------------------------------------------------------------------- Medical Marijuana Cartoon ('Rex Organs, MD' - Dr. Rex Faces A Dilemma) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 12:13:39 -0800 (PST) From: Terry Miller (email@example.com) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Medical Marijuana Cartoon (fwd) Phil, I don't know how to see this on my computer. Can you take a look? TD Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\RexSpoof.gif *** How's this? Phil
------------------------------------------------------------------- Roommate Of Man Charged With Shooting Police Says It Was Mistake ('Associated Press' Version Of 'Oregonian' Article About Portland Marijuana Task Force Warrantless Break-In Suggests Victim Was Deaf, Didn't Know Assailants Were Police, And Shot In Self-Defense - Which Would Mean Police Lied About Smelling Cannabis Plants Being Destroyed In Fireplace) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 07:48:17 -0800 From: Paul Freedom
Organization: Oregon State Patriots To: Cannabis Patriots , "email@example.com" CC: Gun Owners of America Subject: SHOOTING WAS A MISTAKE, SAYS ROOMMATE! Roommate of man charged with shooting police says it was mistake The Associated Press 02/06/98 4:49 AM Eastern PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- A man accused of killing a policewoman and wounding two other officers may not have heard police identify themselves because he is partially deaf and may have mistakenly thought he was being attacked, his roommate told The Oregonian. Jeffrey H. Moore said he talked to Steven Dons by telephone for an hour Thursday. Don is at Adventist Medical Center recovering from wounds suffered in the Jan. 27 marijuana raid on the house he and Moore shared. Dons is scheduled to be arraigned today from his hospital bed on a 13-count indictment of aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder and assault. "He really regrets what he's done," Moore said. "He didn't know who they were. He made a decision to defend himself." Dons is accused of shooting and killing Officer Colleen Waibel, 44, the first woman in the Portland Police Bureau to die in the line of duty. He also is charged with wounding Officer Kim Keist, who was downgraded Thursday from fair to serious condition at Legacy Emanuel Hospital after suffering an infection in her colon, which had been perforated by a bullet. "That sets you up for an infection right there," said hospital spokeswoman Claudia Brown. Another bullet entered Keist's right shoulder and came to rest near her hip, where it probably will remain. But doctors expect her to make a full recovery and she should be able to return to police work if she chooses. Moore, 44, told The Oregonian that he had no idea there was a 51-plant marijuana grow operation downstairs in the house he shared with Dons. He also said a surveillance camera at the front door was not intended for an ambush, and weapons the police found, including a grenade launcher, all are legal. Moore said he knows the names of people Dons believed were trying to kill him, but he declined to reveal them to the newspaper. He did not say why someone would want to kill Dons, who Moore says is partially deaf from his U.S. Air Force service and from target shooting. Capt. Greg Clark, head of the police bureau's detective division, and James McIntyre, the Multnomah County deputy district attorney handling the case, both said they cannot comment on Moore's claims. "Whatever Mr. Moore has to say, he has to say," McIntyre said. "Our investigation is continuing." Moore's ex-wife, Chelle Moore of Las Vegas, said even she knew the marijuana was there, as she told police after the shooting. "He's a liar," she said of her ex-husband. "Jeff doesn't want to take responsibility for anything he's done." Moore said the marijuana plants police found belonged to Dons and were kept in a locked room for which he did not have a key. Moore said he thought Dons had used the room for storage the past two years. Moore said he occasionally smoked marijuana with Dons but he didn't have any reason to believe Dons was a drug dealer. "Yeah, he had friends over who did some things we do, but I never saw that," Moore said. Moore said the guns found in the house were used for protection and target shooting, and half were his, including a Polytech M-14 semiautomatic rifle, one of two SKS semiautomatic rifles, one of two shotguns and two handguns. Moore said he and Dons have been friends for 14 years. "I don't approve of what he's done," Moore said. "He's not the most perfect person around, but he's basically a good man." David R. Anderson covers the Portland Police Bureau for The Oregonian's Crime, Justice, and Public Safety Team. He can be reached by phone at 503-294-7633, by fax at 503-294-5009, by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org or by mail at 1320 SW Broadway, Portland, Oregon 97201
------------------------------------------------------------------- Roommate Of Man Charged With Shooting Police Says It Was Mistake ('Oregonian' Version) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 15:33:33 -0800 From: Paul Freedom
Organization: Oregon State Patriots To: Cannabis Patriots , "email@example.com" CC: Gun Owners of America Subject: UPDATE!-SHOOTING A MISTAKE The Oregonian February 6, 1998 Roommate calls police shooting a mistake Steven Dons, described as a "good man," didn't realize those outside his door were officers and ''regrets'' the tragedy, his friend says By David R. Anderson of The Oregonian staff The man accused of murdering a Portland police officer mistakenly thought that officers storming his home were people who might be trying to kill him, his roommate said Thursday. Steven Douglas Dons admitted to Jeffrey H. Moore during an hourlong telephone conversation Thursday that he shot at police, Moore said. "He didn't know who they were," Moore said. "He made a decision to defend himself. "He said he made a decision and stuck to it. He really regrets what he's done." Moore said he knows the names of the people Dons thought were trying to kill him, but he would not reveal them to The Oregonian and would not say why someone would want to kill Dons. Dons is partially deaf from his service in the U.S. Air Force and from target shooting, Moore said. He said that explains why Dons never heard police identifying themselves before breaking down his front door. Dons is scheduled to be arraigned this morning from his hospital bed at Adventist Medical Center on a 13-count indictment of aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder and assault. He is accused of shooting and killing Portland police Officer Colleen Waibel, 44, during a drug raid Jan. 27 at his home, 2612 S.E. 111th Ave. Two other officers were injured in the shootout, which also left Dons with a bullet in his chest. Moore, 44, said in a telephone interview from his office at Mt. Hood Community College, where he is a computer network specialist, that he had no idea about a 51-plant marijuana grow operation police found in a downstairs room of the house he rented. He said a surveillance camera at the front door was not intended for an ambush, and the weapons police found, including a device that appears to be a grenade launcher, are all legal. Capt. Greg Clark, head of the Portland Police Bureau's Detective Division, and James McIntyre, the Multnomah County deputy district attorney handling the case, said they could not comment on Moore's claims. "Whatever Mr. Moore has to say, he has to say,'' McIntyre said. "Our investigation is continuing." Moore's ex-wife, Chelle Moore of Las Vegas, said even she knew the marijuana was there and told police that after the shooting. "He's a liar," she said Thursday of her ex-husband. "Jeff doesn't want to take responsibility for anything he's done." Moore said he does not have an attorney and doesn't think he'll be charged with a crime. "I'm not guilty of anything," he said. "Why would I be charged?" He said the marijuana plants that police found belonged to Dons and were kept in a locked room for which he did not have a key. Moore said he thought Dons had used the room for storage the past two years. Moore said he occasionally smoked marijuana with Dons and that an inhaling device police found for cocaine or methamphetamine might belong to Dons. But Moore said he didn't have any reason to think Dons was a drug dealer. "Yeah, he had friends over who did some things we do, but I never saw that," Moore said. Moore said the guns police found in the house were for protection and target shooting. Moore and Dons liked to go to a regulated outdoor shooting range in Vancouver, Wash., or to the hills around Estacada. "Every weapon in the house was perfectly legal," Moore said. When Dons lived in Las Vegas, he probably had 40 or 50 weapons, Moore said. "He was a hobbyist," Moore said. As for a device police think is a grenade launcher, Moore said it is a 37mm flare launcher. Moore said half the guns were his -- a Polytech M14 semiautomatic rifle, one of two SKS semiautomatic rifles, one of two shotguns and both handguns. Police found a surveillance camera next to the front door behind reflective glass. Moore said he and Dons used the camera to see to the end of their driveway without having to go to the front door. It was not aimed at people standing at the door, Moore said. It was a coincidence that the monitor was in Dons' bedroom the morning of the shooting, Moore said. Moore said the media have unfairly portrayed his friend of 14 years. Dons is a good man who worked hard at whatever he did, Moore said. "I don't approve of what he's done," Moore said. "He's not the most perfect person around, but he's basically a good man." Moore also disputed reports that Dons dislikes women. Dons is divorced and came to Portland four years ago because he was having problems with a girlfriend. "He doesn't hate women; he just doesn't have a lot of use for them," Moore said. Dons does have a problem with authority and law enforcement, Moore said. That goes back to his experiences in Las Vegas, where Dons was harassed by police, Moore said. Dons was convicted of two counts of obstructing a police officer and single counts of resisting arrest, resisting a police officer, battery with a deadly weapon, using a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime, and being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm. But Moore said that none of the convictions were felonies. Dons has lived in Portland for four years, and police said that he has no criminal convictions during that time. During the holidays, Moore's two young children visited him from Las Vegas. One day when he came home, he did find that Dons had handcuffed his 7-year-old son to a chair, Moore said. But after questioning, Moore became convinced that it was a game. After all, he said, his son was quietly eating soup with his free hand and wasn't complaining. Moore said that Dons had a "childhood you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy." Dons was routinely beaten by his parents as a young boy, Moore said. Dons' mother, for example, slammed his crib across the room and broke his leg, Moore said. And Dons' father was beyond strict. "His father practiced wall-to-wall counseling," Moore said. As to reports that Dons threw rocks at other children as a youngster, Moore said it was a defense against gangs. "He never started anything as far as I know," Moore said, "but he was in a position to end it." David R. Anderson covers the Portland Police Bureau for The Oregonian's Crime, Justice & Public Safety Team. He can be reached by phone at 294-7663, by fax at 294-5009, by email at firstname.lastname@example.org or by mail 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland 97201.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Infection Deals Setback To Wounded Officer ('The Oregonian' Gives Update On Condition Of Portland Marijuana Task Force Officer Shot During Warrantless Break-In) oregonlive.com February 6, 1998 email@example.com Infection deals setback to wounded officer By Jennifer Bjorhus of The Oregonian staff After developing an infection in her colon, Officer Kim Keist was downgraded Thursday from fair to serious condition in intensive care at Legacy Emanuel Hospital. Dr. Anthony Borzatto operated on Keist at 11 p.m. Wednesday to fix an abscess on her colon, which had been perforated by a bullet, hospital spokeswoman Claudia Brown said. Such infections are not uncommon, she said. "It's a setback, definitely, but Dr. Borzatto thinks her prognosis is very good," Brown said. "One of those bullets did perforate the colon. That sets you up for infection right there." Keist, 39, was rushed to Legacy Emanuel Hospital on Jan. 27 after being shot twice during a standoff in Southeast Portland in which Portland Police Officer Colleen Waibel, 44, was killed. One round entered Keist's right shoulder and came to rest near her hip, where it probably will remain. A second bullet cut her bowel in half and exited through her rib cage. Despite the damage, Borzatto has said nothing should prevent Keist from returning to police work. - Jennifer Bjorhus
------------------------------------------------------------------- Dons Arraigned In Hospital Room Faces Murder, Assault Charges (Version From KOIN, Portland's CBS Affiliate) Found at http://www.koin.com/ Dons Arraigned In Hospital Room Faces Murder, Assault Charges PORTLAND, Posted 12:32 p.m. February 06, 1998 - Steven Douglas Dons' hospital room was converted into a courtroom this morning when he was arraigned by Judge Joseph Ceniceros. According to KOIN-TV, Dons faces 13 separate charges, including two counts of aggravated murder in the shooting death of Officer Colleen Waibel. Other counts include charges of assault. The 44-year-old officer was killed Jan. 27 when police broke down the door of Dons' home during an investigation into a possible marijuana-growing operation. The officers were met with a hail of gunfire when they entered the home. (Full Story). Officer Colleen Waibel died in the exchange of gunfire. Officer Kim Keist was seriously injured and is recovering at Legacy Emanuel Hospital. Dons is partially paralyzed from a gunshot wound to the chest. When he recovers, he will be moved to the Justice Center medical facility. Compiled by Channel 6000 Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------- Maine Medical Marijuana Update (Press Release From Dave Fratello Of Americans For Medical Rights Recaps Media Reports - Mainers For Medical Rights Effort Short On Signatures, But Some Not Certified) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 20:18:23 EST Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Originator: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Dave Fratello <email@example.com> To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Maine medmj UPDATE MAINE UPDATE -- FEBRUARY 6 1998 This week Mainers for Medical Rights (MMR), whose goal is to place a medical marijuana initiative on the November 1998 ballot, suffered a setback. On Monday, Feb. 2, MMR submitted about 49,000 signatures that had been validated by the cities and towns of Maine to the Secretary of State. The required total, however, is 51,131. Over 3,000 signatures on MMR petitions are currently sitting, unverified, in the offices of the city of Portland. These signatures were submitted on or before the deadline of January 23, and the city had a constitutional responsibility to complete verification of them by January 30. (The workers responsible complain that they are understaffed and have been preparing for a special election on Feb. 10.) MMR has a clear legal basis for ordering verification of those signatures and inclusion of them toward the total for 1998. A legal strategy is being prepared and will be launched shortly. When that process is complete, it is still possible that the MMR initiative will be placed on the November 1998 ballot. If that doesn't work out, MMR will re-start the signature drive and qualify the measure for a vote in November 1999.
