, Safety Scrutinized after Shootout To: DrugSense News Service Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: Roger Dodger Source: The Sunday Orgonian Section: Front Page Author: J. Todd Foster of the Oregonian staff Pubdate: 1 Feb 1998 Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.oregonlive.com/ METHODS, SAFETY SCRUTINIZED AFTER SHOOTOUT The 'knock-and-talk' tactic for gaining entry to a suspect's house without a warrant comes under renewed examination in light of last week's deadly confrontation Alane Loehr's grow light was perfect for nurturing her umbrella tree and cactus in the dead of winter. The Northeast Portland plant lover never expected her 1996 birthday present to lure marijuana detectives to her front door. Loehr was fair game under the Portland Police Bureau's "knock-and-talk' method of confronting suspected pot growers when there's no probable cause for a search warrant. Prosecutors and police say innocent people such as Loehr are minor casualties in the war on drugs. Knock-and-talks, they say, are the cheapest, quickest and usually safest weapon in their arsenal. Residents don't have to let police in, but most do and are accountable if any contraband is found. In 1996, the last year for which statistics are available, the bureau's marijuana task force arrested 733 people and confiscated cash and property, including 42 houses, worth $2.1 million. They nabbed 14,425 pot plants worth nearly $29 million. Knock-and-talks can be triggered by confidential informants, calls from angry neighbors, excessively high or low utility bills, or purchases of grow lights. The routine police tactic lost its innocence and obscurity Tuesday, however, when Portland Officer Colleen Waibel and members of the bureau's marijuana task force walked into an apparent ambush. Waibel, 44, became the first Portland policewoman killed in the line of duty. Two other officers were wounded. Police say they found marijuana in the house where suspect Steven Douglas Dons, 37, lived. They also found a large cache of dangerous weapons, including an SKS semiautomatic rifle that allegedly was used to kill Waibel. Her death has galvanized criminal defense attorneys and civil libertarians: They want the bureau to end knock-and-talks. The technique leads officers to drugs only half the time, according to court and bureau records, and is nearly as likely to yield finds such as tomato plants, orchids and Loehr's umbrella tree. Critics also decry what they see as a financial incentive behind knock-and-talks: Prosecutors generate city revenues by seizing the homes and asses of convicted marijuana growers. Sometimes, those homes belong to otherwise law-abiding, working hippies caught in a time warp, said Philip Lewis, a Portland criminal defense attorney. "It's like shooting fish in a barrel," he says. "Most of these people are recreational growers who just want to get high." But Assistant Police Chief Lynnae Berg, who heads the investigations branch, defends the tactic. "We have found it to be a very valid and successful technique, and we will continue to use it," Berg says. As for forfeiture money being the driving force behind knock-and-talks, Berg says: "I think that assertion is ludicrous. . . . The marijuana task force is a unit recognized around the state for their professionalism. This is really some of the cream of the crop of our officers, and I'm extremely proud of them." TACTIC ADAPTED TO CASES IN '80'S Knock-and-talks are as old as crime and punishment. The consent-search technique long has been used to gain access to vehicles or to question murder suspects and witnesses. Consultant John Schlim, a nationally known instructor of the method, says drug detectives adapted it for use about 1985. It has caught on nationwide and in Europe and Canada, says Schlim, a 30-year police veteran in California who spent half his career enforcing narcotics laws. The concept is simple: If police suspect someone is dealing drugs, they confront the suspect with a knock at the door and ask to search the premises. Schlim says nearly all residents, even those who have something to hide, oblige. Waibel is only the second police officer to die as a result of a knock-and-talk, he says; a Los Angeles officer died in 1996. "You're making contact with dope dealers, for crying out loud," Schlim says. "Sooner or later, bad things have to happen. It's just the law of averages." Nothing suggests that the firefight Tuesday at 2612 S.E. 111th Ave, could have been avoided. Dons refused to answer his door the first time drug detectives knocked. Then an officer reported the smell of marijuana plants and telephoned for a search warrant. While police waited, Dons allegedly fed pot plants into his wood stove. Smelling their evidence and seeing it waft out the chimney, Waibel and four other officers used a concrete stepping stone to bash down the front door. They immediately were met by at least 10 shots. Dons was hit once in the chest by return fire and remains in critical condition at OHSU Hospital. John Bradley, the first assistant to Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk, says knock-and-talks are the next best thing to search warrants, which can be difficult to obtain. "If you didn't have them, you'd have drug houses and little you could do about it," Bradley says. QUESTIONS ABOUT DETECTING SMELL One of the criminal defense bar's chef complaints is that Portland police, when they don't get the homeowner's consent to search, often get a warrant by swearing to a judge they can smell marijuana plants. Nashville chemist and smell expert Jim Woodford, a nationally recognized court expert who has testified at several Portland drug trials, says police sometimes can smell marijuana if the plants have bloomed. But he once persuaded a federal judge in Portland to suppress marijuana evidence by proving federal agents could not smell the plants upwind from more than 300 feet. Woodford also is responsible for an Ohio case in which that state has ruled smell alone is not probable cause for a warrant. It's not that police are lying, he says, but a phenomenon known as Coueism, named for Emile Coue, a psychologist who died in 1926. His theory is based on the concept of selective perception: Narcotics officers smell marijuana because their brains tell their noses to smell it, Woodford says. "People think marijuana has a distinctive smell like bacon," he says, "It has a very subtle plant odor." Portland attorney David McDonald says knock-and-talks are a successful police strategy but push civil rights to the brink. "If I had a hound dog with this kind of a nose, then I'd be the most successful raccoon hunter in the history of the Ozark bottomlands," McDonald says. The marijuana task force knocks on eight to 10 doors a week but on average finds pot at only four or five, according to Portland Police Officer Kim Keist, who testified to the figure during a July 29, 1996, deposition in an asset forfeiture case. Keist was wounded in Tuesday's shootout and is in fair condition at Legacy Emanuel Hospital. Defense lawyers particularly dislike a police tactic of staking out indoor lighting and gardening stores -- a practice confirmed during a Nov. 13, 1995, deposition by task force Sgt. Jim Hudson, who was wounded in the hand in Tuesday's raid. Police also acknowledge in depositions and court cases that they receive tips from Portland General Electric about customers who might be stealing power to grow pot or those with wattage fluctuations. PGE spokeswoman Vickie Rocker said the utility's diversion unit cooperates with police to curb power theft. Keith and Marlilee Tillstrom say task force members visited their Southeast Portland home last month. The couple had suffered a power failure, and PGE never relocked their meter after repairs. A meter reader might have suspected the worst, speculates the couple, who complied with the police search and, though innocent, felt violated. "Is PGE an arm of the police department? I'm incensed," Marilee Tillstrom says. Oregon City lawyer John Henry Hingson III, former president of he National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, says the Fourth Amendment prohibits unwarranted searches and seizures. "Unfortunately, those who toil in the vineyards of criminal defense would say that the Fourth Amendment has shrunk to the third and a half," he says.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Methods, Safety Scrutinized After Shootout - Taking Precautions (Different Version Of 'Oregonian' Article On Shooting Death During Portland Marijuana Task Force Warrantless Break-In) (Different from previous article) The Oregonian oregonlive.com February 1, 1998 email@example.com Officers and experts say the recent series of traumatic events will give police a heightened sense of vulnerability and a greater drive to take precautions By Dan Hortsch of The Oregonian staff Most people don't start the day wondering how many others in their line of work died yesterday. Or last month. Or last year. Most people aren't police officers. "When these men and women go to work every day, they put on bulletproof vests and guns and other equipment," said Dave Simpson, a former Portland Police Bureau homicide detective. "Most of us go to work and worry about the color of our shirt." The difference is significant. Police officers stepping outside each day might wonder whether this is the day they will face someone who wants to kill them and tries to act on that impulse and hatred. The shooting deaths of two Portland officers in the past six months and shooting attacks on other officers in the past two weeks make starting each shift a potentially tense moment for survivors and their colleagues. Not just for Portland officers but also for officers throughout the region. That tension, current and former officers say, probably will translate into a heightened, protective awareness of potential problems, even in seemingly routine situations. Officers might take precautions they might not have previously. Beyond that, police will rely on continuing discussion, updated training and standard procedures designed to keep them safe. "There is a natural tendency in that kind of business to not always recognize how vulnerable you can be," said Simpson, a 29-year veteran of the bureau who retired five years ago and went into private security. "It is human nature. You do it so much, it is hard to stay on the edge all the time." Recent events involving Portland and other officers have provided a stark reminder of the need to keep that edge. The public, some say, can help ease tension by understanding an officer's role and cooperating even when they know the situation is innocent. The immediate shock and sense of loss is from the death of Portland Officer Colleen Waibel, 44, who was gunned down Tuesday during a drug raid. Two other officers were wounded, one seriously. In July, Portland Officer Thomas L. Jeffries, 35, was shot and killed as he searched for a suspected gunman in a darkened back yard. Two weeks ago, a Portland sergeant making a traffic stop was shot but saved by his protective vest. And about 12 hours after Waibel died, a man fired at Portland police, who returned fire, killing the man. A day later, state and local officers in Umatilla County in Eastern Oregon shot and killed a man who had been firing at them with the same kind of weapon used to kill Waibel. 159 officers killed in 1997 To put the matter in national perspective, 159 federal, state and local law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty in 1997. That was an increase from 116 fatalities in 1996, the lowest since 1959, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, based in Washington, D.C. The average this decade has been 151 deaths each year. Of 1997's total, 70 were shot to death, and five died of knife wounds. Six died in falls, and most of the rest died in vehicle accidents or were struck by vehicles. The increase in violent deaths of police officers contrasted with a drop in violent crime in general. According to the FBI, violent crime decreased 5 percent in the first half of the year, the most current figures available. For the most part, said Lt. Gregg Hastings, spokesman for the Oregon State Police, news of police officer deaths translates into a heightened awareness in even apparently routine encounters. "You just pay closer attention to what is going on inside the vehicle and any movements made by individuals," he said. "When you approach, you make sure you can safely do so by checking the interior. You keep an eye on the occupants and pay attention to how they respond to your requests." Wayne Inman, a former assistant Portland police chief who left in 1992 after 28 years with the force, said police after such shootings might react sooner to protect themselves and others. "In some cases they might pull weapons now when they might not have before in a situation that doesn't look right," said Inman, coordinator of search and rescue for the Deschutes County Sheriff's Office. He previously served as police chief in Billings, Mont. 