------------------------------------------------------------------- International Conference On Marihuana For Medicine (Media Awareness Project Draws Attention To Conference At New York University Medical Center March 20-21 Co-Chaired By Notorious Anti-Cannabis Zealot Gabriel H. Nahas) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 07:20:11 -0500 To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, DPFT-L@TAMU.EDU, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, november-l@NOVEMBER.ORG, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com From: Richard Lake (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: International Conference on Marihuana for Medicine [Richard Lake of Media Awareness Project writes:] In a response to my inquiry, based on a newshawk tip from Michael Krawitz (Miguet@NOVEMBER.ORG) who wrote "Professor Nahas has slipped many fast ones past our side, Please help me avert this one." I sent a message to Professor Gabriel Nahas about his conference, and received the following reply: > Subject: RE: International Conference on Marihuana and Medicine Date: > Thu, 05 Feb 1998 13:39:47 -0400 > From: email@example.com (Gabriel G. Nahas) > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > > For additional information about the "Marihuana and Medicine Conference", >Please see our own website at www.marijuana-research.com/nahas/ or call the > NYU Post Graduate Medical Center at 212-263-5295. From the website listed above we find that the: NYU School of Medicine, Post-Graduate Medical School, PRESENTS AN International Conference on Marihuana for Medicine [at the] NYU Medical Center, NYU College of Medicine Friday and Saturday, March 20-21, 1998 CONFERENCE CO-CHAIRMEN: Gabriel Nahas, Robert Cancro, Nicholas Pace and Stig Agurell While the announcement goes on to sound like this will be an honest evaluation, one need only click the link at the bottom of the page, and a link on the next page to get to: http://www.marijuana-research.com/nahas/nyu14.htm THE WALL STREET JOURNAL - TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 1997 Marijuana Is the Wrong Medicine BY GABRIEL G. NAHAS, KENNETH SUTIN, WILLIAM M. MANGER AND GEORGE HYMAN Looks like the pet 'researchers' of the Drug War lobby will be, again, rolling out their 'research' that seems to have a hard time with peer review. Or at least so I read all over the internet. What do I know? Has anyone seen any items in the press on this? If so, please email me a copy at email@example.com along with the source and contact information for the publication. Thank you. Richard Lake Senior Editor; MAPnews, MAPnews-Digest and DrugNews-Digest email: rlake@MAPinc.org http://www.DrugSense.org/drugnews/ For subscription information see: http://www.MAPinc.org/lists/ Quick sign up for DrugNews-Digest, Focus Alerts or Newsletter: http://www.DrugSense.org/hurry.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------- Professor Nahas's Crusade, Or, The Art Of Disinformation (List Subscriber Posts URL And Excerpts From Michka's October 1993 Denunciation Of Nahas In France's 'Maintenant') From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Matt Elrod) To: Mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com Subject: Re: NAHAS QUOTED! Tom again..LethHerald Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 13:57:40 -0800 Here's something I squirreled away from Usenet awhile back ... On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Eric Johnson wrote: Nahas has been the most debunked anti-pot activist in history. His name is mud in most circles. I couldn't possibly fit even half the information about him in a post, but I'll attempt to get you started. A good place to read about him is http://www.paranoia.com/drugs/marijuana/facts/nahas-crusade. Here are some pieces of that page, reprinted from: Professor Nahas's Crusade.. or the Art of Disinformation by Michka, "Maintenant", October 1993 Professor Nahas is not your average scientist: even before he began his research, he knew what the outcome would be. His first research project, during the Fifties at Columbia University in the United States, was set up to, in his own words,"prove the very great danger of marijuana in all fields of biology." The key word here is "prove". Not study, but prove. Moreover, Professor Nahas declares openly: "I am an enemy of cannabis and I will use all means possible to fight against cannabis". And indeed, in this fight, all means are acceptable. The war against cannabis, presented as a war for public health, is in fact something entirely different: it is a war for values which dare not rear their heads in the light of day. So much so that, the debate, if there ever is a debate, is skewed: the crux of the matter is never touched upon. [...] How could the public at large know that as early as 1975, Columbia University called a press conference to disassociate itself publicly from Gabriel Nahas's research on marijuana? Without carrying out an enquiry, how is one to know that many of the studies on which Professor Nahas bases his theories have been discredited in the United States and elsewhere for methodological errors so serious that they smack of fraud? There are plenty of examples. We shall limit ourselves to a single case to illustrate how seemingly scientific studies are used to popularize notions that are not in the least rational. It should be noted that the experiment in question and others like it are still mentioned by Nahas and his followers as proof that cannabis causes irreversible brain damage. For this experiment, gas masks were placed on the faces of some unfortunate laboratory monkeys so that they would be forced to breathe in cannabis smoke. After exposure, the animals were put down and it was discovered that they had suffered brain damage. This could have been the end of the story. But what happened next is quite edifying: Independent researchers, intrigued by these results which did not coincide with the bulk of research in the field, endeavored for many years to know just which procedure was used for the experiment. Thus, they learned that for five minutes, the monkeys were only permitted to breathe in the cannabis smoke equivalent to that given off by sixty three joints! Under such conditions, the animals had infact died from asphyxiation. In another study, also mentioned to demonstrate that cannabis causes brain damage, laboratory rats were injected with pure THC, at doses corresponding to twelve hundred times the doses ingested by a cannabis smoker! If these experiments demonstrate anything at all, it is the remarkable absence of cannabis toxicity: the same dose of any of our legal drugs, nicotine, alcohol, or even caffeine, is immediately lethal to any animal on the receiving end of such an injection. [...] So this is how Gabriel Nahas and his National Alliance against Drug Addiction manipulate science. And this is how the public at large is duped. And this is how our politicians spread the good word. At this rate, the information campaigns promised by Balladur will probably be as woefully inadequate as usual. Unless these successive blunders inspire our politicians to be more circumspect and take more care in choosing their consultants. Gabriel Nahas and his cohorts have been poisoning the debate for forty years; the time has come to acknowledge this and treat the French people as adults. [End quoting] I encourage you to do more research on your own, especially before quoting a source as an authority when you know next to nothing about him/her. *** Mishta Ecks - Mr-X@iRC EFnet insane at netset dot com http://www.netset.com/~insane PGP Key @ MIT Key Server - Key Fingerprint Follows E5AE 6F83 9020 6C9A 3359 5437 ADCE 1BD5
------------------------------------------------------------------- Camarena Case Witness Recants Allegations, US Says ('Los Angeles Times' Says Hector Cervantes Santos Is Now Recanting His Earlier Recantation Regarding 1985 Torture-Slaying In Mexico Of DEA Agent) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 21:53:47 -0800 To: email@example.com From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Joel W. Johnson) Subject: MN: US: Camarena Case Witness Recants Allegations, U.S. Says Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield Source: Los Angeles Times Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Fax: 213-237-4712 Pubdate: February 6, 1998 Author: David Rosenzweig, Times Staff Writer Man who implicated suspects in the murder of DEA agent later claimed he had been pressured by federal prosecutors. But now he contends he was coerced to make those charges, court papers say. CAMARENA CASE WITNESS RECANTS ALLEGATIONS, U.S. SAYS A government witness who claimed that federal prosecutors in Los Angeles pressured him to falsely implicate suspects in the 1985 kidnapping and murder of U.S. drug agent Enrique Camarena has recanted his allegations against the prosecutors, the U.S. attorney's office said in a document filed in federal court Thursday. In a videotaped interview with the Drug Enforcement Administration officials in Guadalajara last month, the witness reportedly said he was plied with money to lie about the prosecutors and was later beaten and held captive in Mexico to ensure his cooperation. The witness, Hector Cervantes Santos, also said he was forced to repeat his account of prosecutorial misconduct in an interview with a Times reporter and was coached on how to beat a polygraph examination, the U.S. attorney's office said. Cervantes' claim of prosecutorial misconduct is at the heart of a motion for a new trial being sought by Ruben Zuno Arce, now serving a life term for Camarena's torture-murder in Mexico. Reached for comment, Zuno's lawyer, Edward Medvene, said, "From everything I know, these most recent statements of Cervantes are false." Chief Assistant U.S. Atty. Richard E. Drooyan said Cervantes came to the DEA office in Guadalajara voluntarily Jan. 18 and, during a videotaped interview of more than an hour, disavowed statements he had made to the defense. The government plans to play the tape during a hearing before U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie on March 2 to consider Zuno's motion. The government summary of the taped interview said Cervantes alleged that he was coerced to lie about the prosecution by agents of Zuno and Manuel Bartlett Diaz, currently governor of Puebla state. Bartlett, once the second-highest Mexican official, was identified by Cervantes during the trial as being present in a drug lord's home where Camarena was tortured. Bartlett was not charged but has been trying to clear his name. Bartlett's attorney said Thursday that Cervantes' latest recantation shows that he lacks credibility. Zuno, the brother-in-law of former Mexican President Luis Echeverria, was convicted in a Los Angeles federal court trial in 1990 after Cervantes placed him and two other defendants at meetings held by Mexican drug dealers to plot Camarena's abduction. Cervantes worked at that time as a security guard at a drug cartel member's home. Zuno's conviction was overturned on appeal, but he was convicted again in 1992 without Cervantes being called as a witness. Instead, the government relied on the testimony of two other drug cartel security guards. Last summer, after he was rejected for entry into the federal witness protection program and after quarreling with the DEA over financial support, Cervantes surfaced as a witness for the defense. The Times undertook its own examination of the Camarena case, interviewing Cervantes and scores of witnesses in the United States and in Mexico. The paper reported last October that new evidence raised questions about the integrity of the DEA investigation and the testimony of prosecution witnesses. In their summary of Cervantes' recent interview with the DEA, federal prosecutors gave this account: Cervantes said that after his falling out with the DEA last year, he met in Los Angeles with representatives of Zuno and Bartlett who told him he had been betrayed by the drug agency. He said they also gave him $6,000 or $7,000. He said he was put up at a downtown Los Angeles hotel for about two weeks and "met with a polygraph examiner for five days, eight to 10 hours a day." He said the representatives of Zuno and Bartlett told him they would "make sure that . . . [the polygraph] comes out fine." He said they also instructed him to "close his mind into a blank" while taking the test and he would pass. Cervantes did submit to a polygraph test administered by a reputable examiner at the behest of Bartlett's American lawyer--and reports said he passed. In July, Cervantes said, he was taken to Tijuana and was met by Alberto Espinoza, "a representative of Bartlett" who escorted him to Puebla for a meeting with Bartlett in the state Capitol. "Bartlett said he wanted Cervantes to speak to the press, and Cervantes said he did not want to do that," the government document said. "Bartlett then told him that they were going to 'soften him up.' " Cervantes told the DEA he was taken to a room in the Capitol basement, blindfolded, stripped, doused with cold water and beaten over several days. He said he was taken to another location where the beatings continued until he became ill and "agreed to do whatever he was told." After being freed and returned to his family, the document said, Cervantes met for an interview with a Times reporter and "as instructed, he falsely told the reporter that he had been coached to lie in the earlier trial." In October, the government document said, Cervantes was ordered by Bartlett's agent to fly to Mexico City with his family--and when he arrived, he was taken into custody and ordered to sign some papers that he never read. Afterward, he said, he and his family were taken to a military base and he was beaten and held incommunicado until mid-December, when he bribed his way out and returned to Guadalajara, hiding until he showed up at the DEA office there last month. After reviewing the government's declaration Thursday, Los Angeles attorney Michael J. Lightfoot, who represents Bartlett, said that "the conduct attributed to Gov. Bartlett, his attorneys and his agents is ludicrous. Gov. Bartlett has never met Cervantes. "Only recently, Cervantes has given us documents which he says are in a government representative's handwriting, scripting his false testimony in the 1990 trial. At a minimum, this information confirms the incredibility of this witness and is particularly troubling because there are several individuals who are presently serving life sentences on the basis of his testimony."
------------------------------------------------------------------- Law Enforcement Veteran To Head Customs Service ('Los Angeles Times' Says Clinton Will Appoint Raymond W. Kelly, Ex-Marine, Former New York Police Commissioner, Who Will Step Down From Treasury Department Post - Replaces Samuel H. Banks, Acting Commissioner Since George Weise's Resignation In October) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:10:42 -0800 To: email@example.com From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Joel W. Johnson) Subject: MN: US: Law Enforcement Veteran to Head Customs Service Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield and Bartman (email@example.com) Source: Los Angeles Times Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.latimes.com Pubdate: 6 Feb 1998 Author: Jack Nelson, Chief Washington Correspondent LAW ENFORCEMENT VETERAN TO HEAD CUSTOMS SERVICE Choice of Raymond Kelly is seen as a clear signal that the administration aims to toughen the agency's drug-fighting efforts. WASHINGTON--Raymond W. Kelly, a straight-talking ex-Marine and former New York police commissioner, is stepping down as the Treasury Department's undersecretary for enforcement to assume direct control of one of six agencies under his command: the troubled U.S. Customs Service. Explaining why he accepted the lower-ranking post, Kelly said: "I just wanted to get back into an operational mode, and Customs is a great agency with an important mission." He acknowledged that Customs has experienced some serious problems, some of which Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) spotlighted in a speech on the Senate floor Thursday. Feinstein said she was surprised by an article in The Times earlier this week reporting that the amount of cocaine seized at commercial ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border plummeted 84% in 1997, compared with the year before. This has forced Customs officials, who oversee the ports, to develop a new drug-fighting strategy and left them concerned about a backlash in Congress. And last fall, Customs officials acknowledged in testimony to a congressional committee that a wide disparity existed between resources devoted to the East and West coasts, leaving the Los Angeles area vulnerable to international crime. Data provided the committee by Customs showed the agency has placed about twice as many special agents in its New York and Miami offices as it has in Los Angeles, where 167 people are assigned to the investigative unit. Even though it covers the largest metropolitan area of the agency's field offices, the Los Angeles unit ranks seventh in size. Kelly said Thursday: "We're on the way to addressing some of [the problems], and I'm excited about joining the agency." Kelly's appointment is widely seen as a clear signal that the administration aims to toughen Customs' drug-enforcement efforts. Although the White House has not officially announced Kelly's appointment, other sources confirmed it after Feinstein, in her Senate speech, mentioned that she had urged the appointment of a law enforcement veteran as the new Customs commissioner and that President Clinton planned to name Kelly. Kelly will replace Samuel H. Banks, who has been acting commissioner since October, when George Weise resigned. Kelly's boss as undersecretary will be James E. Johnson, who has been serving under him as assistant secretary for enforcement. A combat veteran of the Vietnam War, Kelly rose through the ranks of the New York City Police Department, serving in every rank and 25 commands before becoming commissioner in October 1992. Recognized as New York state's law enforcement official of the year in 1993, he helped lead the successful investigation of that year's bombing at the World Trade Center. He retired as commissioner in January 1994. Feinstein said she was "heartened" by Kelly's appointment, calling him "a straight shooter" with an exemplary background. She expressed hope he would concentrate the Customs Service's efforts on its mission to intercept drugs being smuggled into the United States. With an annual budget of about $2.1 billion, the Customs Service, in addition to its core mission of inspecting cargo and interdicting illegal drugs, shares responsibility for combating international money-laundering and arms-smuggling. Feinstein told the Senate the Southwest border "is still, without question, ground zero in U.S. drug-interdiction efforts, with more than 70% of the cocaine and other narcotics entering this country across the 2,000-mile stretch of border between our county and Mexico."
------------------------------------------------------------------- Satcher Flip Flops On Needle Exchange (ACT UP In Washington, DC, Charges Clinton's Nominee For Surgeon General With Lying To Congress - Statements To Senate Contradict Those In 1993 As Director Of US Centers Of Disease Control) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:57:44 EST Reply-To: VOTEYES57@aol.com Originator: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org From: VOTEYES57@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Satcher Flip Flops on Needle Exchange AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power ACT UP Washington (202) 547-9404 fax 547-9458 for immediate release February 6, 1998 *** Surgeon General nominee lies to Congress *** AIDS activists oppose Satcher confirmation *** Washington, DC -- The AIDS advocacy group ACT UP in Washington, DC has renewed it opposition to Surgeon General nominee Dr. David Stacher amid revelations that Satcher opposes lifting the current funding ban for needle exchange programs. Despite overwhelming evidence that such programs are effective in reducing HIV transmission among injection drug users, while not increasing drug use, Clinton Administration officials have steadfastly refused to lift the ban. Dr. Satcher, who has been the Director of the US Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, told the United States Senate, "We do not have adequate science to conclude that such programs do not encourage drug use in communities. We have not asked that the congressional ban on federal funding for these programs be lifted." However, Dr. Satcher's CDC recommended in 1993, "The ban on federal funding should be removed to allow states and communities the option of including NEPs (needle exchange programs) in comprehensive programs." AIDS activists have long criticized President Clinton for failing to keep his 1992 campaign promise to "Allow federal money to be used for condom distribution and needle exchange" (Clinton Campaign ad published in Frontiers NewsMagazine, Ocotober, 1992) "We need a Surgeon General who is willing to put science above politics when it comes to health policy. That clearly is not David Satcher" comments Wayne Turner of ACT UP Washington. The Surgeon General's post has remained vacant since 1994, when President Clinton fired his long time friend, Dr. Joycelyn Elders, who outraged conservatives by suggesting that masturbation be discussed as safe sex. ACT UP Washington fought Clinton's earlier nominee, Dr. Henry Foster, because he stated on ABC's Nightline that he opposed condom distribution as an HIV prevention strategy. "Thousands of new HIV infections could have been prevented if Clinton had lifted the ban five years ago. Any doctor who allows people to needlessly die is simply unacceptable." adds ACT UP's Steve Michael.