'Seconds could make difference' "That few seconds could make a difference between surviving and not surviving." Hastings agreed. In possibly serious cases, he said, added precautions "might include pulling a weapon for safety. They may not point it, but they will have it ready." Other procedures, Hastings said, might include "communicating with people without approaching the vehicle, and asking them to step out." However, Dr. Ronald Turco -- a psychiatrist, a former homicide detective and a current reserve member of the Beaverton Police Department -- said his experience is that officers who have been in traumatic situations do not turn to pulling a gun unnecessarily. "They don't want to risk an encounter," he said. "They follow procedures" even though they are operating from "an enhanced hyper-vigilance." The public needs to understand police procedures and manner, several police professionals said. Methods that might seem harsh or overly firm are for everyone's protection. "When officers take control of a situation with voice or by confronting someone, it is because they want to reduce or eliminate the potential for violence," Inman said. "It amazes me when people complain when officers do their job and take control. The public needs to understand that there are people out there who are dangerous. Most don't wear signs around their neck saying, 'I am dangerous.'" Driver can help Hastings said the average driver who has been stopped can help by staying in the car, keeping hands visible -- preferably on the steering wheel -- and not moving quickly. Tell an officer up front, he said, about a concealed weapons permit or other potential safety matters. Ramifications of shootings also can result from media attention and public doubt, said Lt. Jim Tibbs, spokesman for the Boise Police Department. Boise police have had a rough two years, with the shooting death of an officer in September -- the first such death in Boise -- and a half-dozen others injured in shootings and other incidents. Boise police in that time also killed seven civilians. If the public and media are critical or don't understand the facts, Tibbs said, police feel pressure. The result, he said, could be that an officer, on the chance that the encounter might lead to violence, is tempted to not bother stopping a car for apparently minor reasons, such as an out-of-date registration or a broken taillight. "We as a department don't want that mindset to develop," Tibbs said. When Boise police are involved in a critical incident, he said: "We look to see if policies need to be modified in any way, if there are different ways officers can approach cars. ... They don't know who the person is they are walking up upon. It can be an extremely dangerous individual who has decided to have a shootout, or it can be the mayor." Training and discussion of each incident, he said, "can put off an awkward situation." Dianne Middle, who recently was appointed director of the Board on Public Safety Standards and Training in Monmouth, commonly called the state police academy, said the academy regularly revises training to reflect altered demands on officers and the nature of events they will encounter. Learning from situations "We look at situations and try to learn from all of them," said Middle, a former police officer, deputy district attorney, assistant attorney general and chairwoman of the Oregon Board of Parole. "Any situation has these potentials (for danger), and we teach them to analyze the risk of any given situation, how to keep it safe, who else is looking out for you, the kinds of things that can trigger things to go wrong." Through all the practical but potentially lifesaving matters, police officers will mourn for lost comrades. The Portland bureau has a Traumatic Incident Committee made up of teams of officers who have been involved in deadly force situations and of spouses of such officers. This past week, said Officer Dave Thoman, a trauma team leader who had worked with Jeffries and spoke at his funeral, all teams were brought in to work with any officer affected by the shootings. Mayor Vera Katz, who visited all the precincts after Waibel was killed, said she has noticed a difference in how the bureau grieves. In the past, she said, officers speaking with a counselor did so with a sense of detached duty. "They'd avert their eyes as if to say, 'I don't need this. I'm not really even listening to this,'" she said. "But it wasn't like that. They listened. They need it. Their families need it." The public can add to that support, Inman said. Saying that officers want to make a difference, want to help their communities, he added: "I would hope that our community could wrap their collective arms around the police bureaus and officers. ... We are all in this together." Staff writer Michele Parente contributed to this report.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Oregon Police Rights Invasion ('Associated Press' Article On Cops In McMinnville, Oregon, Strip-Searching As Many As 30 Teenage Girls, Plus Commentary From Sender Comparing Incident To Warrantless Raid In Portland By Marijuana Task Force) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: CnbsCL - OR police rights invasion From: email@example.com (Terry Smith) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 11:19:45 EST Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Perhaps some here will see some similarity between this situation and the recent one where a cop was killed in the process of perpetrating an apparent war on drugs felony breaking and entering plus attempted murder in Oregon. The comments at the bottom suggest why it is sometimes necessary to initiate action through Federal prosecution outside the local jurisdiction. Recent court actions do not do well supporting student rights to not be invaded as this incident caused, though also do not support such searches for non-felony crimes with no probable cause against a specific suspect. It could be argued that the cops involved threatened a physically violent felony, and students would have been justified using due defensive force including deadly, any history of minors being stripped of 2nd Am rights aside. Terry Area Pr_Net, Msg#900, Feb-01-98 02:06PM From: Chris Meissen Subject: Re: Gotta love this country Imagine what they'll do if they ever get all the guns. >From TPG- *** McMINNVILLE, Ore. (AP) - Told by a policewoman to strip off her panties or have it done for her, 13-year-old Kayla Plumeau had one thought: "I wanted to call my mom.'' No way, she was told. No one in her Duniway Middle School gym class could call home or leave until the two women officers searched them to makes sure stolen CDs, makeup and money hadn't been hidden in their bras and underpants. Kayla said she had little choice but to take off her pants and shirt. "I was told if I didn't take them off, they would do a full body search,'' she said. "If I didn't pull them off, they said they'd do it for me.'' The officers found nothing stolen, but Thursday's episode has indignant parents threatening to go to court over what they contend was an improper strip search of as many as 30 teen-age girls. "They take it for granted that just because they are kids, they don't have rights,'' said Connie Brown, a parent who is organizing a picket against the school Monday. Police Chief Rod Brown has hand-delivered apologies to the parents of the seventh and eighth-graders, writing that the conduct of the officers during the two-hour search was beyond ``what was necessary.'' "We believe the manner in which the search was conducted may have been inappropriate,'' Brown wrote. "Officials taking the action were acting in best interest of kids involved as well as school as a whole, but their judgment may have been rash.'' Brown insisted the students were asked only to loosen their clothing and lower their pants to their hips. Several girls told a much different story. "It was a strip search,'' said Sarah Gadberry, 14. ``I had to take off my pants and shirt.'' The girls said the search took place during gym class after several students in the locker room complained that jewelry, makeup, CD's and about $30 had been stolen. The gym teacher asked the guilty party to come forward. When no one spoke up, the school called the police. The girls were called into the locker room two at a time. Some were asked to lift their shirts, some had to shake their bras and others were asked to lower their pants and panties to their ankles. Several girls who were menstruating refused to drop their panties and were told if they didn't they would be subject to a full cavity search. Officers found some of the stolen items Friday afternoon on the floor of a girls' bathroom. Parents contend anyone had access to the lockers. The issue has angered many parents in this city of 18,000, about 40 miles southwest of Portland. "This is not going to stop here,'' said Barbara Paulson, who kept her 12-year-old daughter, Amanda, home from school Friday and plans to file complaints against police, the school, the gym teacher and the principal. Superintendent Elaine Taylor said the McMinnville School District was conducting its own investigation. ``We are extremely sorry about the entire search incident,'' she said. *** > What needs to be said is that the whole instance was illegal! And that > illegalities will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And who will do the prosecuting and who will hear the case in this town of 50,000? The prosecuting attorney whose career depends upon the testimony and cooperation of the members of the police department? The judge who routinely hears misdemeanor cases which depend upon acceptance of these officer's testimony in order to find in favor of the State? I'd be willing to bet that a town of 50,000 has only a couple dozen attorneys and they all belong to the same country club, entertain the same hopes of someday being appointed to judgeships of their own, and know that if they challenge the cozy relationships between the police and the courts they may as well move to another town or start new careers because they'll never win another case in that town. -- Chris Meissen *** "False is the idea of utility that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." -- Cesare Beccaria
------------------------------------------------------------------- Girl Treated For Alcohol Overdose ('The Daily Olympian' Notes An 11-Year-Old Girl Has Mixed Vodka And Whiskey In Olympia, Washington) From: "W.H.E.N." (email@example.com) To: "Hemp Talk" (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: HT: ART: 11- yr. old Oly girl treated for alcohol overdose Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 22:21:00 -0800 Sender: email@example.com At least she wasn't doing drugs- Bob Owen *** Daily Olympian (Olympia, Washington) 2/1/98 OLYMPIA Girl treated for alcohol overdose An 11-year old Olympia girl was treated for an alcohol overdose at the downtown Olympia Center. The community center staff told police the girl was drunk when the center on Columbia Street opened its doors at 9 p.m. She was immediately taken by staff to the rest room. Police and medics were called. The girl had vomited several times throughout the night, the police report said. She told police she drank vodka and whiskey but couldn't remember who she had been drinking with or who gave her the alcohol, the report said. The girl was treated at the scene and released, the report said. Her 13-yearold sister will be questioned in connection with the case, the report said.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Freedom Fighters Of The Month ('High Times' Writes Up Cheryl And Jim Miller And Their Struggle For Medical Marijuana For Cheryl's Multiple Sclerosis - Trenton, New Jersey Demonstration One Of Many During Boston-to-Washington Wheelchair Crusade) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:50:21 -0500 To: DrugSense News Service