------------------------------------------------------------------- AMR Initiative (Text Of Washington, DC, Medical Marijuana Ballot Initiative Being Sponsored By Americans For Medical Rights) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 00:15:45 EST Originator: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org From: David Borden
To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: AMR initiative DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHORT TITLE -- "Medical Use of Marijuana Initiative of 1998" SUMMARY This Initiative, if passed, permits the medical use of marijuana by patients suffering from certain debilitating conditions including cancer, glaucoma and AIDS. This Initiative would: - Permit eligible patients to possess, use and cultivate marijuana in limited quantities, exclusively for medical purposes, without criminal penalty; - Limit eligibility to patients who have been advised by a licensed physician that marijuana use might be of medical benefit; - Establish certain restrictions, limitations and prohibitions with respect to the authorized medical use of marijuana; - Require the Director of the Department of Health to propose a plan providing for the distribution of marijuana to qualified patients. LEGISLATIVE TEXT BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this Act, which may be cited as the "Medical Use of Marijuana Initiative of 1998," amends Title 33 of the District of Columbia Code by adding a new chapter to read: Chapter 11. Medical Use of Marijuana by Persons Suffering from Debilitating Medical Conditions. 33-1101. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the term: (1) "Debilitating medical condition" means: (a) cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), or acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), or treatment for cancer or HIV/AIDS; (b) a chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition, or treatment for such conditions, which produces, for a specific patient, one or more of the following, and for which, in the professional opinion of the patient's physician, such condition or conditions or debilitating side-effects of treatment may be alleviated by the medical use of marijuana: cachexia; severe pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those that are characteristic of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including those that are characteristic of multiple sclerosis; or (c) any other medical condition, or treatment for such condition, approved by the Director pursuant to 33-1107 of this chapter. (2) "Director" means the Director of the District of Columbia Department of Health, or such employees of the Department of Health as the Director may designate in writing as authorized to carry out the Director's duties under this chapter. (3) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, use, and/or transportation of marijuana and/or paraphernalia related to the administration of such marijuana to alleviate the symptoms or effects of a patient's debilitating medical condition, which may be authorized only after a diagnosis of the patient's debilitating medical condition by a physician and in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. (4) "Parent" means a custodial mother or father of a patient under the age of eighteen years, any other person having custody of a patient under the age of eighteen years, or any person serving as the legal guardian for a patient under the age of eighteen years. (5) "Patient" means a person who has a debilitating medical condition. (6) "Physician" means a doctor of medicine who maintains, in good standing, a license to practice medicine and to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research in the District of Columbia. (7) "Primary care-giver" means one person, other than the patient and the patient's physician, who is eighteen years of age or older and has been designated by the patient as having significant responsibility for managing the well-being of that patient. No more than one primary care-giver may be designated by a patient at any point in time absent a showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that more than one primary care-giver is required, in the circumstances of that particular patient, to effectuate the purposes of this chapter. Any written designation or appointment, signed by the patient, shall be prima facie evidence that the person has been so designated. (8) "Marijuana" means the plant genus Cannabis as set out with specificity in 33-501(3)(A) of this Title. (9) "Written documentation" means, for the purposes of this chapter, a statement signed by a patient's physician or authentic copies of the patient's pertinent medical records. 33-1102. Privileged Medical Use of Marijuana Under Certain Specified Circumstances. (a) Except as otherwise provided in 33-1105 of this chapter, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Title, any patient or primary care-giver charged with a violation of District of Columbia law related to the patient's medical use of marijuana may raise as an affirmative defense to such charge that such medical use is authorized by this chapter, and such affirmative defense shall be presumed to be valid where the evidence shows that: (1) the patient was diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition; (2) the patient was advised by his or her physician, in the context of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, that the patient might benefit from the medical use of marijuana in connection with a debilitating medical condition; and (3) the patient and his or her primary care-giver were collectively in possession of amounts of marijuana only as permitted under this chapter. (b) No physician shall be subject to arrest or prosecution under District of Columbia law, penalized in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, for: (1) Advising a patient, whom the physician has diagnosed as having a debilitating medical condition, about the risks and benefits of medical use of marijuana or that he or she might benefit from the medical use of marijuana, provided that such advice is based upon the physician's assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship; or (2) Providing a patient with written documentation, based upon the physician's assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, stating that the patient has a debilitating medical condition and might benefit from the medical use of marijuana. (c) In any proceeding in which rights or defenses created by this chapter are asserted, a physician called as a witness shall be permitted to testify before a judge, in camera. Such testimony, when introduced in a public proceeding, if the physician witness so requests, shall have redacted the name of the physician and the court shall maintain the name and identifying characteristics of the physician under seal. (d) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, no person, including a patient or primary care-giver, shall be entitled to the protection of this chapter for his or her acquisition, possession, cultivation, use, sale, distribution, and/or transportation of marijuana for any use other than medical use. (e) Any property interest that is possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marijuana, or acts incidental to such use, shall not be harmed, neglected, injured, or destroyed while in the possession of District of Columbia law enforcement officials where such property has been seized in connection with the claimed medical use of marijuana. Any such property interest shall not be forfeited under any provision of law providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed after conviction of a criminal offense or entry of a plea of guilty to such offense. Marijuana and paraphernalia seized by District of Columbia law enforcement officials from a patient or primary care-giver in connection with the claimed medical use of marijuana shall be returned immediately upon the determination by the prosecuting attorney or his or her designee, or a court, that the patient or primary care-giver is entitled to the protections provided by this chapter as may be evidenced, for example, by a decision not to prosecute, the dismissal of charges, or acquittal. 33-1103. Duties of the Director, Department of Health. The Director of the District of Columbia Department of Health shall, no later than June 1, 1999, develop and submit to the Council of the District of Columbia a plan providing for the regulated, safe, reliable and affordable distribution of marijuana to patients eligible to engage in the medical use of marijuana pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. (a) Such plan shall provide for the organization and operation, by residents of the District of Columbia, of not-for-profit corporations engaged solely in the acquisition, cultivation, and distribution of marijuana exclusively for the medical use of patients in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, such corporations shall comply with all laws and regulations applicable to, and shall enjoy the same tax status as, other not-for-profit corporations operating in the District of Columbia. (b) Such plan shall specifically provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients enrolled in Medicaid or a Ryan White CARE Act-funded program who are in medical need and who qualify for the medical use of marijuana pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. (c) Such plan shall expressly provide that the District of Columbia Controlled Substances Act's prohibition of the possession, or of the manufacture, distribution, cultivation, or possession with intent to manufacture, distribute, or cultivate marijuana, shall not apply to any not-for-profit corporation organized for the purposes of this section. (d) The District of Columbia Department of Health may determine and levy reasonable fees to pay for any and all administrative costs incurred, or reasonably expected to be incurred, pursuant to the discharge of the Director's responsibilities under this chapter. 33-1104. Authorized Quantities of Marijuana for Medical Use. (a) A patient using marijuana for medical purposes according to the provisions of this chapter, or his or her primary care-giver, may collectively possess or transport, at any point in time, no more marijuana than is necessary under the circumstances to assure the uninterrupted availability of such marijuana for the purpose of reliably alleviating that patient's debilitating medical condition for a period corresponding to the anticipated course of treatment, or for 60 days, whichever is less. (b) The exemption for cultivation, under this chapter, shall apply only to marijuana specifically grown to provide a medical supply reasonably calculated to minimize, for a period corresponding to the anticipated course of treatment, or for 60 days, whichever is less, the possibility of treatment interruption, and shall not apply to any marijuana grown for any other purpose. 33-1105. Prohibitions, Restrictions and Limitations Respecting the Medical Use of Marijuana. (a) No patient in lawful possession of marijuana pursuant to this chapter shall: (1) engage in the medical use of marijuana in any way that endangers the health or well-being of another person; or (2) engage in the medical use of marijuana in plain view of, or in a place open to, the general public. (b) The medical use of marijuana pursuant to this chapter shall not be a defense to any crime of violence, the crime of operating a motor vehicle while impaired or intoxicated, or a crime involving danger to another person or to the public, nor shall such use negate the mens rea for any offense. (c) No private health insurance provider shall be required to be liable for any claim for reimbursement for the medical use of marijuana. (d) Nothing in this chapter shall require any accommodation of any medical use of marijuana: (1) by any employer; (2) on or within any school grounds; (3) at or within any recreation or youth center; or (4) on any school bus. 33-1106. Medical Use of Marijuana by a Minor. No patient under eighteen years of age shall use marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to this chapter unless: (a) Two physicians have concurred in a diagnosis that the patient has a debilitating medical condition; (b) One physician referred to in subsection (a) has explained the possible risks and benefits of medical use of marijuana to the patient and the patient's parent(s), as defined in this chapter, residing in the District of Columbia, and the physician has provided the patient and/or the patient's parent(s) with the advice required under this chapter; (c) Each of the patient's parents, as defined in this chapter, who resides in the District of Columbia, consents to the patient's use of marijuana for medical purposes; (d) One of the patient's parents agrees to serve as the patient's primary caregiver; (e) the patient and the primary care-giver collectively possess amounts of marijuana no greater than those specified in 33-1104(a) of this chapter; and (f) the primary care-giver controls the acquisition of such marijuana and the dosage and frequency of its use by the patient. 33-1107. Addition of Debilitating Medical Conditions. Not later than June 1, 1999, the District of Columbia Department of Health shall promulgate rules of administration governing the manner in which the Director may consider adding debilitating medical conditions to the list set out in 33-1101 of this chapter. Such rules shall provide the means by which, after June 1, 1999, the Director shall accept for consideration petitions submitted by physicians or patients to add debilitating medical conditions to those included in 33-1101 and shall include provisions for public notice of, and an opportunity to comment in a public hearing upon, such petitions. The Director shall, after hearing, approve or deny such petitions within one hundred eighty days of submission. The denial of such a petition shall be considered a final agency action, subject to judicial review. 33-1108. Certification by the Mayor. Within 30 days of the certification of this chapter by ballot initiative, the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall deliver a copy of this initiative to the President and the Congress to express the sense of the people of the District of Columbia that the federal government must develop a system authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes by patients with debilitating medical conditions. 33-1109. Severability. If any provision of this initiative measure, or the application thereof to any person or under any circumstance is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable. 33-1110. Effective Date. This act shall take effect immediately following the 30-day Congressional review as provided in 602(1) of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, 87 Stat. 813, approved December 24, 1973 and codified at D.C. Code 1-233(c)(1).
------------------------------------------------------------------- ACT UP Initiative, I-59 (Text Of Washington, DC, Medical Marijuana Ballot Initiative Being Sponsored By Local ACT UP Activists, AIDS Patients) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 00:16:14 EST Originator: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org From: David Borden
To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: ACTUP initiative (I-59) INITIATIVE MEASURE #59 "LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT INITIATIVE OF 1997" SUMMARY STATEMENT This initiative, if passed, permits seriously ill individuals to legally use marijuana for medical treatment when recommended by a licensed physician. This Initiative would: * Allow marijuana to aid in treatment of HIV/AIDS, glaucoma, muscle spasm, cancer therapy, and other serious illnesses * Legalize, for medical purposes, possession, use, cultivation, and distribution of marijuana for illnesses which marijuana has a medical benefit * Require the Commissioner of Public Health to propose to the DC Council a plan providing for the distribution of marijuana to qualified patients enrolled in approved programs. Use of marijuana without a physician's recommendation would be prohibited. LEGISLATIVE TEXT BE IT ENACTED BY THE ELECTORS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, that this act may be cited as the "Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1997." Sec. 2 All seriously ill individuals have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes when a licensed physician has found the use of marijuana to be medically necessary and has recommended the use of marijuana for the treatment (or to mitigate the side effects of other treatments such as chemotherapy, including the use of AZT, protease inhibitors, etc., radiotherapy, etc.) or diseases and conditions associated with HIV and AIDS, glaucoma, muscle spasm, cancer and other serious or chronic illnesses for which the recommending physician reasonably believes that marijuana has demonstrated utility. Sec. 3 Medical patients who use, and their primary caregivers who obtain for such patients, marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a licensed physician do not violate the District of Columbia Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1981, effective August 5, 1981 (DC Law 4-29; DC Code 33-501 et seq.) ("Controlled Substances Act"), as amended and in so far as they comply with this act, are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction. Sec. 4 (a) Use of marijuana under the authority of this act shall not be a defense to any crime of violence, the crime of operating a motor vehicle while impaired or intoxicated, or a crime involving danger to another person or to the public, nor shall such use negate the mens rea for any offense. (b) Whoever distributes marijuana cultivated, distributed or intended to be distributed or used pursuant to this act to any person not entitled to possess or distribute marijuana under this act shall be guilty of crime and subject to the penalty set forth in section 401(a)(2)(D) of the Controlled Substances Act (DC Code 33 541(a)(2)(D). Sec. 5 Notwithstanding any other law, no physician shall be punished, or denied any right, privilege or registration for recommending, while acting in the course of his or her professional practice, the use of marijuana for medical purposes. In any proceeding in which rights or defenses created by this act are asserted, a physician called as a witness shall be permitted to testify before a judge, in camera. Such testimony, when introduced in a public proceeding, if the physician witness so requests, shall have redacted the name of the physician and the court shall maintain the name and identifying characteristics of the physician under seal. Sec. 6 (a) Any District law prohibiting the possession of marijuana or cultivation of marijuana shall not apply to a medical patient, or to a medical patient's primary caregivers, when a medical or primary caregiver possesses or cultivates marijuana for the medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation of a licensed physician. The exemption for cultivation, shall apply only to marijuana specifically grown to provide a medical supply for a patient, and not to any marijuana grown for any other purpose. In determining a quantity of marijuana that constitutes a medical supply, this act shall be interpreted to assure that any medical patient protected by the act shall have access to a sufficient quantity of marijuana to assure that they can maintain their medical supply without any interruption in their treatment or depletion of their medical supply of marijuana. (b) The prohibition in the Controlled Substances Act against the manufacture, distribution, cultivation, or possession with intent to manufacture, distribute, or cultivate, or against possession, of marijuana shall not apply to a nonprofit corporation organized pursuant to this act. Sec 7. A medical patient may designate or appoint a licensed health care practitioner, parent, sibling, child, or other close relative, domestic partner, case manager/worker, or best friend to serve as a primary caregiver for the purposes of this act. A designation under this act need not be in writing; however, any written designation or appointment shall be prima facie evidence that a person has been so designated. A patient may designate not more than four persons at any one time to serve as a primary caregiver for the purposes of this act. For the purposes of this subsection, the term 'best friend' means a close friend who is feeding, nursing, bathing, or otherwise caring for the medical patient while the medical patient is in a weakened condition. Sec. 8 Residents of the District of Columbia may organize and operate not-for-profit corporations for the purpose of cultivating, purchasing, and distributing marijuana exclusively for the medical use of medical patients who are authorized by this act to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes. Such corporations shall comply with the District's nonprofit corporation laws. Fees and licenses shall be collected by the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs ("DCRA") in the same manner as other not-for-profit corporations operating in the District of Columbia. The Director of DCRA shall issues such corporations exemptions from the sales tax, use tax, income tax, and other taxes of the District of Columbia in the same manner as other nonprofit corporations. Sec. 9 The exemption from prosecution for distribution of marijuana under this act shall not apply to the distribution of marijuana to any person under 18 years of age unless that person is an emancipated minor, or a parent or legal guardian of the minor has signed a written statement that such parent or legal guardian understands: (i) the medical condition of the minor, (ii) the potential benefits and potential adverse effects of the use of marijuana generally and in the case of the minor, and (iii) consents to the use of marijuana for the treatment of the minor's medical condition. Violation of this section shall be subject to the penalties of the Controlled Substances Act. Sec. 10 (a) The Commissioner of Public Health of the District of Columbia must develop a plan, and submit it, within 90 days of the approval of this act, to the Council of the District of Columbia to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients enrolled in Medicaid or a Ryan White CARE Act funded program who are in medical need, who desire to add marijuana to their health care regimen and whose licensed physician reasonably believes that marijuana would be beneficial to their patient. (b) Within 30 days of the certification of the passage of this act by the people of the District of Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall deliver a copy of this act to the President and the Congress to express the sense of the people of the District of Columbia that the Federal government must develop a system to distribute marijuana to patients who need it for medical purposes. Sec. 11. If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable. Sec. 12. This act shall take effect after the 30-day Congressional review as provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; DC Code 1-233(c)(1).