From: Richard Lake Subject: MN: US NJ: Cheryl And Jim Miller: MJ vs. MS in NJ Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: Richard Lake email@example.com Source: High Times Author: Jessica Loos Pubdate: February, 1998, No. 270 Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.hightimes.com/ FREEDOM FIGHTERS OF THE MONTH CHERYL AND JIM MILLER: MJ VS. MS IN NJ Trenton, NJ - Cheryl Miller rolled her hospital bed to the steps of the New Jersey state capitol here last October, and, as two state troopers approached, drank down a marijuana tincture mixed with orange Gatorade. She was demonstrating marijuana's effectiveness in quelling the chronic muscle spasticity associates with multiple sclerosis, a disease she was diagnosed with 27 years ago. "I am in possession of an illegal marijuana product," her husband, Jim, explained to the cops. "I tot it and supplied it to my wife and she took it. I think you should take it and have it tested and identified, so that it can go on official record what exactly it is here that worked." The Millers' visit to Governor Christie Whitman, who says publicly that she does not support medical marijuana, was one of many stops on the Boston-to-Washington Wheelchair Crusade, a 450-mile "peace walk and roll" for medical marijuana and ibogaine organized by Cures Not Wars. The state troopers apparently didn't like the position the Millers put them in, but it seems they were under orders not to arrest them, and wouldn't take the remnants of the tincture of cannabis. As Jim put it, "Cheryl's always in jail, what are they gonna do? Put her in a different bed in a cell instead of at home or in the hospital?" Jim, a self-employed carpenter, sold all his tools so that they could pay for hotel rooms and participate in the Journey. "I can get my tools back, but this may happen only once," he told HT. Prior to the crusade, Cheryl hadn't been out overnight in over 10 years. "I've been having a good time getting to talk to people and getting a message across that desperately needs to be heard. If I can do that I will," she explains. "I am motivated by the hope that everyone with my condition has the legal opportunity to try marijuana. I needed to do this to help other people, and I felt that I could help. It was the most important thing I've ever done, except for having and raising my four kids, whom I've always wanted to set a good example for." The Boston-to-Washington trek was not the Millers' first medical-marijuana march. In 1993, Jim pushed Cheryl's wheelchair with a life-sized photo of her in it 58 miles from their home in Seaside to Trenton. "We had all this info," he says, but the press isn't interested in facts, they're interested in stunts, so I decided to walk across the state on a main road, where lots of people would see me. If the press wouldn't tell anyone, I would. If they wouldn't put medical marijuana in the paper, I would tell people myself." Cheryl, 51, who has never been a recreational pot smoker, still doesn't inhale because it hurts her throat, causing slight swelling. She has difficulty coughing and blowing her nose, so smoking would exacerbate aspects of her condition. But after a friend of Jim's suggested eating marijuana, she experimented with marinated-pot salad dressing and then brownies. Both worked miraculously well. She started taking Marinol in 1993, at an annual cost of $20,000 to the state. Her average daily dosage is eight five-milligram tablets. The Marinol helped wean her off Tranxene, a sedative-hypnotic tranquilizer. She has also discontinued weekly steroid shots. Both have deleterious side-effect like congestive heart failure and faulty liver function. But the herb tincture, prepared in Humbolt County, CA, and passed to her thru the New York City Cannabis Buyers' Club, has the fastest, most extreme results. After drinking it, says Jim, "She started moving her right arm for the first time in five years." Her average daily tincture dose is six to 10 drops a day, only because she is trying to conserve supplies. "Twenty drops works even better," explains Jim, but "we don't want to run out, it is expensive and comes from far away. "The thing about all this that gets me the most is that multiple sclerosis is Jack Kevorkian's single biggest client," he declares. The irony is that if he knew about pot, he wouldn't be able to help people get it legally to feel better, but he can help them die. And I have a better respect for life from knowing Cheryl. She never complains like I do or says anything bad about anyone, even people she should. "That's kind of always been my job," he laughs.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Pending Medical Marijuana Legislation (Letter To Editor Of 'Baltimore Sun' Gives Update On $1 Million Marijuana Study By Institute Of Medicine Commissioned By Drug Czar, Urges Support For US Representative Barney Frank's Federal Medical Marijuana Bill, HR 1782) Subj: PUBLISHED in Baltimore Sunday Sun, February 1, 1998 From: "Kevin Fansler" (email@example.com) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:40:04 -0500 Letter appeared in the Baltimore Sunday Sun, February 1, 1998 Pending medical marijuana legislation. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) began its medicinal marijuana hearings on December 14-16 in Irvine, California. The IOM is gathering information for the $1 million report commissioned by the Clinton administration's drug czar. No new research into marijuana's medical uses is being conducted, however -- the report will simply compile existing data. This $1 million "book report" is part of the federal government's plan to convince the public that the medicinal marijuana issue should be handled by scientists, not voters or legislators. Too late: In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act which declared that marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use." That was politics. Patients should not be forced to suffer or live in fear of arrest for decades until scientists rectify a problem that Congress created. Right now, even if a state allows patients to use marijuana, patients still face federal penalties -- up to one year in prison for simple possession. Furthermore, federal law prohibits states from allowing pharmacies to distribute marijuana under any circumstances. Fortunately, there is a bill pending in Congress (H.R. 1782) that would allow states to create their own medicinal marijuana policies. If a state wanted to allow patients to use medicinal marijuana, the federal government would not interfere with the system that the state chose to implement. There is an easy way to help patients suffering from cancer, glaucoma, AIDS, and multiple sclerosis: Write to your U.S. representative and ask him or her to support H.R. 1782. Sincerely, Kevin S. Fansler 4044 Wilkinson Road Havre de Grace, MD 21078 Phone: 410-879-5466
------------------------------------------------------------------- Health - The Straight Dope - Is Marijuana An Evil Weed, Or An Untapped Weapon In Our Medical Arsenal? (A Positive Special Report On Medical Marijuana In The February Issue Of The Fitness Magazine, 'Shape') Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 20:05:59 -0500 To: DrugSense News Service (firstname.lastname@example.org) From: Richard Lake (email@example.com) Subject: MN: Is Marijuana An Evil Weed, Or An Untapped Weapon In Our Medical Arsenal? Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: Kathy Galbraith and Carl E. Olsen Source: Shape Magazine Author: Sharen Cohen Pubdate: February 1998 Website: http://www.fitnessonline.com/magazines/shape/ Health - The Straight Dope SPECIAL REPORT: IS MARIJUANA AN EVIL WEED, OR AN UNTAPPED WEAPON IN OUR MEDICAL ARSENAL? Sue, a 35-year-old former counselor for retarded adults, smoked marijuana every day for a year. It was the only thing that relieved the debilitating nausea she suffered after a blood vessel ruptured in her brain. When the medications her doctor had prescribed proved only minimally effective, she tried dronabinol, a prescription synthetic form of THC, the primary active ingredient in marijuana. But Sue still couldn't keep anything down, including the dronabinol. "I was nauseated or vomiting every moment of every day and literally wasting away, she recalls. Then she learned that for conditions like hers, smoking marijuana has several advantages over dronabinol: It's cheaper, doesn't have to be swallowed and digested, it acts faster with fewer side effects, and because it can be smoked one puff at a time, its easier to control the dose. So she tried it. "Taking just a few puffs relieved my nausea enough that I could eat," she says. She no longer smokes marijuana but credits it with saving her life and sanity. Yet she's angry that she had to break the law. "People treat this thing that helped me so much like such an evil," she says. "They'd put me in jail for it." Pot Politics Since 1978, 36 states have passed legislation recognizing marijuana's therapeutic value in a variety of ailments. But for 60 years, the federal government has prohibited its use in any form, even though not a single death has been linked to marijuana's medical use. Politics distinguish marijuana from other potential pharmaceuticals, preventing it from undergoing the scientific testing that any new drug must undergo. Scientists can legally get marijuana only from one federally regulated farm, and research requests often have been denied. Meanwhile, thousands of sick people must get or grow the plant illegally, risking prosecution and exposure to product impurities. Because research has been so stymied, the spectrum of expert opinions on marijuana's future in medicine ranges widely. "We have 5,000 years of recorded experience to show us it's not toxic," says Lester Grinspoon, M.D., associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and co-author of Marihuana, the Forbidden Medicine (Yale University Press, 1997). "In fact, the U.S. government has spent millions of do1lars trying to prove toxicity but has come up with nothing." Is Reefer Madness? Cannabis (marijuana's Latin name) was widely prescribed in the United States for pain relief until it was made illegal in 1937. In 1970, despite copious anecdotal evidence of its effectiveness and safety, the Drug Enforcement Administration designated it a "Schedule I" drug, meaning that like heroin, it's considered unsafe, with no recognized therapeutic value and a high potential for abuse. (Reclassifying it as a Schedule 2 drug would let doctors prescribe it.) In 1976, the U.S, Food and Drug Administration began a compassionate Investigational New Drug program allowing government-sanctioned marijuana use in certain medical cases. In the late '70s and early '80s, more than 35 states passed legislation establishing marijuana research programs. Most were rendered defunct by Federal regulations. The IND program was suspended in 1991 because the flood of applicants resulting from AIDS was seen as an obstacle to the Bush administration's war on drugs. Today, only eight people use marijuana legally in this country because of a grandfather clause. But years of anecdotal evidence and at least 65 human studies established medicinal marijuana use as legitimate for these conditions: Cancer The best-substantiated use is to relieve chemotherapy-induced nausea, vomiting and appetite loss. A 1991 Harvard Medical School survey of 1,035 oncologists found that 54 percent favored making marijuana a prescription drug; 44 percent said they'd broken the law by suggesting that patients get it illegally. AIDS Marijuana's ability to combat "wasting syndrome" by increasing appetite has been well-documented. Glaucoma By reducing pressure in the eye caused by fluid buildup, inhaled marijuana can slow or halt this sight-robbing disease. Many ophthalmologists counter that marijuana can accelerate vision loss by reducing blood flow to the optic nerve, and that new glaucoma drugs make it unnecessary. Multiple Sclerosis, Spinal Cord Injury Marijuana may relieve muscle pain and spasms, tremors and urinary incontinence. Epilepsy, Related Disorders Might help prevent seizures in up to 30 percent of patients not helped by standard drugs. Pain Marijuana may be helpful for migraine headaches; inflammatory and autoimmune diseases such as arthritis, scleroderma and lupus; colitis; Crohn's disease; and menstrual cramps and premenstrual syndrome. This use is well worth investigating: In 1996, more than 7,000 Americans died of gastric bleeding from taking aspirin or other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen. The debate will only be resolved when large numbers of people are allowed to use marijuana under medical supervision. As Harvard's Grinspoon says: "Doctors, not the federal government and the DEA, need to be in charge of this. And we need to get over our misconceptions about it. Many patients who use marijuana don't even really like it. It's just the only thing that works for them. THE POT SMOKED AND THE DAMAGE DONE "To withhold marijuana for medical use because some people abuse it would be like withholding Valium or morphine for the same reason, says Mary Lynn Mathre, M.S.N., R.N., C.A.R.N., addictions consultant at the University of Virginia Health System in Charlotesville and editor of Cannabis in Medical Practice; A Legal, Historical and Pharmacological Overview of the Therapeutic Use of Marijuana (McFarland & Co., 1997). Marijuana has drawbacks, especially when used as a recreational drug, but they generally don't apply to medical use. To sum up the evidence: Lung Damage Heavy marijuana smoking can be hazardous to the lungs, but medicinal users generally don't smoke enough for it to be a serious risk. Marijuana also can be ingested in foods or teas, but the results take longer to be felt and last longer and the dose may be harder to control. Mental Impairment Because it can cause short-term impairment of judgment, concentration, recall and coordination, people are advised not to use marijuana before driving or performing other complex tasks. Dependence "Problems with psychological dependence, accidents and lack of motivation may occur among heavy recreational users, but most medical users taper off or stop when the symptoms are relieved," Mathre says. No valid evidence shows that using marijuana recreationally or medically leads to the use of "harder" drugs. As for the argument that legalizing marijuana for medical use will open the door to full-scale legalization, that hasn't proved true of morphine and other opiates. Antisocial Behavior No human studies have shown that marijuana use leads to increased aggression.