------------------------------------------------------------------- AMR's Colorado Initiative (Most Recent Available Text Of Medical Marijuana Ballot Measure Being Sponsored By Americans For Medical Rights) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 00:48:30 EST Originator: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org From: AMMO
To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: AMR's Colorado initiative Proposed Colorado Medical Marijuana Initiative for the 1998 Ballot Concerning the Medical Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Medical Conditions - Written under the guidance of Americans for Medical Rights - AMR has indicated that this is their "model" text to be used in other states and the District of Columbia. Then AMR revised the DC language to eliminate: - limits on cultivation and possession - a registry system for identifying patients The Colorado init. maintains a two ounce/three plant limit and a registry system estimated to cost the state $400,000 in the first year. *** Text of Proposed Initiative as filed with the Colorado Legislative Council on November 14, 1997 (there have been some minor changes since this version was submitted - we do not have a scanner and AMR has refused to provide us with an email copy of the most current version.) Electronic version provided by the Colorado Hemp Initiative Project (CO-HIP apologizes in advance for any typographical errors) *** Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado, AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, AMENDING ARTICLE XVIII, ADDING A NEW SECTION TO READ: Section 14. Medical marijuana for persons suffering from debilitating medical conditions. (1) As used in this section, these terms are defined as follows. (a) "Debilitating medical condition" means: (I) Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus, or acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or treatment for such conditions; (II) A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition, or treatment for such conditions, which produces, for a specific patient, one or more of the following, and for which, in the professional opinion of the patient's physician, such condition or conditions reasonably may be alleviated by the medical use of marijuana: cachexia; severe pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those that are characteristic of epilepsy; or persistent muscle spasms, including those that are characteristic of multiple sclerosis; or (III) Any other medical condition, or treatment for such condition, approved by the state health agency, pursuing to its rule making authority or its approval of any petition submitted by a patient or physician as provided in this section. (b) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, production, use, or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia related to the administration of such marijuana to address the symptoms or effects of a patient's debilitating medical condition, which may be authorized only after a diagnosis of the patient's debilitating medical condition by a physician or physicians, as provided by this section. (c) "Parent" means a custodial mother or father of a patient under the age of eighteen years, any person having custody of a patient under the age of eighteen years, or any person serving as a legal guardian for a patient under the age of eighteen years. (d) "Patient" means a person who has a debilitating medical condition. (e) "Physician" means a doctor of medicine who maintains, in good standing, a license to practice medicine issued by the state of Colorado. (f) "Primary care-giver" means a person, other than the patient and the patient's physician, who is eighteen years of age or older and has significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient who has a debilitating medical condition. (g) "Registry identification card" means that document, issued by the state health agency, which identifies a patient authorized to engage in the medical use of marijuana and such patient's primary care-giver, if any has been designated. (h) "State health agency" means that public health related entity of state government designated by the governor to establish and maintain a confidential registry of persons authorized to engage in the medical use of marijuana and enact rules to administer this program. (i) "Usable form of marijuana" means the seeds, leaves, buds, and flowers of the plant (genus) cannabis, and any mixture or preparation thereof, which are appropriate for medical use as provided in this section, but excludes the plant's stalks, stems, and roots. (j) "Written documentation" means a statement signed by a patient's physician or copies of the patient's pertinent medical records. (2) (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (5), (6), and (8) of this section, a patient or primary care-giver charged with violation of the state's criminal laws related to the patient's medical use of marijuana will be deemed to have established an affirmative defense to such allegation where: (I) The patient was previously diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition; (II) The patient was advised by his or her physician, in the context of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, that the patient might benefit from the medical use of marijuana in connection with a debilitating medical condition; and (III) The patient and his or her primary care-giver were collectively in possession of amounts of marijuana only as permitted under this section. This affirmative defense shall not exclude the assertion of any other defense where a patient or primary care-giver is charged with a violation of state law related to the patient's medical use of marijuana. (b) Effective June 1, 1999, it shall be an exception from the state's criminal laws for any patient or primary care-giver in lawful possession of a registry identification card to engage or assist in the medical use of marijuana, except as otherwise provided in subsections (5) and (8) of this section. (c) It shall be an exception from the state's criminal laws for any physician to: (I) Advise a patient whom the physician has diagnosed as having a debilitating medical condition, about the risks and benefits of medical use of marijuana or that he or she might benefit from the medical use of marijuana, provided that such advice is based upon the physician's contemporaneous assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition and a bona fide physician-patient relationship; or (II) Provide a patient with written documentation, based upon the physician's contemporaneous assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition and a bona fide physician-patient relationship, stating that the patient has a debilitating medical condition and might benefit from the medical use of marijuana. No physician shall be denied any rights or privileges for the acts authorized by this subsection. (d) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, no person, including a patient or primary care-giver, shall be entitled to the protection of this section for his or her acquisition, possession, manufacture, production, use, sale, distribution, dispensing, or transportation of marijuana for any use other than medical use. (e) Any property interest that is possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marijuana, or acts incidental to such use, shall not be harmed, neglected, injured, or destroyed while in the possession of state or local law enforcement officials where such property has been seized in connection with the claimed medical use of marijuana. Any such property interest shall not be forfeited under any provision of state law providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed after conviction of a criminal offense or entry of a plea of guilty to such offense. Marijuana and paraphernalia seized by state or local law enforcement officials from a patient or primary care-giver in connection with the claimed medical use of marijuana shall be returned immediately upon the determination by the district attorney or his designee that the patient or primary care-giver is entitled to the protection contained in this section as may be evidenced, for example, by a decision not to prosecute, the dismissal of charges, or acquittal. (3) The state health agency shall create and maintain a confidential registry of patients who have applied for and are entitled to receive a registry identification card according to the criteria set forth in this subsection, effective June 1, 1999. (a) No person shall be permitted to gain access to any information about patients in the state health agency's confidential registry, or any information otherwise maintained by the state health agency about physicians and primary care-givers, except for authorized employees of the state health agency in the course of their official duties and authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies which have stopped or arrested a person who claims to be engaged in the medical use of marijuana and in possession of a registry identification or its functional equivalent, pursuant to paragraph (e) below. Authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies shall be granted access to the information contained within the state health agency's confidential registry only for the purpose of verifying that an individual who has presented a registry identification card to a state or local law enforcement official is lawfully in possession of such card. (b) In order to be placed on the state's confidential registry for the medical use of marijuana, a patient must reside in Colorado and submit the completed application form adopted by the state health agency, including the following information, to the state health agency: (I) The original or a copy of written documentation stating that the patient has been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition and the physician's conclusion that the patient might benefit from the medical use of marijuana; (II) The name, address, date of birth, and social security number of the patient; (III) The name, address, and telephone number of the patient's physician; and (IV) The name and address of the patient's primary care-giver, if one is designated at the time of application. (c) Within thirty days of receiving the information referred to in subparagraph (3)(b)(I)-(IV), the state health agency shall verify medical information contained in the patient's written documentation. The agency shall notify the applicant that his or her application for a registry identification card has been denied if the agency's review of such documentation discloses that: the information required pursuant to subparagraph (3) (b) of this section has not been provided or has been falsified; the documentation fails to state that the patient has a debilitating medical condition specified in this section or by state health agency rule; or the physician does not have a license to practice medicine issued by the state of Colorado. Otherwise, not more than five days after verifying such information, the state health agency shall issue one serially numbered registry identification card to the patient, stating: (I) The patient's name, address, date of birth, and social security number; (II) That the patient's name has been certified to the state health agency as a person who has a debilitating medical condition, whereby the patient may address such condition with the medical use of marijuana; (III) The dates of issuance of the registry identification and the date of expiration of such card which shall be one year from the date of issuance; and (IV) The name and address of the patient's primary care-giver, if any is designated at the time of application. (d) Except for patients applying pursuant to subsection (6) of this section, where the state health agency fails to issue a registry identification card within thirty-five days of receipt of an application or verbal or written notice of denial of such application, the patient's application for such card will be deemed to have been approved. Receipt shall be deemed to have occurred upon delivery to the state health agency, or deposit in the United States mails. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no application shall be deemed received prior to June 1, 1999. A patient who is questioned by any state or local law enforcement official about his or her medical use of marijuana shall provide a copy of the application submitted to the state health agency, which shall be accorded the same legal effect as a registry identification card, until such time as the patient receives notice that the application has been denied. (e) A patient whose application has been denied by the state health agency may not reapply during the six months following the date of the denial and may not use an application for a registry identification card as provided in paragraph (3) (d) of this section. The denial of a registry identification card shall be considered a final agency action. Only the patient whose application has been denied shall have standing to contest the agency action. (f) When there has been a change in the name, address, physician, or primary care-giver of a patient who has qualified for a registry identification card, that patient must notify the state health agency of any such change within ten days. A patient who has not designated a primary care-giver at the time of application to the state health agency may do so in writing at any time during the effective period of the registry identification card, and the primary care-giver may act in this capacity after such designation. To maintain an effective registry identification card, a patient must annually resubmit, at least 30 days prior to the expiration date stated on the registry identification card, updated written documentation to the state health agency, as well as the name and address of the patient's primary care-giver, if any is designated at such time. (g) Authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies shall immediately notify the state health agency when any person in possession of a registry identification card has been determined by a court of law to have willfully violated the provisions of this section or its implementing legislation, or has pled guilty to such offense. (h) A patient who no longer has a debilitating medical condition shall return his or her registry identification card to the state health agency within twenty-four hours of receiving such diagnosis by his or her physician. (i) The state health agency may determine and levy reasonable fees to pay for any direct or indirect administrative costs associated with its role in this program. (4) (a) A patient may engage in the medical use of marijuana, with no more marijuana than is medically necessary to address a debilitating medical condition. A patient's medical use of marijuana, within the following limits, is lawful: (I) No more than two ounces of a usable form of marijuana; and (II) No more than six marijuana plants, with three or fewer being mature, flowering plants that are producing a usable form of marijuana. (b) For quantities of marijuana in excess of these amounts, a patient or his or her primary care-giver may raise as an affirmative defense to charges of violation of state law that such greater amounts were medically necessary to address the patient's debilitating medical condition. (5) (a) No patient shall: (I) Engage in the medical use of marijuana in a way that endangers the health or well-being of any person; or (II) Engage in the medical use of marijuana in plain view of, or in a place open to, the general public; or (b) In addition to any other penalties provided by law, the state health agency shall revoke for a period of one year the registry identification card of any patient found to have willfully violated the provisions of this section or the implementing legislation adopted by the general assembly. (6) Notwithstanding subparagraph (2)(a) and (3) (d) of this section, no patient under eighteen years of age shall engage in the medical use of marijuana unless: (a) Two physicians have diagnosed the patient as having a debilitating medical condition; (b) One of the physicians referred to in paragraph (6) (a) has explained the possible risks and benefits of medical use of marijuana to the patient and each of the patient's parents residing in Colorado. (c) The physicians referred to in paragraph (6) (b) has provided the patient with the written documentation, specified in subparagraph (3)(b)(I); (d) Each of the patient's parents residing in Colorado, consent in writing to the state health agency to permit the patient to engage in the medical use of marijuana; (e) A parent residing in Colorado consents in writing to serve as a patient's primary care-giver; (f) A parent serving as a primary care-giver completes and submits an application for a registry identification card as provided in subparagraph (3) (b) of this section and the written consent referred to in paragraph (6) (d) to the state health agency; (g) The state health agency approves the patient's application and transmits the patient's registry identification card to the parent designated as a primary care-giver; (h) The patient and the primary care-giver collectively possess amounts of marijuana no greater than those specified in subparagraph (4)(a)(I) and (II); and (i) The primary care-giver controls the acquisition of such marijuana and the dosage and frequency of its use by the patient. (7) Not later than March 1, 1999, the governor shall designate, by executive order, the state health agency as defined in paragraph (1)(g) of this section. (8) Not later than April 30, 1999, the General Assembly shall define such terms and enact such legislation as may be necessary for implementation of this section, as well as determine and enact criminal penalties for: (a) Fraudulent representation of a medical condition by a patient to a physician, state health agency, or state or local law enforcement official for the purpose of falsely obtaining a registry identification card or avoiding arrest and prosecution; (b) Fraudulent use or theft of any person's registry identification card to acquire, possess, cultivate, use, sell, distribute, or transport marijuana, including but not limited to cards that are required to be returned where patients is no longer diagnosed as having a debilitating medical condition,; (c) Fraudulent production or counterfeiting of, or tampering with, one or more registry identification cards; or (d) Breach of confidentiality of information provided to or by the state health agency. (9) Not later than June 1, 1999, the state health agency shall develop and make available to residents of Colorado an application form for persons seeking to be listed on the confidential registry of patients. By such date, the state health agency shall also enact rules of administration, including but not limited to rules governing the establishment and confidentiality of the registry, the verification of medical information, the issuance and form of registry identification cards, communications with law enforcement officials about registry identification cards that have been suspended where a patient is no longer diagnosed as having a debilitating medical condition, and the manner in which the agency may consider adding debilitating medical conditions to the list provided in this section. Beginning June 1, 1999, the state health agency shall accept for physician or patient initiated petitions to add debilitating medical conditions to the list provided in this section and, after such hearing as the state health agency deems appropriate, shall approve or deny such petitions within one hundred eighty days of submission. The decision to approve or deny a petition shall be considered a final agency action. (10) (a) No governmental, private, or any other health insurance provider shall be required to be liable for any claim for reimbursement for the medical use of marijuana. (b) Nothing in this section shall require any employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any work place. (11) Unless otherwise provided by this section, all provisions of this section shall become effective upon proclamation of the governor, pursuant to article V, section (1) (4). *** Americans for Medical Rights contacts: 1) Dave Fratello 626 Santa Monica Blvd. #41 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 394-2952 Fax: (310) 451-7494 <email@example.com> 2) Bill Zimmerman Americans for Medical Rights 626 Santa Monica Blvd. #41 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 394-2952 Fax: (310) 451-7494 <firstname.lastname@example.org> Coloradans for Medical Rights: 1) Marty Chilcutt 1085 Lafayette St. #805 Denver, CO 80218 2) Marshall F. Stiles, III 1350 Fairfax Street Denver, CO 80220 *** Portland NORML notes - The text of the Colorado Compassionate Therapeutic Cannabis Act, a competing medical-marijuana initiative filed January 30 by Colorado Citizens for Compassionate Cannabis, is included in that day's edition of the Portland NORML daily news.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Comparison Of Colorado Initiatives (An Excellent Voter's Guide From American Medical Marijuana Organization Detailing How Different The Two Competing Ballot Measures Are) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 00:54:32 EST Originator: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org From: AMMO (email@example.com) To: Multiple recipients of list (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: Comparison of Colo. Inits. Comparison of Colorado Initiatives Compassionate Therapeutic Cannabis Act (CTCA) and Americans for Medical Rights initiative (AMR) *** CTCA: - allows patients to possess and cultivate an adequate supply of medicine AMR: - does not allow patients to cultivate an adequate supply of medicine *** CTCA: - allows licensed physicians to prescribe cannabis for all illnesses for which it may be beneficial AMR: - limits the illnesses for which physicians can prescribe marijuana *** CTCA: - requires the Therapeutic Cannabis Commission to enact licensing requirements for therapeutic cannabis dispensaries AMR: - does not allow for distribution - forces patients to rely on the black market *** CTCA: - assures patients will never face more serious penalties than currently exist in Colorado statutes AMR: - opens patients to more severe punishment than they currently face *** CTCA: - does not allow minors to use cannabis as medicine, unless they meet the requirements to be set forth by the Commission AMR: - allows minors to use cannabis as medicine with restrictions *** CTCA: - allows an affirmative defense for all patients AMR: - allows an affirmative defense only to patients who have the illnesses listed in the initiative *** CTCA: - provides for immunity from prosecution for all patients AMR: - does not provide for immunity from prosecution for any patient *** CTCA: - does not require a patient to register with the state to receive full protection of the law AMR: - requires a patient to register with the state to receive protection of the law *** CTCA: - appoints an independent Commission, with the power to promulgate administrative law, to assist in implementing the article AMR: - leaves all implementation to the state health department and the General Assembly, with no intervening body of experts *** CTCA: - requires that the General Assembly, Attorney General, Governor and other state agencies assist in the implementation of the article AMR: - does not require the General Assembly, Attorney General, Governor or other state agencies assist in the implementation of the article *** CTCA: - treats hemp as an agricultural product AMR: - enacts constitutional standard that marijuana and hemp are the same *** CTCA: - contains a severability clause, which allows part of the amendment to be ruled invalid without invalidating the entire amendment AMR: - does not contain a severability clause; invalidation of any part of the AMR amendment will cause the whole law to be nullified *** CTCA: - written by Colorado citizens AMR: - written by out-of-state lawyers *** CTCA: Fiscal impact has not yet been determined on the CTCA, but it should be negligible because it does not impose any new programs on any state agencies AMR: Fiscal impact, according to Office of State Planning and Budgeting: $402,299 (FY 1999) and $342,000 (FY 2000) mostly for implementation of the registry program. *** AMERICAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA ORGANIZATION (AMMO) Defending The Rights Of Medical Marijuana Patients Board of Directors: --Steve Kubby (email@example.com), --Ed Rosenthal (firstname.lastname@example.org) --Laura Kriho (email@example.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------- Answers, Please - Contras And Drugs? CIA Should Tell What It Knows ('Houston Chronicle' Staff Editorial About CIA's Denial To Date Of Involvement In Cocaine-Contra Scandal Raises Nagging Questions CIA Should Answer In Its Second Volume, Due In Weeks) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:09:05 -0800 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (Joel W. Johnson) Subject: MN: US: OPED: Answers, Please -- Contras And Drugs? CIA Should Tell What it Knows Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: Art Smart
Source: Houston Chronicle Contact: email@example.com Website: http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/ Pubdate: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 Note: The following is not an op-ed. It is the opinion of the Houston Chronicle editorial board. ANSWERS, PLEASE Contras and drugs? CIA should tell what it knows After a yearlong investigation, the CIA has concluded that none of its officials assisted Nicaraguan Contra rebels in smuggling cocaine into the United States, and none of its agents was aware of connections between Contra leaders and three California drug dealers convicted of spreading crack in black neighborhoods. The investigation followed a series of articles in the San Jose Mercury News that accused the CIA of standing by while Contra rebels fueled the crack epidemic in exchange for drug dealers' cash to finance their battle against Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista government. The newspaper subsequently admitted that the articles were inaccurate and the charges exaggerated. In the first volume of a two-volume report, CIA officials refute relatively narrow allegations about CIA involvement with three criminals and a handful of Contras who may or may not have been involved in drug dealing in California's inner cities. But the report leaves much broader and important questions unanswered. When, for instance, did the CIA first become aware that some of the Contras -- a guerrilla group the CIA recruited, equipped and funded -- were involved in drug trafficking? Did the agency make any effort to intercept the drugs or inform narcotics officers so the suspects could be arrested? If not, why not? The CIA often declines to answer such reasonable questions on the grounds that it doesn't want to reveal its sources and methods. But if some of its sources are in league with drug smugglers, and if its methods involve turning a blind eye to a national scourge, then the revelation of those sources and methods lies at the heart of the national interest and CIA agents' lawful duty as officials of the U.S. government. Congressional hearings in the late '80s revealed that drug dealers owned two of the Contras' principal air cargo contractors. A Senate investigation in 1989 found that Contra officials used drug smugglers' money laundering networks to move cash around, that drug smugglers supplied the Contras with money and guns, and that U.S. government funds meant for the Contras ended up in smugglers' hands. Where was the CIA when all this was going on? Even before the congressional hearings, accounts of Contra misdeeds had been widely reported in the daily press. When will those in authority at the CIA learn to read the newspaper? The second volume of the CIA's report on Contra drug connections is due out in a few weeks. If CIA officials wish to repair the damage wrongly inflicted by the Mercury News stories, they will tell Americans what the CIA now knows about Contra malfeasance and what, if anything, the agency did to stop it.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Military Distractions And Border Militarization Escalate ('Universal Press Syndicate' Essay About US Military's Construction Along Mexican Border Of 240 Miles Of Roadway, 12 Helicopter Pads And 50 High-Tech Lights Suggests 'Weak Leaders Use Force To Show Strength') Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 14:05:52 -0500 To: DrugSense News Service
From: Richard Lake Subject: MN: US: Wire: Military Distractions And Border Militarization Escalate Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Newshawk: Kevin Zeese Source: Universal Press Syndicate Pubdate: February 6, 1998 Authors: Patrisia Gonzales And Roberto Rodriguez * Column Of The Americas MILITARY DISTRACTIONS AND BORDER MILITARIZATION ESCALATE LAREDO, TEXAS -- Thousands of trucks line up daily on the highway leading into Mexico, causing an eyesore, unbearable noise, fumes and even fatal accidents. There's little money to alleviate the NAFTA-related congestion, but there's plenty for the "Joint Task Force Six" project, which calls for the construction of 240 miles of roadway, 12 helicopter launch pads and 50 high-tech lights nearby. Its purpose is to create a greater presence for the U.S. Border Patrol and to involve the U.S. military in combating the drug war. This truly looks like occupied territory. And at the Las Cruces, N.M., border checkpoint, the U.S. Border Patrol tallies "alien removals," narcotics and their monetary "value". Their slogan, "America's Front line: Fighting the War on Drugs," apparently targets hard-working migrants in that war. To wage a genuine drug war, perhaps the U.S. government should commence it by patrolling the nation's largest financial institutions, which often serve as conduits for drug money. There's seemingly no money in these God-forsaken borderlands, but mention the Border Patrol or a military conflict and there's suddenly plenty for these costly endeavors. And much like a border threat, there is also nothing like a military conflict (Iraq, this time) to bolster our country's military spending. Sadly, the militarization of the border is nothing new. Forts and bases have been here since the Mexican-American War. What's happening now is simply a technological upgrade. As a result of the joint project, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in San Antonio has filed a lawsuit to stop its construction, pending a full environmental study. MALDEF believes that the project could threaten several endangered species, the environment and several archeological sites, and that it could also lead to an increased violation of the rights (illegal search and seizure) of area Mexican Americans. Meanwhile, Republicans want to dismantle the inept Immigration and Naturalization Service. Standing in the way is the Clinton administration, which has pumped so much money into this agency that there are now more border patrol officers than FBI agents nationally. And there are more on the way for this nonproductive sector of big government. Without commies to pick on, illegal aliens make for good scapegoates, because, contrary to what former Calif. Congressman Bob Dornan continues to insist upon (in defiance of the GOP), they don't vote. And if those scapegoats aren't enough, Sadaam Hussein or Arab terrorists will suffice. Recently, an abortion clinic was bombed in Alabama, a crime the government rightfully denounced. Yet, the bombers seem to be emulating our government's example. Have a problem? Bomb the hell out of them! That's what gang members tell the two of us. They simply settle their differences the way governments settle theirs: through force. Weak leaders use force to show "strength." They overcompensate. Ronald Reagan, the tough guy on the silver screen, thought strength was overrunning tiny nations such as Grenada. And now, enter a beleaguered Clinton and we have ourselves another Iraq "crisis." Weak leaders, at best, send mixed messages. Violence is wrong, our leaders tells us, yet most remained silent as Karla Faye Tucker of Texas was executed. At the same time, Clinton argued his case for using the United Nations -- a body that was created as an instrument of peace -- as a cover to unilaterally bomb Iraq. Diversions always work nicely, especially when an inquisitor -- without a proper job description -- is shadowing Clinton's every move. The lessons we learn from all this are that morality and redemption are no longer part of our vocabulary. The real problem in this country is the brown hordes, and everything can be solved through the erection of walls, or through violence. And through all this, we all point fingers at each other because while there's money for more $2 billion B-2 bombers, there is not enough money to educate us all. Meanwhile, the fumes on the border are nauseating. * Both writers are authors of Gonzales/Rodriguez: Uncut & Uncensored (ISBN 0-918520-22-3 UC Berkeley, Ethnic Studies Library, Publications Unit. Rodriguez is the author of Justice: A Question of Race (Cloth ISBN 0-927534-69-X paper ISBN 0-927534-68-1 Bilingual Review Press) and the antibook, The X in La Raza II. They can be reached at PO BOX 7905, Albq NM 87194-7904, 505-247-3888 or XColumn@aol.com
------------------------------------------------------------------- Interstate 10 Traffic Stop Nets 230 Pounds Of Cocaine Bags ('Houston Chronicle' With Yet Another One Of Those 'Biggest Seizure Ever' Stories) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:09:10 -0800 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (Joel W. Johnson) Subject: MN: US TX: I-10 Traffic Stop Nets 230 Pounds of Cocaine Bags Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: Art Smart
Source: Houston Chronicle Contact: email@example.com Website: http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/ Pubdate: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 I-10 TRAFFIC STOP NETS 230 POUNDS OF COCAINE BAGS WINNIE [Texas] -- About 230 pounds of cocaine valued at nearly $10 million was seized during a traffic stop on Interstate 10. "It's the biggest seizure from a traffic stop that anybody can ever remember," said Dearl Hardy with the federally funded Chambers County Narcotics Task force. Gerald Thomas, 47, of Jackson, Miss., was in jail Thursday, held in lieu of a $300,000 bond on charges of aggravated possession of a controlled substance and unlawfully carrying a weapon, a semi- automatic handgun. Thomas was arrested Sunday after the cocaine was found in bags in the back seat of his 1997 Ford Expedition, but information about the crime was not released until Thursday. Hardy said investigators withheld the information to allow them to investigate the case. The investigation into the source and destination of the cache of cocaine is continuing with the help of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Hardy said. He said authorities believe the cocaine came from Mexico and was picked up by the driver in the Hobby Airport area. "It was to be distributed in small amounts at different locations in three states," said Hardy. He said Thomas has criminal convictions in Louisiana involving a shooting and weapons violation. A member of the task force discovered the cocaine after pulling Thomas' car over for a traffic violation Sunday. The vehicle and weapon were confiscated.