------------------------------------------------------------------- The Case For Medical Marijuana (The February Issue Of 'The Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal' Describes The Recent History Of The Campaign For Medical Marijuana In Canada) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 11:27:55 -0700 From: email@example.com (MAPNews) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: MN: Canada: The Case for Medical Marijuana Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: email@example.com Pubdate: Feb 1998 Source: Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal Author: Steve McLaren, Staff Writer THE CASE FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA "Basically, what I do is, I cause trouble. That's my function. If you cause enough trouble eventually you effect change." Meet Alan Young. Last summer the Osgoode Hall law professor launched a constitutional challenge against marijuana laws on behalf of Chris Clay, owner of a London, Ont., store called Hemp Nation. Clay, whose merchandise included marijuana plants, was charged with trafficking and cultivating a narcotic. While Young's client was found guilty, Ontario Court Justice John McCart was tolerant, handing Clay a relatively modest $750 fine and three years probation. In his judgement, McCart said, "as it is commonly used, occasionally, cannabis presents only minor.or subtle risks to the health of the individual." This spring Young will represent Lynn Harichy, a multiple sclerosis patient charged with possession after lighting a marijuana joint in front of a London police station. Young expects many new clients now that "buyers' clubs," supplying marijuana to anyone with a doctor's recommendation, are opening in Toronto, Oakville, Kitchener, Guelph, London and Peterborough. While stressing he's not the organizer of these groups, he is willing to defend them. Young notes that, if his potential clients are charged, it would be for trafficking, an indictable offence tried by a jury. "Dr. Henry Morgentaler was providing abortions," he says. "Abortions were against the law. He was tried seven times. He was never convicted." Calling Morgentaler's rationale the Common Law Defence of Necessity, and assuming all marijuana sales will be for medicinal purposes, Young theorizes, "I suspect if I put enough AIDS and cancer patients into the box, there aren't going to be a whole lot of juries that are going to want to put these kids in jail." Alan Young isn't alone in his campaign to make the decriminalization of marijuana a health issue. In December, Ontario Justice Patrick Sheppard stayed charges of cultivation and possession against Terry Parker, a Toronto man who argued he needs the drug to combat his epilepsy. Concluding Parker's rights were violated, Sheppard ordered the police to return some of Parker's confiscated marijuana plants. Sheppard wrote, "Deprivation to (Mr. Parker) arising from a blanket prohibition denying him possession of marijuana, in the circumstance of this case, does little or nothing to enhance the state's interest in better health for this individual member of the community." The Parker case was specifically referred to in January when a Kitchener man received a light sentence for possession, partly because of his diagnosed "chronic cumulative trauma disorder" and because the Parker decision left the law in "a state of flux", according to the judge. Some advocates of medical marijuana are taking their case straight to the government. Don Kilby, director of health services at the University of Ottawa, is applying to Health Canada's Special Access Program for permission to "prescribe" marijuana to Jean Charles Pariseau, an AIDS patient who gained 20 pounds after smoking marijuana as a last resort. Even in the law-and-order-conscious Reform party, MP Jim Hart submitted a private member's motion proposing marijuana be decriminalized "for health purposes, explicitly for the purpose of providing pain relief for the terminally ill." All of these efforts are playing out in the backdrop of an Angus Reid poll finding 83 per cent of those surveyed support the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. Marijuana advocates, and even those opposed, tend to agree on one point: pharmacies should have a role in the medical marijuana issue. "We have a perfectly good delivery system now through pharmacies; they keep good records, they relate what people are taking to the other things that they're doing and I should think that they would still fulfil a role in these cases as well," says Barry Beyerstein of the Brain Behaviour Laboratory of Simon Fraser University's department of psychology, a member of the pro-decriminalization Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy. "Pharmacists are already the custodians of society of useful substances which also have some danger," concurs Robin Room, chief scientist for the Addiction Research Foundation. "It would be entirely appropriate for pharmacists to be saying, `Look, if you're going to have medical marijuana, then it makes sense for us to be the places that you get it.'" While Room may deem their participation appropriate, pharmacy has been quiet on the health politics of marijuana. Both the Canadian Pharmacists Association and the Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists have no position on the issue. "There's a lot that needs to happen, or at least processes that need to happen, before the pharmacist can even come into play, and that is a defined source, a controlled source that meets regulatory requirements," says Bill Leslie, executive director of the Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists. Noelle-Dominique Willems, CPhA's director of government and pub lic affairs, agrees, adding that like euthanasia it's an issue that divides the profession. Says Willems, "If there's...a Parliamentary committee that looks into it, which may happen if practice becomes more frequent, then we would definitely, at that point, at least prepare a position to talk about the role of pharmacists, as we did with euthanasia." Others suggest a number of reasons why the profession hasn't spoken out. Harold Kalant, professor emeritus of pharmacology at the University of Toronto's faculty of medicine, says, "It would create headaches, because they would have to keep extra records in the same way they do for narcotics or for other controlled drugs. Secondly, it would increase the risk for them of breakins to try to steal their stock. Thirdly, it may be that they just don't want to get mixed up in a messy situation." Wayne Hindmarsh, dean of the faculty of pharmacy at the University of Manitoba, and author of a guide for parents called Drugs: What Your Kid Should Know, says that security could be an issue. "You're going to bring in a different clientele," he says. "You know, it's not just going to be marijuana. There's going to be other types of drug users as well." However, two of the lawyers involved think the profession is reticent for other reasons. "I think pharmacists are pawns in all this," says Young. "They're a conduit for the facilitation of medical and governmental policy, and they don't necessarily lead it." Aaron Harnett, legal counsel for Terry Parker, says there's simply no money in it for pharmacists. "Marijuana costs seven dollars an ounce to grow. It sells for $350 now, so Terry now can grow it for free (or for seven dollars an ounce) and he can cut out the middle man, the end man, everyone." But even Young and Harnett agree that pharmacists should be involved if the marijuana is for medically-approved reasons. Says Harnett, "The 60-year-old lady with glaucoma, she's not going to want to start growing pot plants, but if her doctor says, `Give it a try. It may save your eyesight,' she may want a legal source, where she can be assured of its quality, and not have to get her hands dirty." Sorting out the distribution issue is proving difficult. While Kilby is optimistic federal regulators will approve his Special Access Program request for medicinal marijuana, Ottawa lawyer Eugene Oscapella, part of a lobby group supporting Kilby's efforts, is more sceptical after Health Canada denied their first request. The health department concluded that neither Kilby nor the listed "manufacturer," the patient's current supplier, had the proper licences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. "It's hard to tell what messages we're getting from them, quite frankly," he says. "In one sense, they're scrambling to find a way out of this mess. In another, we've got a guy who's dying of AIDS and who's being forced to go to the illegal market to get a drug that's saving his life." But Dann Michols, director general of Health Canada's Therapeutic Products Program, says many controlled substances have been approved by the government, such as heroin and morphine, and "it isn't really earth-shattering to think that perhaps marijuana as a substance might have medicinal use." While Oscapella and others argue no manufacturer will ever agree to cooperate in a marijuana application, Michols calls that "supposition," arguing it could be supplied by a university, a distributor, or even a grower. "There are other substances that are controlled substances where suppliers have obtained the necessary licences to obtain, process and distribute the product, so it's not an insurmountable barrier if someone wants to do it," he says. He adds that, if Kilby went outside the country to obtain a supplier, the government itself might end up distributing the product. "Probably we would have to set up a mechanism whereby the supplier supplied us and we provided the material to the physician here, but that too is doable," he says. "The government of the importing country would have to be involved to ensure control of distribution." While Kilby works his way through the Special Access Program, he longs for the day when patients would simply visit a pharmacy. "I'm sitting in my office now in front of about 150 binders on drugs that are accessed through (the Special Access Program), because you have to keep records for these patients, you have to provide records back to the pharmaceutical company, you have to inform the government. There's a lot of red tape to go through." Many of the smokers battling the court system would also like to see doctors and pharmacists helping them get their supply. While Lynn Harichy would like to cultivate it herself, "If you could get it at pharmacies that would be great because it is a hassle in the winter to grow it," she says. "They let us take all these other medicines, you know, trial drugs, and the side effects are so bad. If I don't smoke (pot), I'm going to be in pain and I just, I can't take that." Terry Parker, whose landmark victory is being appealed by the Crown, says simply, "it's just been a real nightmare trying to get this substance recognized for preventing epilepsy." Parker says because of his illness he's become addicted to prescription drugs, and candidly describes his treatment and its effects. "My skin is white as a ghost, my teeth are grinding, my left leg and my left arm are all over the place, my body is just convulsing. A couple of joints, smoke that, within two to three minutes I've got instant relief... That's the beauty about marijuana, the absolute beauty, and no pharmacist should be shy about the subject." While Parker's case is under appeal, his lawyer says other Crown Attorneys are withdrawing similar charges as a result of the decision. The Parker case, however, may have confused things even further, according to Kalant, who was a Crown witness in the trial. "The judge was acting essentially on compassionate grounds rather than on scientific grounds," he says. "I think the judge was perhaps acting more as a humane person than as an objective arbiter of the law. There are probably valid medical uses for cannabinoids, but smoking pot is rarely the way to do it." That is the crux of the marijuana debate: does it have medical value Advocates argue it's been used safely for thousands of years, and point out there is no accepted lethal dose. Supporters of California's Proposition 215, a referendum that decriminalized the use of marijuana for certain medical treatments, argued the benefits of the substance in treating cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, and migraine. They said a Harvard University survey concluded one-half of oncologists would prescribe marijuana to some of their patients if it were legal. A 1992 study from Georgetown University's School of Medicine found 170 cancer specialists ranked cannabis sixth in management of severe, post-chemotherapy nausea and vomiting. Few argue there are no risks. In a policy paper, the Addiction Research Foundation found heavy cannabis use may have negative health consequences, including respiratory damage (when smoked), impaired coordination, altered hormone production and damage to the immune system, although, "by any accounting," the health impact of marijuana is much less than alcohol or tobacco. "There is credible anecdotal evidence that some people are helped for some conditions by medical marijuana," says the ARF's Room. "People are resistant to the idea of medication that is smoked for both good and not so rational reasons." Opponents argue there is no convincing evidence, credible or otherwise. Raju Hajela, president of the Canadian Society of Addiction Medicine (an affiliate of the Canadian Medical Association), says marijuana is not a first-line treatment for anything, the adverse effects from smoking are the same as from tobacco, and its withdrawal symptoms are similar to those of heroin. In a Dec. 12 press release he said those arguing that marijuana is not harmful are doing it to "feed their own addiction." In an interview, he said, "The most common thing that's observed in anyone who even casually smokes marijuana is the amotivational syndrome that develops, that people lose interest in their day-to-day life situations." Wayne Hindmarsh has fought marijuana acceptance for years, and says there's no evidence the drug is better than what's already legally available. "We do know that marijuana does have a lot of toxic principles, and we've got to be careful as to the message that we're giving to younger kids," he says. "That's certainly the thing that concerns me. If you could prove scientifically that the joint is far better than any medication that's out there for a particular problem then we would have to go with that, but that hasn't been proven, in my mind." Marijuana critics often point to two synthetic versions of one of cannabis' active ingredients, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC): Marinol and Cesamet. Michelle Foisy, HIV primary care pharmacist at Toronto's Wellesley Health Centre, says while the drugs are marketed for cancer patients, they have been given to HIV patients for nausea and vomiting, and to help them gain weight. Patients with prior marijuana experience often appreciate the effects, or continue smoking it themselves, but other patients aren't as receptive. "There certainly is a high percentage of people who say, `Forget it. I don't want to feel high. I have to concentrate on my job.'" She doesn't recommend the medicinal use of marijuana. "From a smoking standpoint, on a chronic basis, I don't know that you're doing your patient any good. You might be alleviating one thing but then inducing something else." But many patients and doctors don't like synthetic THC, saying it's unpalatable and, if they're trying to control nausea to be able to take oral medications, ineffective. "When people are taking 40 pills a day or more, or on chemotherapy, they have so much nausea that they can't even take those pills, including the synthetic form (of THC). That's where we have the problem," says Kilby. "They're taking their joints about half an hour before they take their pills and then there is immediate relief of nausea and there's stimulation of their appetite and they tend to be able to hold down, not only the pills, but hold down some food as well." There's one other reason why some prefer cannabis to drug company products, according to Beyerstein: "Marinol is very expensive, and marijuana is very cheap." Kilby notes the appetite stimulant he usually prescribes for AIDS patients, Megace, costs up to $3,000 a month, and is not covered under Quebec's drug plan. Even if marijuana use was allowed, would physicians prescribe it appropriately? Before giving a patient marijuana, Hindmarsh says he'd want to know, "What physicians have dealt with him? I'm not saying anything against general practitioners at all, but has (the patient) been treated by specialists? Have they exhausted all the possibilities that are available?" Alan Young scoffs at the suggestion. "I have to work on the assumption that doctors are going to do their job properly, and if not it's a matter for the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Doctors can prescribe a lot of narcotics, and that isn't a reason to take away that power from them." Whether doctors will ever get the opportunity is another matter; 25 years after the Le Dain Royal Commission advocated decriminalization, penalties for possessions can still result in a criminal record, and the maximum penalty for trafficking is life imprisonment. While some police force officials in Ottawa and Vancouver have downplayed marijuana possession as a priority, its use, medical or not, carries a risk. "If the law's there we're going to enforce it," says Gilles Brunet, national coordinator of the RCMP's drug awareness program. "If it's still a criminal offence we can't ignore it. I don't think things change because of (the Parker decision)." Some say government policy could change under new Health Minister Allan Rock, who has already shown support for the herbal medicine industry. In an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Rock said he would "look seriously and with an open mind at the evidence in deciding on whether the government should get out of the way and permit the use of a substance for medical purposes." Another Liberal MP, Toronto doctor Carolyn Bennett, has come out in favor of cannabis use by multiple sclerosis patients. "(Allan Rock), of all ministers of health, is probably in the best position to make a change to the law," says Aaron Hamett. "Nobody, I think, who looks at the issue carefully, wants to put someone in a jail cell for a month because they've got an ounce of marijuana." If there are any legal changes, pharmacists will have some work to do. Hindmarsh concedes it's "not really a major part of our curriculum. I teach toxicology here at this university to the pharmacy students, and that's sort of the last area to be covered." Though their curricula would likely differ, decriminalization advocate Beyerstein agrees. "It would be a good idea to do a little bit of postgraduate work, because that probably wasn't covered in the standard curriculum, but that information is certainly widely available," he says. "They're professionals, that's what they do well, and I think that information should be made available to them through their continuing re-certification or professional education." What virtually everyone can agree on is that, with buyers' clubs, requests to government for marijuana and a growing line of court cases, the idea is not going away soon. The question for pharmacists is what position they'll take. "You have a lot of parents that are concerned about their children, and they're not going to give up quietly," says Hindmarsh. "My only hope would be that the debate is a good debate that is based on scientific principles and not just on feelings." Says Harnett, "I imagine we can return to a time when the pharmacist would also be the producer of some of the herbs and medicines. I take it that's where their origin comes from." *** (SIDEBAR) BY THE NUMBERS From the Addiction Research Foundation report, Cannabis, Health and Public Policy, published in December, 1997. The policy paper concludes, "The justifiable concern with the health effects of cannabis is not incompatible with a less punitive legal response to the user." * Portion of Canadian adults reporting cannabis use some time during their life: 1 in 4 * Portion of Ontario junior high and high school students who used cannabis in the past year: 1 in 4 * Percentage of Ontario Grade 11 students: 42 * Estimated annual health care costs in Ontario resulting from cannabis use: $8 million * Resulting from alcohol use: $442 million * From tobacco use: $1.07 billion * Maximum penalty for first-time possession of cannabis (under 30 grams of marijuana or 1 gram of hashish): $1,000 fine and/or' six months in prison * Maximum penalty for a second offence: $2,000 and/or 12 months in prison * Maximum penalty for trafficking marijuana: life imprisonment * Number of criminal convictions for cannabis possession since 1965: 700,000 * Percentage of drug-related charges in 1995 that involved cannabis: 64 * Per capita ratio of cannabis arrests in the rest of Ontario compared to Metropolitan Toronto: 3:1 * Percentage of those convicted of cannabis possession admitting subsequent use a year after their trial: 92 * Likelihood a cannabis user will be prosecuted in any given year: 1 per cent