------------------------------------------------------------------- 1998 Global Days Against The Drug War (US Events Scheduled June 6-8 In New York, San Francisco, Dallas) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 13:35:25 EST Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Originator: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Chris Donald (email@example.com) To: Multiple recipients of list (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: The 1998 Global Days against the Drug War !!! (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:57:46 -0800 (PST) From: Uzondu Jibuike (email@example.com) Subject: The 1998 Global Days against the Drug War !!! (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:42:08 EST From: Louis Roggeveen (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: The 1998 Global Days against the Drug War !!! *** The 1998 Global Days against the Drug War !!! June 6, 7, 8 Events in New York, San Francisco, Amsterdam, Tel Aviv, Stockholm, Brussels, Dallas, Colville, Tallinn, ... As you probably know, the United Nations will hold the first-ever Special Session of the General Assembly on Drugs, from June 8th to June 10th 1998 in New York. This session was originally conceived as a critical examination of worldwide anti-drug policy. The focus of this session has now been narrowed. According to the new guidelines, only the extension of existing policies will be open for discussion. The United Nations aims to escalate current drug repression tactics in a catastrophic quest towards a 'drug free' society. In terms of crime, economic and financial damage, social and personal harm, this policy is turning into a worldwide crisis! It is of great importance that alternatives proposals are heard at the onset of this UN session. A clear statement must be made that what is needed is not escalated repression, but reform policies aimed at reducing the damage currently done. To this aim, a number of organisations have recently united to form the "Global Coalition for Alternatives to the Drug War". This coalition has declared Saturday June 6th, Sunday June 7th, and Monday June 8th, to be the "1998 Global Days against the Drug War". This event will feature demonstrations, discussion forums, seminars, publications, press conferences, street parties, concerts, and other types of events, in many places at the same time. You can help make the 1998 Global Days against the Drug War a success! Please join one of the participating organisations, and help plan the 1998 Global Days against the Drug War. Make sure your city is part of this event! See contact info below. Organisations will plan their own version of the 1998 Global Days against the Drug War, under their own identity and name. Early spring of 1998 we will issue press releases with the names of all the groups and organisations that have joined the coalition. To join the coalition please visit the web site at http://www.legalize.org. Organisations wishing to join the coalition can also contact us at: email@example.com. With best regards, The Coalition for Alternatives to the Drug War. This coalition currently consists of the Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet), the National Organisation for Reformulation of Marihuana Laws (NORML), the November Coalition, Transnational Radical Party (TRP), Common Sense for Drug Policy, the Legalize! Initiative, the Media Awareness Project (MAP), HANF! Magazine, and many other organisations. The 1998 Global Days against the Drug War !!! June 6, 7, 8 http://www.legalize.org. *** Please forward everywhere *** firstname.lastname@example.org is our list for discussion of public relations issues. See the agenda of current issues at legalize.org/global/coord/ It is stressed that contributions to this list must be on-topic and to the point. Off-topic matters should be dealt with in private. To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to email@example.com, with unsubscribe pr as text of the message. *** E-mail! firstname.lastname@example.org Homepage! http://www.xs4all.nl/~humito/ If I am online ftp://idnet.xs4all.nl/pub/ http://idnet.xs4all.nl/ On-line only saterday 21:00-01:00 Dutch Time |BBS de Verdeler | Fidonet 2:286/301.0 Louis Roggeveen 24 houre on-line |31-(0)10-2400309|
------------------------------------------------------------------- High Time We Close The Door On Age Of Entrapment (Op-Ed In 'Houston Chronicle' Recounts Recent Case Of Chicago Jury That Acquitted Alderman In FBI Sting After He Said 'Yes' Once But 'No' 17 Times) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:10:52 -0800 To: email@example.com From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Joel W. Johnson) Subject: MN: US: OPED: High time we close the door on age of entrapment Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: Art Smart
Source: Houston Chronicle Contact: email@example.com Website: http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/ Pubdate: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 Author: Alan Ehrenhalt HIGH TIME WE CLOSE THE DOOR ON AGE OF ENTRAPMENT A few weeks ago in Chicago, an alderman named Rafael Frias was acquitted of bribery. The jury's verdict surprised many of those who had followed the trial: Frias had been caught accepting cash from a crooked waste-hauler in exchange for help in winning approval for a rock-crushing site in Frias' neighborhood. It was all on tape. The rock-crushing deal was a scam created by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney in Chicago. The hauler, John Christopher, was working as an FBI informer. To most of the people who read about it, the indictment was one more depressingly familiar token of the moral climate of Chicago public life. But the jurors, having heard all the evidence, decided it was something else: a case of inexcusable law-enforcement excess. They heard the tape of the money changing hands, but they also heard Frias, obviously troubled, trying to extricate himself from the mess and refusing any more money, only to have the undercover agents try to force it on him over and over again. At one point, Christopher pulled $500 out of his pocket and started waving it at Frias. "Do you want this or not?" he asked. No, Frias said, "that's not what I'm looking for." This happened 17 times. The informer never managed to coax Frias into making a second misstep. "He kept saying no, no, he didn't want it," one of the jurors explained after the trial, "but they kept coming after him. And that, really, is entrapment." I don't suppose Bill Clinton has ever heard of Rafael Frias, and I certainly wouldn't argue that their situations are similar. Nobody has tricked the president into doing anything. It is the presumed witness against him, Monica Lewinsky, who has been the victim of entrapment. But in a peculiar way, the two cases have something in common. The alderman of the 12th Ward and the leader of the Free World have both become enmeshed in a 1990s law-enforcement culture whose underlying premise is that, in the investigation of public officials, all the rules are suspended. Any tactic of deception is permissible, as long as a judge somewhere will allow it. When it comes to the investigation of public officials, we are living in an age of entrapment. We have been living in it for the better part of two decades. Whatever may be its contributions to justice in individual cases, it is not doing the country as a whole any good. Perhaps it is time to think about a moratorium. In 1980, the FBI began the current era with the use of ersatz Arab sheiks and hidden tape recorders in the Abscam investigation that resulted in the conviction of seven members of Congress. In the ensuing years, similar sting operations with exotic names like Boptrot, Azscam, Greylord and Lost Trust have brought down elected officials at every level of government -- mayors, city managers, county commissioners, state legislators and state senators. I have no doubt that in the vast majority of these cases, the departure of the ensnared has raised the overall moral quality of the institutions in which they served. But the game is not worth the rules. In their zeal against public corruption, agents and prosecutors have grown comfortable using tactics that violate most Americans' instinctive sense of fair play. Sometimes they violate simple common sense. Few of us would profess any desire to live in a society where the government, on the basis of undocumented allegations by known criminals, went around testing its citizens to determine their propensity to commit manufactured crimes. Or in a society where a prosecutor, hired to investigate one set of allegations, is given carte blanche to look into just about any character weaknesses that happen to interest him. Fortunately, most of us do not have to live under those rules. We have chosen in the past 20 years to apply them to only one class of people: the people we elect to public office. We have done that, I suppose, out of a well-meaning societal belief that these officials shouldn't just be morally equivalent to the rest of us, they should be better than we are. They are entrusted with the public welfare, and in return they should be held to the loftiest possible standard of conduct, not the standard of ordinary human weakness. If upholding the highest standard requires some deceptive tactics that we would never want used on private citizens, then so be it. That's the theory. The reality, as we are learning in education, is that higher standards don't necessarily guarantee higher performance. We have representative government in this country, not only in the sense that the people we elect mirror our preferences and values, but also in the sense that they mirror our personal frailties. Exposing those frailties with a hidden tape recorder does nothing in the end to improve the quality of government's performance and, no matter how many politicians it humiliates, it does not strengthen public confidence in government. It corrodes it. Recapturing healthy democracy in this country will require, among other things, a public recognition that the government is not an alien force and its officials are not alien creatures. They do not deserve special privileges or special treatment, but neither do they deserve to be subjected to an intrusiveness that would be considered manifestly unjust if applied to the rest of us in private life. In the absence of compelling evidence of misconduct, they should be left alone to do their jobs, and then held accountable at election time. I know this isn't what most reporters or syndicated columnists believe, or what the federal judiciary believes. But it is what the jury in the Chicago bribery case believed, and I think it is part of what the poll numbers on President Clinton are trying to tell us. Ehrenhalt is the Washington-based executive editor of Governing magazine and the author, most recently, of The Lost City: The Forgotten Virtues of Community in America.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Suspected Motorcycle Gang Leader Arrested In Drug Investigation ('Milwaukee Journal Sentinel' Item On Motorcyclist Busted In Traffic Stop At Racine, Wisconsin, With Half Kilogram Of Cocaine) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 18:13:07 -0500 From: "R. Lake"
Subject: MN: US WI: Suspected motorcycle gang leader arrested in drug investigation To: DrugSense News Service Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: "Frank S. World" Pubdate: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Author: Jesse Garza of the Journal Sentinel staff Contact: email@example.com Fax: (414) 224-8280 Website: http://www.jsonline.com/ SUSPECTED MOTORCYCLE GANG LEADER ARRESTED IN DRUG INVESTIGATION The suspected leader of a Racine motorcycle gang has been arrested as part of an investigation into drug trafficking by his and other gangs, authorities announced Thursday. Frank Cihler, 45, was arrested during a traffic stop Wednesday afternoon near 21st and Ohio streets in Racine. Authorities seized about a half-kilogram of cocaine with an estimated street value of $20,000, said Racine County Sheriff William L. McReynolds. Cihler is believed to be the president of the High Riders motorcycle gang, suspected of having connections to the Milwaukee Outlaws motorcycle gang, Racine County District Attorney Robert Flancher said. Two other men, ages 40 and 53, also were arrested during the stop but were later released, Flancher said. The arrest of Cihler, Flancher said, is an offshoot of the investigation in which 16 Outlaws were arrested in August on racketeering and murder charges. The arrests were made during raids on Outlaws clubhouses in Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana in what prosecutors said was the biggest prosecution of Outlaw bikers in the Midwest. The Racine investigation involves members of the Racine County Sheriff's Department, the Racine County Metro Drug Unit and the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Flancher said. "This is another example of excellent federal and local law enforcement cooperation," Flancher said. "This is not the end of it. The focus of the investigation is broad, and it will continue in other areas." Cihler is believed to be the president of the High Riders and a major source of cocaine in Racine, Flancher said. A search of the High Rider clubhouse and Cihler's apartment in the 1300 block of Washington Ave. revealed other evidence of narcotics trafficking, Blanchard said. "We believe he may have been obtaining cocaine from the Outlaws, and that there are relationships or affiliations," Blanchard said.
------------------------------------------------------------------- University Sees Little Change In Substance Use ('Milwaukee Journal Sentinel' Says $120,000 Cardinal Stritch University Spent To Reduce Wisconsin Students' Use Of Alcohol Only Made Consumption Less Visible) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 18:18:22 -0500 From: "R. Lake"
Subject: MN: US WI: University sees little change in substance use To: DrugSense News Service Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: "Frank S. World" Pubdate: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Author: Neil D. Rosenberg of the Journal Sentinel Contact: email@example.com Fax: (414) 224-8280 Website: http://www.jsonline.com/ UNIVERSITY SEES LITTLE CHANGE IN SUBSTANCE USE Yet Cardinal Stritch finds fewer behavior problems related to alcohol, drugs An intensive, $120,000 campaign to reform Cardinal Stritch University students' attitudes about alcohol and drug had little effect, but drastically reduced instances of public misconduct linked to such use. School officials discussed their efforts to control inappropriate alcohol and drug usage among students in an interview Thursday before a daylong seminar at the school on college drug and alcohol use. As a result of the campaign, binge drinking at the school declined from 31% to 29% -- not a statistically significant drop. Students were surveyed in 1994 and 1996. Binge drinking is defined as consuming five or more drinks on one occasion. The 1996 binge rate of 29% at Cardinal Strich is higher than the 12.9% binge drinking rate for all adults in Wisconsin -- the highest of any state in the country. However, the school's rate is considerably better than the national college student binge drinking rate of 41%. Among other survey findings: underage drinking declined from 60% to 56%, and drinking by any student in a 30-day period was 70% in 1994 and 69% in 1996. Marijuana users totaled 11% in 1996 vs. 8% in 1994. But whereas in 1994, 45% of students reported alcohol or drug-related problems -- such as trouble with police, fighting, arrest for drunk driving, or taking sexual advantage of someone -- those problems dropped to 29% in 1996. And serious personal problems such as suicidal feelings, being hurt or injured, missing classes, poor test results, trying unsuccessfully to stop such usage or having been sexually assaulted, declined from 31% to 17%. Despite the improvements, Carol Ott, director of counseling/health services, and Robert M. Abene, dean of students, acknowledged that much remains to be done. As the executive summary of the two-year project stated: "When over 20% of the faculty and staff still respond in a positive manner to acceptance of 'an occasional drunk,' there is still educational work that needs to be done." "Unfortunately because of the influence of the alcohol industry and with the national and Wisconsin media promoting this alcohol use, alcohol and other drug prevention continues to be a challenge," the report states. The summary noted some of the school's accomplishments in recent years. Among them: • Establishing a volunteer segment in student orientation. Service and volunteering are emphasized throughout the school year. Participation in such activities has increased from 17% of students to 23%. • More strictly enforcing drinking rules by Residence Hall supervisors (those 21 and older can have alcohol in their rooms). In 1994, there were only two write-ups for alcohol violations. The next year, there were 15; the year after that, 52. • Keeping school officials better informed of any misbehavior by students in the community by working with Glendale and Fox Point police. • Replacing an end-of-the-year party, which often resulted in alcohol misuse, with an alcohol- and drug-free carnival; and establishing additional events, such as a winter olympics. • Establishing an alcohol- and drug-free coffeehouse in the Residence Hall. • Developing a mentoring program for student athletes, who exhibited the highest level of drug and alcohol use. • Offering more intramural and fieldhouse activities in an effort to keep more students on campus during the weekends. • Students organizing a chapter of BACCHUS, an organization that fights alcohol and drug misuse.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Just Say No To Prison Drug Testing (Op-Ed In 'San Francisco Chronicle' By San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey Says President Clinton's Call For Increased Testing Is Misguided, Doesn't Enhance Public Safety, May Hurt Crime Prevention By Diverting Funds From More Effective Programs, Such As Drug Treatment) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 21:53:36 -0800 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (Joel W. Johnson) Subject: MN: US CA: OPED: Just Say No to Prison Drug Testing Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: Tom O'Connell Source: San Francisco Chronicle Contact: email@example.com Pubdate: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 Author: Michael Hennessey Note: Michael Hennessey is the sheriff of the City and County of San Francisco. His pioneering efforts to rehabilitate prisoners include education and substance abuse recovery programs. JUST SAY NO TO PRISON DRUG TESTING A couple of weeks ago, front page headlines said, "President Clinton to Reduce Drug Use in Prison." The president's policy calls for states to drug test inmates and to report annually on drug use in prisons. This policy might sound good, but it is misguided and it doesn't enhance public safety. It may even hurt crime prevention by diverting funds from more effective programs, such as drug treatment. Getting people to stop using drugs in prison is not nearly as important as stopping them from using drugs outside of prison. The White House contends that "coerced abstinence" while in prison will reduce the addicts' demand for drugs after release. Ridiculous! Does the absence of heterosexual relationships in prison lessen a prisoner's interest in sex after release from prison? I don't think so. A recently released report from the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (the Califano Report) claims that 80 percent of the 1.7 million people incarcerated in our nation are there either as a result of substance abuse- "either from violating drug or alcohol laws, or stealing property to finance their habit." If this is true, then the vast majority of the crimes committed in America today are related in some way to substance abuse. Clearly, to reduce crime and to reduce recidivism among those who have committed crimes, we must address drug and alcohol abuse. But Clinton's drug testing and drug reporting policy is not the way to do it. Rather than wasting resources on drug-testing inmates, most of whom won't be released for years, our national and local governments should focus resources on effective in-custody and post-release programs. The San Francisco Sheriff's Department sponsors in-custody treatment for men and women and has similar programs for post-release, including contracts for residential drug treatment. An outside study completed by UCSF shows significant reduction in crime for offenders who have been involved in this progressive course of treatment. The Califano Report agrees with this approach, stating: "Failure to use the criminal justice system to get nonviolent drug and alcohol-abusing offenders into treatment and training is irrational public policy and a profligate us of public funds. Releasing drug and alcohol-abusing and addicted inmates without treating them is tantamount to visiting criminals on society." The National District Attorney's Association, commenting on the Califano Report, stated: "Simply warehousing prisoners, without regard to addressing and dealing with the underlying problem of substance abuse, produces unbearable taxpayer costs." Law-abiding citizens should be more concerned about making sure that prisoners don't turn to drugs when they're out on parole or after they've completed their sentences. More important, taxpayers should be concerned about how law enforcement officials are spending their tax dollars to break the cycle of crime and substance abuse. How are inmates to rid themselves of their addiction? Substance abuse is a vicious addiction, notoriously difficult to shed. But treatment does work, and it does reduce crime. If we really care about reducing crime and drug use, let's not waste resources performing costly drug tests -at $9 a pop-on 1.7 million prisoners. That money would be far better spent on approaches proven to reduce crime committed by addicts. In-custody and post-release drug treatment work. It is here that the White House - and San Francisco - should concentrate its resources.
------------------------------------------------------------------- US Gives $212,712 To Help Fight Drugs (Item In 'San Francisco Chronicle' Says California Representative George Miller Announces Federal Grants To Contra Costa Sheriff's Office, Richmond Police Department) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:09:44 -0800 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (Joel W. Johnson) Subject: MN: US CA: U.S. Gives $212,712 To Help Fight Drugs Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Newshawk: "Frank S. World"
Source: San Francisco Chronicle Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/ Pubdate: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REPORT -- U.S. Gives $212,712 To Help Fight Drugs Martinez -- Federal officials have awarded $212,712 in drug-fighting grant money to the Contra Costa Sheriff's Office and the Richmond Police Department, Representative George Miller, D-Martinez, said yesterday. The funds are part of a federal High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program. It will aid the East Bay Heroin and Methamphetamine Task Force and the West County Narcotics Enforcement Team. The sheriff's office will receive $109,211. An additional $103,501 will go to Richmond police.