------------------------------------------------------------------- Pot And Policy (A Staff Editorial In The February Issue Of 'The Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal' About The Journal's Cover Story On Medical Marijuana Notes A Strong Majority Of Canadians, 83 Percent, Support Legalizing Marijuana For Medical Use, While 51 Per Cent Want It Legalized Outright - And Says A Rational, Open Debate On Marijuana Is Welcome And Long Overdue) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 16:37:04 -0700 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) To: email@example.com Subject: MN: Canada: Editorial: Pot and Policy Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Chris Clay (firstname.lastname@example.org) Source: Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal (Official journal of the Canadian Pharmacists Association) Pubdate: February 1998 (Volume 131 Number 1) Section: Editorial, page 3 Author: Andrew Reinboldt Contact: email@example.com Note: The cover story 'The Case for Medical Marijuana,' discussed in this editorial is at: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n768.a07.html POT AND POLICY A cover story on medical marijuana seemed risky at first. Risky because this is a healthcare journal, and despite all the excitement in the newspapers, the only thing we know for certain about pot is that it gets people high. And possibly arrested. So our interest in the subject might annoy some readers. But if the polls are correct, a strong majority (83%) of Canadians support legalizing marijuana for medical use, while 51 per cent want it legalized outright. There is some backing in the courts as well, an Ontario judge ruling in December that it is unconstitutional to deprive Terry Parker, a 42-year-old epileptic man, of marijuana for his illness. The decision sends a strong message, and only the most stubborn critics can slight the ruling or the claims of AIDS patients, and those with multiple sclerosis or cancer, who say that smoking pot eases their suffering. Current medical research is uncertain. Meanwhile, some activists plan to supply patients with marijuana despite the penalties, and they can be severe punishments under Canadian law range as high as life imprisonment. (United States' law enforcement agencies have so far turned a blind eye to similar efforts there, where about 30 "cannabis buyers' clubs," mostly in California, provide marijuana for medical use.) If the anti-marijuana camp is offended by this development, it has a point. There are laws, after all. But as long as Parliament declines to act, the majority of Canadians who want the laws changed should be offended also. A rational, open debate on marijuana is welcome and long overdue. Incidentally, in researching his article, staff writer Steve McLaren learned that pharmacists, ready or not, could soon be drawn into the fray. We look forward to your comments. While the timing of our marijuana feature was deliberate, we couldn't predict the recent news from Britain, where the Queen Mother underwent a second hip-replacement operation in as many years. The story makes our feature on hip fractures in seniors (page 34) that much more appropriate.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Like Smoking, Drugs Can Be Beaten (A Letter To The Editor Of 'The Canberra Times' By A Retired Drug Warrior Cites A 1993 Handbook To Support His Contention That Marijuana Potency Has Increased - He Says The Australian Illicit Drugs Report Shows Harm Minimalisation Policies Have Been In Effect For 13 Years And Blames Them For The Current Extent Of The Drug Problem)Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 07:06:02 EST Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Originator: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (Peter Watney) To: Multiple recipients of list (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: Series of published LTEs Organization: P.I.C. ---- The following is the original message ---- To: email@example.com Subject: LTEs publishe The Canberra Times Date: Sat, 07 Feb 98 22:40:01 +1100 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Peter Watney) The following letter published in Canberra Times 1st February, 1998 Like smoking, drugs can be beaten ADAM RICHARDSON'S criticism (CT, Letters, January 26) of my letter on cannabis (Letters, January 20) is wrong on all counts. That cannabis is 1-15 times stronger than the marijuana used in the 60s and 70s was a basis for "major health concerns" expressed in the 1993 'Handbook of Medical Practioners and other Health Workers on Alcohol and Other Drug Problems' in "my policy generation", as Mr Richardson chooses to call it. I was largely instrumental in 'prohibiting' cigarette ads on TV, smoking in enclosed public places, on aircraft, increasing tobacco taxes and introducing low-alcohol beer. The Bureau of Criminal Intelligence Report only confirms what everybody already knows - that the 13-year-old "harm minimisation" strategy has failed miserably and is resulting in hundreds of deaths annually. Any governments that don't change their drugs policy in 13 years have become addicted to inertia and bad advice. In making smoking socially unacceptable, under a policy of abstinence, supported strongly by appropriate prohibition, smoking rates fell from 75 per cent in 1947 to about 27 per cent in 1997. This policy will work against all illicit drugs, if adopted. Thankfully lives are being saved by new treatments like Naltrexone based on the commonsense policy that it is better and cheaper to make people opiate-free than have them legally or illegally addicted indefinitely. COLLIS PARRETT Former deputy director, drugs of dependence, Commonwealth Department of Health and Member Drug Watch (Australia)
------------------------------------------------------------------- Cannabis Campaign - The Drugs World War - What Went Wrong? (Britain's 'Independent On Sunday' Continues Its Weekly Push For Marijuana Decriminalization With Second Of Two-Part Historical Overview - 93-Year Sentence Of Will Foster By Oklahoma Is Cited, As Well As 1996 US Attempt To Stop Australian 'Backsliding') Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 16:20:35 -0500 To: DrugSense News Service
From: Richard Lake Subject: MN: UK: The Drugs World War - What went wrong? (Part 2) Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: Zosimos Pubdate: 1 February 1998 Source: Independent on Sunday Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Mail: Independent on Sunday 1 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 5DL England THE DRUGS WORLD WAR - WHAT WENT WRONG? Part Two The fight against drugs has been lost. Yet the US right continues to squander vital resources on a worldwide, irrational crusade to rein in the 'evil perpetrators' By Phillip Knightley THE 25-year-old war against drugs has been lost but there are still bitter-enders on both sides of the Atlantic who want to fight on. Like American generals in Vietnam, they believe they see a light at the end of the tunnel. Realists know that, rightly or wrongly, the campaign is over. Imagine a courtroom scene in Oklahoma. The prosecutor is suggesting to the jury the sentence it should recommend for a man who has been found guilty of possession of cannabis. "Two hundred years, two thousand years . Just pick a number and see how many zeros you can add on," he says. "Put this druggie away and God will bless you all." They did, and Will Foster, a computer software consultant, married with two children, is now serving 93 years for growing marijuana plants for cigarettes to relieve his chronic rheumatoid arthritis. There are other examples of the draconian nature of American drug laws: anyone convicted of drug dealing, or even an intention to do so, faces not only imprisonment and a heavy fine but confiscation of almost all their possessions, including their house - a display of wartime zeal, one commentator said, that was the legal equivalent of a My Lai massacre. And yet such harsh policies have simply not worked, and it is not "wishy-washy liberals" who are leading the fight to recognise that the war is lost but the backbone of the American right. The magazine National Review, William F Buckley Jr's "keeper of the conservative tablets", says: "The war on drugs has failed, it is diverting intelligent energy away from the problem of how to deal with addiction; it is wasting our resources and it is encouraging civil, judicial and police procedures associated with police states . it is time to go home and to mobilise fresh thought on the drug problem in the context of a free society." At a conference last year at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, hardly a hotbed of drug-takers, Milton Friedman, the economist and Nobel Prize winner, and George Schultz, former Secretary of State, agreed that the war on drugs had not only failed miserably, but did not even have a moral dimension. Friedman says: "Can any policy, however high-minded, be moral if it leads to widespread corruption, imprisons so many, has so racist an effect that it destroys our inner-cities, wreaks havoc on misguided and vulnerable individuals and brings death and destruction to foreign countries?" Yet it is this bankrupt policy that the United States seems determined to export to the rest of the world. And it is prepared to wage war, overt and covert, to do so. The overt war is high- profile - raids, shoot-outs, boardings and seizures on the high seas, crop destruction, invasions by American troops. Even here though, the might of American fire-power is meeting its match. A recent search-and-destroy operation on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan was co-ordinated by the new chief of the United Nations Drug Control Programme, Pino Arlacchi, whose qualifications for the job included a tour of duty fighting the Mafia in Italy. But Arlacchi discovered that it is no longer a matter of taking on a few primitive farmers who protect their crops with antiquated firearms. The flood of weapons into the area during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan means that these farmers now own machine-guns, rocket launchers and anti-aircraft missiles and they are prepared to use them. It is not surprising, therefore, that opium production in Afghanistan has soared - 400 tons in 1980; 2,800 tons in 1996. The covert war has been successful in a way that bodes ill for Britain's new drugs tsar, Keith Hellawell. Britain is a signatory to long-standing international treaties, some going back to the League of Nations, others the work of the United Nations, that, whether we like it or not, tie us to the American policy of total prohibition, of a world free of all recreational drugs except alcohol and tobacco. If any country wavers a little, or begins to suggest an easing of the laws on marijuana as an experiment, or wants to try weaning addicts off heroin by prescribing it for them, or even proposes having a debate on drugs policy, then the covert battle will begin in earnest. The United States' presence is President Clinton's chief international drugs enforcer, Bob Gelbard, who is known to his friends and enemies as the State Department's "diplomatic Doberman". Two years ago this month, Gelbard flew into Australia. He had been alerted to some worrying "backsliding" there by a State Department officer in the United States embassy in Canberra, the Australian capital. Every American embassy in most major countries now has an officer with a drugs intelligence role, who is specially charged with keeping the Washington authorities informed of any significant local developments. The officer in Canberra was a woman in her late forties who had been seen at every public meeting in Australia where drugs policy had been discussed, and she reported two important developments to her masters in Washington DC. The first was that an experimental scheme was being considered in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) under which doctors would prescribe heroin for addicts (as once happened in Britain) and, secondly, that the Prime Minister of the state of Victoria, Jeff Kennett, had appointed a Drug Advisory Council to reconsider the state's laws on drugs which, by general consensus, were not working. GELBARD'S mission was meant to be secret, but American drugs warriors are not very popular in Australia, where they are blamed for the country's heroin problem, which did not exist until the 1970s. The accusation is that when the war in Vietnam was over, the Drug Enforcement Administration managed to stop heroin following the GIs home. Forced to find alternative markets, the South-East Asian drug barons diverted heroin intended for the United States to Australia and Britain. So when Gelbard waved his big stick, some Australians working in the drugs field were so outraged by what had happened that they have since spoken out (principally to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Four Corners programme and to writers David Marr and Bernard Lagan). Thanks to them, we have details of a chilling example of Clinton's drugs enforcer in action. It is the only case study I have come across - although we may assume that similar missions have been sent secretly to this country, and will be sent again if we happen to stray from the rigid American line. Gelbard, an avuncular figure with grey hair and glasses, is a veteran of the drugs war. He wrote the speech for Clinton in which the President said that now that the Cold War was over, the next frontier was the war on drugs. Gelbard was in Bolivia when the United States sent troops there in order to try to wipe out the cocaine industry. He pushed for cutting off US aid to Colombia because of its failure to curb its drug barons. He was behind the American decision to cut trade with Burma over its opium business. And he warned Nigeria's ruler, General Sani Abacha, about the dangers of being involved in the drugs business. Gelbard is a pragmatic diplomat who knows he is representing the most powerful nation on earth and he is experienced at using that power to crush any other country's attempts to liberalise its drugs laws. He wants to make it clear that no nation can go it alone on drugs - as far as he is concerned, the United States sets the agenda. When Gelbard flew into Australia, the US embassy had already arranged for him to meet Professor David Pennington, one of the country's leading medical experts, who has accumulated widespread knowledge about drugs and who is chairman of Victoria's Drug Advisory Council. Pennington was perfectly willing to see Gelbard but he was puzzled that the US embassy set up the meeting in Hobart, capital of the island state of Tasmania, rather than in Canberra or Melbourne, the state capital. The reason soon become apparent. Tasmania, the poorest of the Australian states, has a licence from the American-dominated International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) in Vienna to grow opium poppies under a quota system for the legal manufacture of medicinal morphine and codeine. Tasmania employs some 700 growers and two processors in this industry, between them earning A$80m (£33m) a year, an important part of the island's economy. For years the Australian federal government has hoped that the INCB could be persuaded to lift Tasmania's quota for poppy production and therefore, to keep in its good books, notified it of the proposed "heroin on prescription" trial in the ACT. The INCB replied that it would allow the trial to go ahead "provided it is part of a genuine commitment by the Australian government to achieve a drug-free society rather than a concession to living with drugs". The INCB sticks to the American line that trials are dangerous because of the message they send to heroin-producing countries - set up trials and behind them you can do what you like. But like the drugs warriors, it too is fighting a losing battle. It has attacked both California and Arizona for allowing easy use of cannabis "for alleged medical purposes"; it has congratulated Washington for its firm stand against "such indirect attempts to legalise the drug"; and it has expressed its concern that reputable foundations have provided sums of money in the United States for institutions that are "developing strategies for the legalisation of drugs". But the INCB is a UN agency set up to supervise drug treaties signed by some 158 nations and it has the power to cut off the supply not only of morphine-based drugs but of many essential pharmaceuticals to any nation that incurs its displeasure. So when the Tasmanian government received the INCB response to the proposed "heroin trial" in Australia, it did not regard it as very reassuring, and began to campaign against the trial in Canberra, claiming it was a foolish exercise that could jeopardise a valuable local industry. Its concern turned out to be justified. Gelbard's meeting with Pennington took place in the office of Ron Cornish, the Tasmania state Minister for Justice. Gelbard began by saying that he was on the island simply to check out the opium industry, one he understood to be "the most efficient producer of crude morphine and morphine-based drugs in the world". Pennington was too polite to ask: if that's all you're here for, why invite me to attend this meeting? But then Gelbard moved on to a general discussion about the ACT heroin trial and heroin trials in other parts of the world. He was scathing about the Swiss decision to try prescription of heroin and contemptuous of the Dutch attitude to all drugs. He took a very traditional law enforcement position - heroin was too dangerous a substance to play about with. It was imperative that the United States and its allies held the line. But, of course, a heroin trial in the ACT was purely an Australian issue. Washington would not dream of interfering in the affairs of a friendly country. Then, in private conversations with Pennington, Gelbard suddenly raised the prospect of a bigger quota for the Tasmanian opium poppy industry. He had been impressed with what he had seen in Tasmania and might be prepared to push the Tasmanian poppy growers' case. "Let's wait and see," he said. The message seemed clear - toe Washington's line on drugs and you will be rewarded; go your own way and you will be punished. And Gelbard had played on the rivalry between the Australian states and the Federal government like a master diplomat. The state of Victoria and Pennington could plan what drug reforms they liked, but they would come to nothing; the real decisions on drug policy would be taken in Canberra, which had all the authority because of its international treaty obligations. In August last year the ACT heroin trial was abandoned, and instead the Prime Minister, John Howard, launched a new, hard-hitting "National Illicit Drug Strategy". Special strike teams would target drug syndicates, there would be a concerted effort to make Australia a much more difficult target for drug traffickers. Australia was going to get tough on drugs, real tough. Some listeners thought that the Prime Minister's speech sounded as if it had even been written for him by Bob Gelbard. What is behind the irrational passion that the United States brings to the war on drugs? What is it that motivates one American anti-drugs campaigner, William Bennett, to call for the beheading of drug dealers, and the former police chief of Los Angeles to suggest that even casual users should be taken out of the courtroom after conviction and immediately shot? In the early years of this century drugs were legal (or as the American right says: "There was a free market in drugs"). In Britain and the United States there were many recreational users of opium and cocaine and some addicts, few of whom needed to finance their habit by crime. A far greater number of people took their cocaine in highly-diluted forms, such as patented medicines sold over the counter at chemist's shops and in Coca-Cola. (Today's Coca-Cola contains caffeine instead of cocaine.) But an anti-opium lobby had been around in the United States ever since the Californian gold rushes. American racial contempt for the Chinese became focused on their opium-smoking habits, and the Protestant missionary societies in China, the Women's Christian Temperance Union, and other such organisations set out on a crusade to protect the world, especially the white world, from the horrors of opium. In 1909 America called a conference in Shanghai to fight drugs through international co-operation and in 1914, against the wishes of most of the police forces in the United States, the Harrison Act criminalised drugs. With the Treaty of Versailles after the First World War, Britain - which had fought wars to protect its opium trade - tightened up to try to make the world drug-free. That this was a religious crusade rather then a law-and-order issue is obvious by the rhetoric of today's anti-drug lobby. It speaks of drug-taking as "immoral . a sin . an offence against God". A leading American conservative supporter of the drug crusade, an intelligent, rational man, conceded in debate that, yes, alcohol and tobacco were unhealthy and could even cost lives. But illegal drugs were different because "addiction to illegal drugs can result in the loss of your soul". MANY anti-drugs crusaders believe that even the use of drugs to relieve pain in the terminally ill is morally wrong. Leading drugs realists say that the most pervasive drugs scandal in the United States today is the refusal of many doctors to prescribe pain-killers for their patients in case they come to the attention of the Drug Enforcement Administration for over-prescribing. Ethan A Nadelmann, director of the Lindsmith Center, a New York drug-policy research institute, says: "The only reason for the failure to prescribe adequate doses of pain-relieving opiates is the "opiaphobia" that causes doctors to ignore the medical evidence, nurses to turn away from their patients' cries of pain, and some patients themselves elect to suffer debilitating and demoralising pain rather than submit to a proper dose of drugs." Such is the moral conviction of the drugs war warriors that it is difficult to engage them in rational debate. Dr Thomas Szasz of the department of Psychiatry at Syracuse University suggests that it is a waste of time presenting facts to the anti-drug lobby to convince them that the war is lost. He says that the war on drugs is a mass movement characterised by the demonising of certain objects and persons - "drugs", "addicts", "traffickers" - as the incarnations of evil. Hence it is foolish to dwell on the drug prohibitionist's failure to attain his avowed aims. "Since he wages war on evil, his very effort is synonymous with success."
------------------------------------------------------------------- Cannabis Campaign - Letters (Four Letters To Britain's 'Independent On Sunday' In Support Of Its Push For Marijuana Decriminalisation Include One From Son Of Former Home Secretary) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 17:50:07 -0500 To: DrugSense News Service
From: Richard Lake Subject: MN: UK: Cannabis Campaign: Letters Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: Zosimos Pubdate: Sunday, 1 Feb 1998 Source: Independent on Sunday Contact: Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Mail: Independent on Sunday, 1 Canada Square Canary Wharf, London E14 5DL England Editors note: The IoS Cannabis Campaign has web pages at: http://www.independent.co.uk/sindypot/index.htm Letters AS the son of a former Home Secretary, I couldn't help but sympathise with William Straw after his entrapment by the Mirror. I was glad that he did not suffer the usual fate of those who admit to the police they supplied drugs. Do we still need to make the millions of occasional users endure breaking and entering, and false imprisonment? By making possession an offence we make so many otherwise law-abiding citizens into outlaws. We should also remember that it was prohibition that made the Mafia strong and realise that this new prohibition is nurturing animals whose organisations make the Mafia look like Mensa. Will Maudling, London *** AT A recent meeting we voted unanimously in favour of decriminalising cannabis. The assumption that cannabis users inevitably turn to harder drugs is ridiculous. We can reduce the number who do by decriminalising cannabis, thereby keeping ordinary users away from the criminal drugs world. If the sale of cannabis were to be regulated, Liberal Democrats would tax it and channel the extra revenue into under-funded health and education services. Matt Davies, Durham University Liberal Democrat Youth and Students *** IT IS time for the Government to take a good look at its drugs policy. I find it hard to believe that all MPs think that drugs should continue to be illegal. At the moment it seems that our government is simply based on reaction. Alastair C Irvine *** WILLIAM Straw's father has been duplicitous. William Straw supplied a class B drug for profit in a pub when he was under 18. The important issues were not freedom of the press and rights of privacy, but Jack Straw duping the press with the spin induced by these frothy issues. This enables him to carry on persecuting people who use cannabis for their own pleasure. Commander (retd) Mick Humphreys, Somerset
------------------------------------------------------------------- Campaign Supporters (Britain's 'Independent On Sunday' Prints The Names Of Some Of The People With Medical And Academic Associations Who Are Standing Up In Support Of Its 'Cannabis Campaign' To End Marijuana Prohibition) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 18:28:53 -0500 To: DrugSense News Service
From: Richard Lake Subject: MN: UK: Cannabis Campaign: Campaign Supporters Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: Zosimos Pubdate: Sunday, 1 Feb 1998 Source: Independent on Sunday Contact: Email: firstname.lastname@example.org CANNABIS CAMPAIGN -DECRIMINALISE CANNABIS CAMPAIGN SUPPORTERS - ADD YOUR NAME TO THE LIST MEDICAL/ACADEMIA Norman Myers, CMG, environmental scientist Robert Witter, MA, BSc, CQSW, London John Cvancara, staff nurse, Nottingham Dr Graham Pogrel, GP, Cumbria Carole Pogrel, social worker, Youth Justice, Cumbria POLITICS Michael Hindley, Labour MEP for Lancashire South LITERARY/ARTS John Furnival, artist Laurence Dale, opera singer, France READERS Clare McGarvin, USA J & K Bowen, East Sussex Fleur Edwards, Dean & T G Reynolds, Wales S P Driscoll, Pauline McGregor, West Midlands Tom Greenstock, Peter Loughnane, University of Surrey Tasco Villiger, Jan Bahner, Holland Stephane Pallvault, France Eric Schledorn, Germany Mason Baker, USA Sarah Redhouse, Middlesex Rachel Ianson, London Martin Percossi, Christopher Blakesley, Will Luesley, Jonah Fox, Penny Crossley, N Szeuxzyk-Morgan, Marie Welcomme, V Morgan, all London William Caldwell, L Beattie, D Ward, all Glasgow Vinette Pearson, Douglas Cruse, W Russell, E Henderson, Susan Little, Alexander McCubbin, all Scotland John Lynch, Herts Maureen, Ken & Matthew Bailey, Northants Mandy Morley, Stamatia Polizou, Yiannis Vogiatzakis, Carabelas Dimitris, all Greece M Clarkson, I Henshan, L Betts, London Vivienne & Geoffrey Brown, London Michelle & S Brown, L Michie, S Duddal, Bournemouth, Hants A Ellis, Poole, Dorset Paul & Dominic Manzi, Dorset Kari Kirkby, Camberley B Mann, Christchurch Pam Candler, Essex Tirval Scott, David Pert, Shetland Lee Walker, Sheffield Stuart & Luke Payn, D Williams, Grant Brighten, P Milton, B Hall, Claire Townsend, Gary Cook, all Peterborough Luke Dacey, Bedfordshire Amy Clarke, Huntingdon Anthony & Dorothy Proctor, Stowmarket Kevin Buck, Steve Elmes, V Wyatt, Marialda Etcheto, all London April White, Mark Stanley, Jason Beonska, David Williams, Zoe Curbishley, Dominik Daisenberger, Benjamin Beinrabe, London Rowan Jean-Forster, Tamar-Ellen Harris, Tracey Henshaw, all Cleveland Sarah Wright, Tim Symonds, Andy Macleod, Ryan Tebbit, Jeff Peters, London Leonie Finnegan, Dorset Andrew Hinde, M Johnson, V Sonbico, all Somerset Lee Walker, Matthew Evans, N Hall, all London William John McVicker, Wrexham Melanie Sanders, Sam Johnson, London Graham & Chris Holman, Joanna Brown, Bucks Mark Thomas, Lloyd Kane, London Simon W Quarton, Matthew Wood, Neil Snell, Shane Robinson, all Surrey Kyle Lang, Jen Rock, Farahnaz Semat, Jack Pope, Dominic Reviue, Natalie Grant, Louise Tait, Tom Chambers, all Scotland Fiona Donlevy, Stella Boufanti, Hilary Sober, Jessica Neild, P Feltrin, Pino Pastore, London Rhiannon Edwards, Wales Marianne Maunsell, London Dave Womersley, London Thomas Hinde, West Sussex P Wymbs, V Hill, D Crosbie, all London S Mayes, L Stabale, C Cole, L Bear, R Turner, S, M & P Skipper, Ann Acall, T Cleary, all Norfolk Roger Rees, Marc Everett, Stuart Crundwell, Kate & J Osborne, S Birdsall, all London Neil Chapman, Shropshire James Dawson, USA Roger Christie, Hawaii Daniel Attwell, Wales Natalie & Chris Carpenter, Matthew Irving, Elizabeth Lawrence, Stefan Leno, Debbie Wells, Charles Duffy, S May, Andrew Stewart, Paul Smith, Anthony Phelips, all Hants Katherine & T Medway, S Taylor, Paul Trent, Mark Bolen, London M Linton, Mark Andrews, Jon Wright, David Landschett, Hants Jane Holdsworth, Duncan Josh, Brenda Taylor, Leah Taylor, all West Yorks Mike, Charlotte, & Rita Wood, all Leighton Buzzard Calum, Alan & A Graham, Glasgow Troy Transka, L Tatlow, Jack Daniells, Glos Caroline Laskowska, Jonathan Merricks, Simon Harrison, Hants Hayley Shortt, Nottingham John Breckon, Bristol Karlos Gordobil, Iosu Lekue, Merseyside Miss S E King, Taunton C J Fairhurst, Neil Adamson, M Cooper, N Croft, C Buckley, David Montgomery, Jodie Johnston, all Liverpool I Osterlund, Surrey Nicolas Scheidt, France Alex Clow, Mark Burns, Essex Graham Brew, Kilpeck, Hereford and Worcester David Rossiter, Gary& David Imrie, Paul Wilkinson, all Tyne and Wear A & P Rose, A Neeson, Paul Harding, L Ellens, David & L Jearum, all Hastings Astrid, Mary, Georgina, Jack, & H Furnival, all Gloucester Dilly & Martin Bohan, Sophie & Maria Campbell, Ros & Steve Elsey, Kate Corby-Teuch, Sandie Flatt, J Howarth, Kate Harve, Chris Waller, Karen Erlam, Simon Aylmer, Lali Shepherd, all Norfolk Jessica Dunn, Colin Andrews, Sarah Kilpatrick, Gwlym Gweillam, Kevin Chicken, Derek Mogford, Romilly Nolan all London Pip & Richard Dean, Dorset Jan Dargue, Dunblane Hannah, Dale, & Stephen Ward, Argyll Gary Byrnes, J Conroy, Dublin Barry Thompson, Jeff James, Martin Butler, Geoff Hagen, Chris Mathews, Robbie & Jonathan Carlisle, Paul Crook, all Oxford Simon Banham, Kym Brown, Elaine & Donna Kelly, Jan Godbold, Tim Mumford, Rianne Christie, G Deacon, S Villane, K Shawcroft, all Suffolk Marcella D'Gama, London Alex Gaskill, Alec Spendlore, Neil Murphy, all Newcastle upon Tyne Alastair Jardine, Philip Rose, Nora Taylor, all Worcester Magnus Bernine, Erlend Rasmussen, Darlington Michelle & Michael Jacobs, Devon Stewart Wade, R Chandler, Stephen Tighe, Philip Stephenson, London Pavel Gronich, London Martin Studnicka, Jan Martinec, Nada Alsova, Lubos Snizek, all Prague Tom Andrews, Anne & H Price, Zoey Brace, Phil Gray, Tim Brindle, Matthew Stockwell-Allen, all West Yorks Nick Olive, Leicester Emma Lewis, Kent Jason Walpole, Sarah Durham, Andrea & Robert Dobson, Michael Halcomb, all Northants Wayne Shatford, J Marlow, Desborough James & Sally Knight, London Mark Evans, Rebecca Maguire, Victoria Brown, all West Sussex Nicholas Boulton, Richard Attfield, Amanda Billige, all Surrey John Fox, Ireland Pat, Allan & Jack McGowan, Sam Byford, Hopi Allard, Howard Lindsay, all Brighton Julie Nesheim, Abbi Parent, London Daren Ike, Trevor Archer, Pete Rigby, Graham Jones, A Morris, F Trevor, Martin Smith, Philip Bufton, all Telford Kirsten Gogan, A Dixon, Carey Driscill, Mihajlo Lekic, Steven Crawshaw, Murray Jarvis, David Harper, Jo Carter, Emma Oxham, Emma Mason, Toby Gray, all Bristol James Parkinson, Brighton K le Brocq, Jersey Sarah Grimsey, Southampton H Kelly, Agnes Bell, Deirdre Gogan, Kevin Bradley, Oli & Dan Gardner, M Allen, all Leamington Spa Matthew Finney, Andy Farries, Sam Hart, S Parry, all Warwick M Main, Aldershot P Smith, Farnborough Karen Burns, Billingshurst Ben Hostler, Jane Gallagher, Newport Javier Mitra-Valdes, Banbury Paul Williamson, Alex Cater, Hazel Campbell, Carlos Ortiz, Michael Gillbrook, K Middlemass, Derek Rutherford, A Torrance, all Edinburgh Stuart Armstrong, Elizabeth Rae, Aberdeenshire Sarah & David Salmon, Cathy Laing, Valerie Perin, all London David & Jeffrey Pepper, Leon Batchelor, Kellee Knowles, Oliver Smith, Sarah Evans, all Hastings Dean Hunter, Jamie Sinclair, Paul Wheeldon, Derek & David Wedge, Adrian Best, Mark Howell, Eddie Walker, S Harding, Sol Gaughan, Rachel Whittaker, all Shropshire Adam Hammond, Emily Thomas, all Manchester Val de Chiara, Middlesex Andrew Crabtree, Ian Green, West Yorks L Jones, Gareth Crane, Chris Leeson, Stephen Taylor, all Lancs G M & D Darbishire, Godalming Colin Dunne, R Waller, David Ross, S Robertson, H Dobbs, P Wetherfield, Joe Hanynes, all Sussex Jane & Lisa Richards, Ian Bowers, Mark Merrick, Kim Harris, H Sherwood, David Ancott, Mark Wood, all Derbyshire Mitzi & R Baehr, Michael Zair, Robert Wall, Simon Rowe, Stephen Roberts, R Hicks, Richard Eccles, all Somerset Tim Buley, Oxford Steven & Patsy Holmes, Brian Ferguson, Ryan Aitken, Craig Powell, Allan Ritchie, Kyle Aitken, Duncan Hodgeson, all Gretna John Godbehere, Andy Buxton, K Baker, all Sheffield G Manners, Ione Bareau, York Paul & Elizabeth Rushby, Doncaster Lesley Rowe, Gavin Jones, Lower Gornal P Bailey, Bristol Tony & Billy Stephenson, Mark England, Devon M Mellor, London S Willoughby, Brighton Richard Povall, Vashti Maclachlan, West Yorks - Compiled by Tarquin Cooper -------------------------------------------------------------------
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.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
to 1998 Daily News index for January 29-February 4
to Portland NORML news archive directory
to 1998 Daily News index (long)
This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/980201.html