------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,900 Pot Plants Seized At Commercial Building ('Los Angeles Times' Doesn't Say How Police Obtained Warrant Or What Led Them To Suspect Held On Bail) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:10:37 -0800 To: email@example.com From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Joel W. Johnson) Subject: MN: US CA: 1,900 Pot Plants Seized at Commercial Building Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: Bartman
Source: Los Angeles Times Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.latimes.com Pubdate: 6 Feb 1998 1900 POT PLANTS SEIZED AT COMMERCIAL BUILDING Police seized about 1,900 marijuana plants in an elaborate indoor farm in a garment district commercial building and arrested the suspected grower, a detective said Thursday. Samuel Segall, 32, was arrested on suspicion of cultivating marijuana and was being held on $50,000 bail, said Los Angeles Police Det. Roger Compton. Detectives served search warrants at 318 W. 9th St. at 6 p.m. Wednesday and found a large marijuana farming operation, complete with lights, timers and a drip irrigation system, Compton said. "We found approximately 1,900 marijuana plants, ranging from 3 inches to 3 feet high," the detective said. Segall was renting units in the building and combined them by knocking out walls, police said. Detectives waited for Segall at his residence in Westlake and began following him when he got into his car. They stopped Segall and arrested him a short time later.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Tobacco Firms Targeted Blacks, Documents Show ('Los Angeles Times' Article About Documents Released Thursday By US Representative John Conyers Jr. Of Michigan) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:27:20 -0800 To: email@example.com From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Joel W. Johnson) Subject: MN: US: Tobacco Firms Targeted Blacks, Documents Show Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield Source: Los Angeles Times Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Pubdate: February 6, 1998 Author: Henry Weinstein, Alissa J. Rubin, Times Staff Writers TOBACCO FIRMS TARGETED BLACKS, DOCUMENTS SHOW WASHINGTON--Damaging information about the tobacco industry was disclosed here Thursday as a congressman released documents detailing the industry's attempts to specifically target African Americans, in particular African American youths. Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), who released the material, said: "These documents make clear that the tobacco industry was targeting blacks, including black teenagers, at the same time the industry knew that tobacco was addictive and caused lung cancer and other smoking-related disease." For example, a 1973 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. marketing profile included a study of black smokers ages 14 to 20. A 1973 Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. document on blacks said that the bulk of sales increases in the company's Kool brand was among 16- to 25-year-olds. "At the present rate, smokers in the 16- to 25-year age group will soon be three times as important to Kool as a prospect in any other broad age category." A 1978 Lorillard Tobacco Co. research study noted that the success of its Newport brand had been "fantastic during the past few years." While the study said the brand was being purchased by black people of all ages, it emphasized that "the base of our business is the high school student." Thursday's disclosures come on the heels of the release of a cache of RJR marketing documents in mid-January that provided the broadest picture to date of industry targeting of teenagers. And in the last two weeks, attorneys representing Minnesota in its massive case against the industry have introduced in court several dozen internal industry documents providing new details about how the industry knew years ago about both the health hazards and addictiveness of its products. Attorneys in Minnesota are also anxiously awaiting a judicial ruling on whether they can obtain 240,000 more documents that the industry is trying to keep secret, on top of the 33 million pages of company documents that the state has gathered. Much of it is still under seal but is expected to emerge during the trial. Conyers noted that lung cancer accounts for 25% of all cancer cases in African American males, compared to 14% of all cancer cases in the general population. Moreover, he said that from 1950 to 1985, the occurrence of lung cancer increased 220% among black men, compared to 86% among white men. "Now, we know that part of the blame lays squarely at the feet of the tobacco industry." The veteran congressman released the documents as the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the proposed $368.5-billion national tobacco settlement. "Unfortunately, eight months after the settlement was announced, we still don't have a complete picture of the extent to which these marketing tactics were executed and the degree they were utilized by other members of the tobacco industry," Conyers said. "That is why I am today calling for the complete release of all incriminating industry documents. Until this information is disclosed, Congress cannot intelligently determine whether the proposed civil liability relief [the industry seeks] is appropriate or ascertain the necessary amount of funds and smoking relief programs which needed to be provided in the black community to counteract the pervasive marketing of cigarettes they have faced." At the hearing, the Clinton administration, tipping its hand for the first time on a key aspect of the mammoth settlement now under consideration in Congress, said it could accept special legal protections for tobacco companies. David Ogden, a counselor to Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, told the committee that limits on liability for the companies may be the price of securing the tobacco industry's agreement to scale back its marketing and advertising and finance anti-smoking programs. "If there is agreement on a comprehensive bill . . . then reasonable provisions modifying the civil liability of the tobacco industry would not be a deal-breaker," Ogden said. Ogden made clear, however, that the legal protections for the industry must be narrowed considerably from those that were part of the settlement reached last year between the tobacco companies and the 40 states that had sued them. He repeatedly emphasized that restricting liability is not the administration's preference, and at the end of the day, many lawmakers and experts were still confused about exactly what the administration will accept. Special legal protection for the tobacco industry is the linchpin of the proposed settlement. The industry agreed to drastically limit marketing and advertising aimed at children, accept regulation by the Food and Drug Administration, finance programs aimed at deterring young people from smoking and partially reimburse the states for their tobacco-related health costs in exchange for limits on their liability in damage suits. The settlement depends on Congress to give the companies their legal protections and limited immunity from antitrust laws so that they can agree on prices for their products. But many lawmakers are reluctant to grant such preferences to an industry that is under criminal investigation by the Justice Department. The legal protections sought by the tobacco companies and included in the settlement are: * No future class-action or multi-case lawsuits against the companies. * A cap starting at $2 billion and rising to $5 billion on the annual payments by the industry in judgments and settlements of lawsuits brought by individuals. * No more lawsuits by states against the companies. * No punitive damage awards against the companies for past conduct. In commenting on the settlement, Ogden suggested that Congress consider combining limitations on the tobacco companies' liability with provisions to make it easier for plaintiffs to recover damages from the industry. To date, individual smokers have won only one claim against the industry for tobacco's health effects. Justice Department lawyers appeared to have in mind something along the lines of the workers' compensation system. "There have been compensation-type schemes developed under which procedures have been simplified . . . that would be one option," said Ogden. Ogden emphasized that Congress needs to give the industry incentives to turn over all its documents. Secret documents have proved to be the most powerful weapon for plaintiffs and lawyers against the industry. He proposed that punitive damages "be retained with respect to claims based on facts not disclosed by the tobacco manufacturers to Congress and the public." The administration's willingness even to entertain limitations on the companies' liability opened the door to the possibility that Clinton would give members of Congress the political cover many are seeking on the highly charged issue. Some committee members heralded Ogden's testimony as a major development, while others derided the administration for refusing to lay out the specifics of its position. When Ogden started to explain his position, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) cut him off. "Spare me that . . . I resent the administration's unwillingness to get specific," he said. Similarly critical were anti-smoking advocates who believe it is a mistake to give away the legal remedies that have helped bring the industry to the bargaining table. Today's testimony "surely weakens the administration's negotiating position on what are 'reasonable' limitations on civil liability law," said Alan Morrison, the director of Public Citizen's litigation unit. The documents Conyers released were obtained during recent litigation, including a San Francisco case in which attorneys had sued RJR over its controversial Joe Camel campaign. In addition to the ones involving African Americans, there were several dealing with general teen marketing. These included a 1972 B&W memo about attempts to lure young smokers with sweet cigarettes, including the use of artificial ingredients to generate a cola taste. "It's a well-known fact that teenagers like sweet products. Honey might be considered," noted the memo, which was marked "confidential."
------------------------------------------------------------------- Drug Eases Pain, Restores Appetite, Says Man, 53 ('Toronto Star' Article About AIDS Patient Jim Wakeford's Lawsuit Against Canadian And Ottawa Governments Demanding Medical Marijuana) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:10:18 -0800 To: email@example.com From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Joel W. Johnson) Subject: MN: Canada: Drug Eases Pain, Restores Appetite, Says Man, 53 Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: email@example.com Source: Toronto Star Contact: LetterToEd@thestar.com Website: http://www.thestar.com/ Pubdate: February 6, 1998 Author: By Joel Ruimy, Toronto Star Queen's Park Bureau Chief DRUG EASES PAIN, RESTORES APPETITE, SAYS MAN, 53 A Toronto man living with AIDS is taking the federal government to court demanding the legal right to use marijuana as medicine - and demanding that Ottawa supply him with the drug. ``I'm filing a suit to obtain medical marijuana, not only for myself, but for all Canadians who need it,'' Jim Wakeford told a news conference yesterday. ``I'm sick and I'd like to have some relief while I'm still alive. I'd like legal relief,'' said the emaciated 53-year-old. Wakeford was diagnosed with AIDS in 1989 and has been on disability since 1993. He is a former executive director of an AIDS hostel. He takes 40 pills a day but the medicine has a long list of painful side effects, including nausea, diarrhea, stomach upset and insomnia. Wakeford smokes two marijuana cigarettes a day to deal with the pain and to help restore his appetite. But he has had to buy the drug in dangerous street deals. ``I want legal, safe and affordable medical marijuana,'' he said. ``I should not have to deal with the black market.'' Wakeford's physician, Dr. John Goodhew, says he and a group of 50 other AIDS specialists, endorse the call for medical marijuana because patients have shown improvement. ``It's time we completely rethink Canada's drug laws,'' Goodhew said, adding that ``the law is such I'm not able to suggest smoking marijuana'' to patients at present. Lawyer Alan Young said the case, set to open in Ontario Court, general division May 4, will cite a precedent set in December by another Toronto man, Terry Parker. *** `I'm sick and I'd like to have some relief while I'm still alive. I'd like legal relief' AIDS patient Jim Wakeford *** Parker, an epileptic, said the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows him to smoke marijuana to ease his symptoms and an Ontario Court, provincial division judge agreed. Young predicted a ``cakewalk in court'' and added he will press to have the federal government supply the cannabis to Wakeford in order to ensure quality and affordability. ``It's callous, cruel and insensitive to deny this man access,'' the lawyer said.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Suit Asks Government To Provide Marijuana ('Halifax Daily News' Version) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:10:25 -0800 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (Joel W. Johnson) Subject: MN: Canada: Suit Asks Government To Provide Marijuana Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Newshawk: firstname.lastname@example.org Source: Halifax Daily News Contact: email@example.com Pubdate: Friday, February 6, 1998 SUIT ASKS GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE MARIJUANA TORONTO (CP) - Ottawa should not only legalize marijuana use for medical purposes but actually supply the drug to patients, a Toronto AIDS sufferer argues in a constitutional challenge launched yesterday. The suit filed by Jim Wakeford aims to push the legal fight in favor of therapeutic cannabis use a step forward while putting more pressure on the federal government to voluntarily change criminal law. Outlawing the use of pot to fight nausea caused by AIDS drugs violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' guarantee of life, liberty and security of the person, his lawsuit alleges. Wakeford, 53, said he needs to smoke as many as two joints a day to help alleviate the intense nausea caused by a cocktail of medication he uses to keep the terminal disease at bay. But he said he shouldn't have to break the law to get such relief. "I hate feeling like a criminal," Wakeford told a news conference. "So I've decided to do something about it ... to make it safe, to make it legal, to make it available." But the federal Health Department's top drug regulator said yesterday that it's already possible to use marijuana for such purposes without breaking the law. Although no one has done it yet, doctors can seek permission from Ottawa to provide such controlled substances to patients, said Dan Michols of the therapeutic products directorate. They have to show the marijuana has a legitimate medical use, he said. And the supplier must be licensed by Ottawa to ensure it provides consistently good-quality product and can prevent the pot being diverted into illegal sales. "It already is decriminalized," said Michols. "It depends on the desire of medical practitioners or manufacturers or patients to access marijuana as a drug." Even so, other cases before the courts have already argued a constitutional exemption from the marijuana possession law for certain types of disease. Terry Parker, a Toronto epileptic who smokes pot to prevent seizures, won a landmark ruling in December that said parts of the anti-marijuana law are unconstitutional. But Wakeford's case moves the legal yardstick ahead, arguing that the charter also obliges the federal government to supply the drug so sick people don't have to look for it on the streets. That's not such an unusual demand, said York University law professor Alan Young, who's representing Wakeford. The federal government has in the past actually grown marijuana at its experimental farm in Ottawa, and so did the U.S. government before its program was stopped by former president George Bush, he said. But Michols said there's no precedent for the federal government supplying any drug to patients. Wakeford's physician, Dr. John Goodhew, said drugs have managed to strengthen his immune system and decrease the virus levels in his body. But before Wakeford started smoking marijuana, he looked gaunt, lost weight and was depressed because of the nausea, Goodhew said. None of the legal anti-nausea drugs did much good, he said.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Money-Laundering Sting Jeopardizes Drug Busts ('Vancouver Sun' Says 40 People Who Have Already Been Sentenced On Money-Laundering Charges And 20 Still Fighting 1996 Indictments - Plus Two Cocaine Busts Last Month - May All Be Dismissed Because British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Says RCMP Was Complicit In Running Scheme) From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Matt Elrod) To: email@example.com Subject: Canada: Illegal money-laundering sting jeopardizes drug busts Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 09:08:38 -0800 Lines: 70 Newshawk: firstname.lastname@example.org Source: Vancouver Sun Contact: email@example.com Pubdate: Fri 06 Feb 1998 Section: B1 / Front Author: Rick Ouston Illegal money-laundering sting jeopardizes massive drug busts: Two cocaine cases hinge on information from an RCMP operation that a judge says aided and abetted the people it targeted. A massive money-laundering sting hatched by RCMP to nab Vancouver drug traffickers has been ruled an illegal act by a B.C. Supreme Court justice. Project Eye Spy, in which police for three years operated the Pacific Rim International Currency Exchange at 818 Burrard Street, resulted in more than 60 charges in 1996 against people suspected of laundering the proceeds of drug sales through the exchange. More than 40 people have subsequently been convicted or pleaded guilty, while the rest of the cases are at various stages of court proceedings. But now the fates of all those charges are in question following the ruling that the police themselves were complicit in illegal money-laundering by running the scheme. And a pair of huge B.C. cocaine busts announced last month -- dubbed Projects Exigent and Esquire -- which stemmed from information developed during Project Eye Spy could also be in jeopardy. ``I can't say what the impact will be,'' said RCMP Inspector Kim Clark, who heads the proceeds-of-crime division in B.C. ``We don't really know yet.'' Clark noted that Parliament passed the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act in 1991 specifically to give police the power to use stings to entrap criminals and stop them from enriching themselves through crime. But Justice Mary Humphries found that the RCMP failed to comply with the federal act because they encouraged, aided and abetted the people who used the Eye Spy exchange. Federal legislation forces anyone transferring more than $1,000 through a currency exchange to produce identification, and people transferring more than $10,000 must disclose identities, addresses and occupations. Police running Eye Spy decided that such demands would alienate their underworld customers, so they waived the requirements. As well, the judge said, ``they knowingly possessed proceeds of crime and agreed to operate in such a way that would necessitate handling those proceeds. Generally, those actions, if done by anyone else, would be criminal acts.'' Abbotsford lawyer John Conroy, defending alleged marijuana dealer Frederick Austin Creswell, asked Humphries for the ruling as part of a defence that argues the case should be stayed as an abuse of process. He said in an interview Thursday that the decision does not necessarily mean the charges will be stayed because Canadian courts have admitted illegally gained evidence in previous cases. However, the ruling does open the door for Conroy to demand police produce internal briefing notes and legal opinions that he hopes to use to prove his defence that the police knew their actions were legally indefensible from the start but proceeded anyway. Arguments on that application will be heard in March, he said.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Re - Say No To Dope (Three Letters To Editor Of 'Lethbridge Herald' In Response To 17-Year-Old Alberta Girl's Endorsement Of Cannabis Prohibition) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:18:11 -0800 (PST) Old-Return-Path:
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Matt Elrod) To: email@example.com Subject: PUB:LTE's LEth.Herald & Editorial Column... (fwd) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 09:16:28 -0800 Lines: 107 Source: The Lethbridge Herald (Alberta, Canada) Feb.6, 1998 Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org *** Real marijuana culprits are the laws of the land Editor: I should like to respond to your young correspondent Erica Street, (Letters, Feb.3) who urges us to continue to punish marijuana users in order to prevent "many disastrous consequences that the country is not prepared to face." Dear Erica: I commend you for participating in this most important debate. I understand your position. Here's what I think about laws that declare certain drugs to be illegal. The prohibition of certain drugs is only the latest manifestation of man's enduring propensity to look down upon, to despise, to hate an identifiable minority of innocent individuals. There is no more moral or medical or scientific reason to persecute the users of certain drugs than there was in the past to burn witches a at the stake, lynch blacks or gas Jews. Just as Hitler's propaganda convinced many Germans that Jews were a menace to society, so too has the Canadian government's unrelenting stream of anti-drug propaganda convinced you that drug users must be punished. Drug prohibition is an abuse of our human right, as adults, to ingest any damn substance we please. In any event, prohibition has always failed. If drugs are available in our prisons, how can the police prevent them from being available everywhere? Unfortunately, government propaganda has convinced many otherwise intelligent Canadians to support drug prohibition, thereby condemning us to re-learn the terrible lessons of alcohol prohibition- organized crime, thousands of poisoned users, jammed courts and prisons and a corrupted justice system- all over again. To paraphrase Hegel, We learn from history that we do not lean from history". Please visit your local library to find out the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Alan Randell Victoria, BC *** Too many young people end up with records Editor: Unfortunately, Erica Street doesn't seem to realize the disastrous effect on the lives of many young people who become saddled with a permanent criminal record because of marijuana convictions. Since the 1960's, over 600,000 Canadians have been convicted of simple possession, the majority of those being under 30. Although cannabis use is not harmless, scientists at the Addiction Research Foundation say it is much safer than alcohol and tobacco, and ARF director Perry Kendall feels that prohibition is causing far more problems than it solves. He also feels that the "just say no" approach is simplistic and ineffective, drawing the comparison of sex education classes. Teachers don't advise "don't do it, end of story." Instead they say, "Look, if you are going to do it, at least do it responsibly; here are some guidelines" Ms Street demonstrates another serious failing of Canada's current policies when she mentions "public service announcements, telling me drugs are bad." Such simplistic messages can lead young people to experiment with more serious drugs once they discovered marijuana isn't as harmful as they'd been led to believe. A British teen recently told the BBC, "Before I tried cannabis, I thought it was classed as a bad drug, on a level of other drugs such as heroin. After I tasted cannabis and saw there wasn't a problem with it, I thought speed will be OK." Despite the billions of dollars spent to exterminate marijuana, it is as widely available as ever, even in our schoolyards. It is time Canadians treat marijuana use as a public health issue and legalize its possession and distribution while imposing regulations governing age limits, driving and taxation. Government should play the role of the safe sex educator. If so many of us are going to do it anyway, help us do it responsibly; develop some rational guidelines. Chris Clay Sechelt, BC. *** Don't believe everything you hear from authority Editor: I wonder whether Erica believes what she learned in her science classes. I am sure that she learned that science is the name given to the system that describes how we know what we know, and simplicity, or the principle of economy, Ockham's Razor, is the key to this process of knowing. Science is, basically, hypothesis testing; students must not be given the idea that it is a method of shoring up one's previous beliefs, of confirming one's biases. Professor Colin Groves of the Australian National University says: "More than that, hypothesis testing demands humility: the willingness to admit that one may be wrong." Fundamentalist religion and idealogues of all stripes teach the very opposite: the terrible certainty that one point of view is right. To teach that to children, that is not education. Is Erica going to go through life believing everything people in positions of authority tell her? I hope not. Science, and progress, would be at a standstill if young people grew up like that. Pat Dolan Vancouver *** Our Opinion: Letters from beyond the ether ....our mailbag continues to swell in the first post-Christmas rush of correspondence. Included on the page are three letters sent by e-mail. All from the west coast, are responding to a previous letter written by a southern Albertan. The writers saw the original letter on our Web page. ......A Southern Alberta high school student professes her views on drugs in a daily newspaper and, several hundred miles distant, far from the newspaper's circulation area, knocks a hornet's nest from a tree in British Columbia. ....it still amazes those of us who used to dictate our stories to Canadian press with a telephone critched in our neck...... e-mail and the Web are pretty much commonplace now, one wonders what new sorcery awaits.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Tobacco Policy Good For Other Drugs Too (A Second Letter To Editor Of 'Canberra Times' Correcting Earlier Letter Writer's Confusion About Harm Minimalisation And Australian Drugs Policy) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 07:06:02 EST Originator: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (Peter Watney) To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Series of published LTEs Organization: P.I.C. ---- The following is the original message ---- To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: LTEs publishe The Canberra Times Date: Sat, 07 Feb 98 22:40:01 +1100 Message-Id: <email@example.com> From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Peter Watney) published in the Canberra Times 6th February, 1998 Tobacco policy good for other drugs too IT IS a shame that Colliss Parrett, (Letters, February 1) does not realise that the policies he advocates for tobacco are based on the harm-minimisation concept that he so strongly opposes for other drugs. If he had applied prohibition to tobacco we would have seen an expanding black market, people in jail for not being able to conquer their addiction and increased corruption. It would simply mean more harm. Instead, people like me have worked to minimise harm by regulating tobacco, limiting availability, reducing the number of places where smoking is allowed and by restricting advertising. Similarly when I introduced legislation to decriminalise cannabis and when I first proposed the ACT heroin trial in 1990, I was seeking to reduce harm to individuals and to the society as a whole. The Australian harm-minimisation policy has been spectacularly successful in reducing deaths without increasing drug use when compared to the US policy of prohibition. Despite huge resources expended on their drug war, US and Australian usage rates are almost identical except for much higher use of cocaine in the US and our slightly higher use of amphetamines. However, the US has had an overwhelmingly bigger HIV/AIDS epidemic. MICHAEL MOORE ACT Legislative Assembly
------------------------------------------------------------------- Cannabis Is Not Stronger Now (Letter To Editor Of 'Canberra Times' Rebuts Contention Of Australian Drug Warrior) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 07:06:02 EST Originator: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (Peter Watney) To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Series of published LTEs Organization: P.I.C. ---- The following is the original message ---- To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: LTEs publishe The Canberra Times Date: Sat, 07 Feb 98 22:40:01 +1100 Message-Id: <email@example.com> From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Peter Watney) published in the Canberra Times Cannabis is not stronger now HELEN MILLER repeats the discredited myth that cannabis today is markedly stronger than the cannabis used in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Letters, January 30). This myth is the result of bad data. The researchers who made the claim of increased potency used as their baseline the THC content of marijuana seized by police in the early 1970s. Poor storage of this marijuana in evidence rooms without air-conditioning caused it to deteriorate and decline in potency before any chemical assay was performed. Contemporaneous independent assays of unseized "street" marijuana from the early 1970s showed a potency equivalent to that of modern "street" marijuana. Actually the most potent form of this drug that was generally available in the USA was sold legally in the 1920s and 1930s by the pharmaceutical company Smith-Klein, under the name "American Cannabis". PETER WATNEY Holt
------------------------------------------------------------------- The Week Online With DRCNet, Issue Number 28 (News Summary For Activists, From The Drug Reform Coordination Network - Original Articles Include Attention All Students, Join U-NET; Alert - Call To Action Regarding Johnnie Mae Brown, Employed Mother, Still Being Held On A 26-Year-Old Warrant For Fleeing Drug Treatment; California Correspondent Needed; A Conversation With Norman Siegel, Executive Director Of New York Civil Liberties Union; And Editorial By Adam J. Smith, 'Surveillance, Corruption, And The War On Drugs') Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 12:32:58 EST Reply-To: email@example.com Originator: firstname.lastname@example.org Sender: email@example.com From: DRCNet (firstname.lastname@example.org) To: Multiple recipients of list (email@example.com) Subject: The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue #28 *** Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet) Rapid Response Team *** Please copy and distribute. *** THE WEEK ONLINE with DRCNet February 6, 1997 - ISSUE #28 (Issue also at (http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/2-6.html). To sign off this list, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org with the line "signoff drc-natl" in the body of the message, or mailto:email@example.com for assistance. To subscribe to this list, visit http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html or http://www.stopthedrugwar.org on the web.) [Copies of Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts still available! Free with donation of $30 or more -- mail to DRCNet, 2000 P St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036, or use http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html on the web.] TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ATTENTION ALL STUDENTS: Plug in, Stand up, Speak out!! DRCNet invites you to join U-NET, a campus-based discussion list and strategy forum for current and prospective drug policy activists http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/2-6.html#u-net 2. ALERT: CALL TO ACTION -- Johnnie Mae Brown, employed mother and tireless volunteer, is still being held on a 26 year-old warrant for fleeing drug treatment! We need a much larger response, and we have new contact information. http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/2-6.html#johnnie 3. CALIFORNIA CORRESPONDENT NEEDED: The Week Online is seeking one or two individuals to cover the rapidly evolving California drug policy scene. http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/2-6.html#correspondent 4. 200 MARCH IN PROTEST OF INSTALLATION OF SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS IN WASHINGTON SQUARE PARK http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/2-6.html#surveillance 5. A CONVERSATION WITH NORMAN SIEGEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/2-6.html#conversation 6. ENORMOUS DRUG-CORRUPTION SCANDAL ROCKS SCOTLAND YARD: One of the world's most respected police forces succumbs to Prohibition's temptations. http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/2-6.html#scotlandyard 7. CANADIAN ACTIVISTS VOW MASSIVE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE: Will open numerous medical marijuana outlets. http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/2-6.html#disobedience 8. MEXICAN UNIT CONDUCTING INQUIRY INTO DISAPPEARANCES FOUND TO BE INFILTRATED BY DRUG TRAFFICKERS http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/2-6.html#infiltration 9. EDITORIAL: Surveillance, Corruption, and the War on Drugs http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/2-6.html#editorial *** 1. ATTENTION COLLEGE AND GRAD STUDENTS: DRCNet invites you to plug in to DRC U-NET Troy Dayton, American University DRC U-NET Coordinator Plug in, stand up, speak out! In almost every successful reform movement of the last fifty years, both here and abroad, college students have been a major impetus for change. Whether in ending US involvement in the Vietnam War, standing up for democracy at Tiananmen Square in China, or protesting the military dictatorship in Burma, students have provided the noise that put the ideas of reform organizations into action. Our situation makes us uniquely qualified to make a huge impact on U.S. drug policy. We generally don't work nine to five, we constantly interact with thousands of other open minded students, and we have immediate access to professors who see how self-destructive our current attitudes and policies are and are often willing to help us try to change them. Also, it wasn't so long ago that we were in high school, so we know first hand that all the money poured into the drug war, and all of the lives the war has cost, have not affected the availability of drugs to teenagers. Therefore, we more than anyone else, can retort the drug warriors claims that their war is protecting kids. The drug war will not end until campuses erupt. No matter how many full-time people work on this issue, major changes won't crystallize until students get active. Also, we have two things in 1998 that no other movement has ever had: a massive college population, and free access to the Internet! That is why DRCNet is starting DRC U-NET, a discussion group for campus activists. Here is our chance to share ideas and spread the word. Do you ever wonder how to deal with people who don't take your ideas seriously? Are you looking for ways to increase awareness and activism on your campus? Do you have a campus reform group that you would like to make more effective? Do you have a project that students from around the country can help you with? Are you interested in legislation that directly affects campus drug policy? Do you have experience that others might benefit from? Do you want to start a drug policy reform group, but are afraid or don't know how? Do you want to meet other drug policy activists from all across the country? Around the world? These are the kinds of things that can happen when you plug into DRC U-NET. Let's say that you or your organization has an activist project where you need letters and/or phone calls made. How many do you think will call or write from your school? 20, maybe 30? What if over a thousand college students received your message about calling and writing? Do you think that would help? DRCNet has nearly 200 college campuses represented among our subscribers, including some of the most successful activists in the country. Wouldn't you like to have the benefit of their experience? With these kind of numbers as a start, we have an immediate opportunity to activate a large portion of America's college students against this pointless war. We will use this connection to significantly increase both our size and effectiveness in generating mass involvement. Information that gets shared on DRC U-NET will also give The Week Online better information about what is happening on college campuses. That means that news from your campus will get out to thousands of reform-minded people. This is a war on young people and it's time for young people to put some action behind the ideas of doctors, lawyers, and full time lobbyists. Let's let the drug warriors know that this never-ending war is putting our peers in jail cells and coffins and that we won't stand for it any longer. 1997 was a huge year for drug policy reform, both at home and around the world. Let's keep that momentum going by getting college campuses active. As the millennium approaches, our generation, the first to have grown up on the Internet, will use the power of technology and the strength of our ideas to change the world in very significant ways. SIGN UP to DRC U-NET TODAY! TO JOIN the DRC U-NET discussion list, e-mail us at firstname.lastname@example.org with the words "SUBSCRIBE U-NET" in the subject of your message. (Activation of the mailing list has been delayed a couple of days for technical reasons, but we will subscribe you and send you instructions as soon as it goes on.) NOTICE: DRC U-NET is a national conversation among students (and interested faculty) about changing harmful policies. It is not a forum to discuss growing tips, promote drug use, or facilitate illegal transactions. If anyone decides to post messages that are inappropriate to a policy/activism forum, they may be removed from the list. *** 2. ALERT!!! UPDATE -- Johnnie Mae Brown Last week we told you about Ms. Johnnie Mae Brown, who was recently arrested at Kennedy Airport and incarcerated in the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women for fleeing court-mandated drug treatment, in 1972! If you missed last week's Week Online, you can find this horrifying story at (http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/1-30.html#respond). While many of you called or wrote, we need a much larger response in order to free Ms. Brown and allow her to get back to her home, her children, her job at the New York City Human Resources Administration, and her volunteer service working with recovering addicts. As we mentioned last week, Ms. Brown is the very model of the successful former addict, reintegrated as a productive member of society. Now the State of New Jersey is destroying everything for which she has worked so hard. WE MUST NOT LET THIS HAPPEN! We also have new information on how best to make your voice heard in support of Ms. Brown. HOW TO HELP: Johnnie Mae's fate lies in the hands of the New Jersey Parole Board. She will have a "special" hearing, which is not yet scheduled, during which a decision can be made to release her, or to refer her case to a regular parole board hearing. Should the parole board refuse to release her, there is the possibility of asking for a hearing in state court on compassionate grounds. DRCNet is asking you to write to the parole board on Ms. Brown's behalf. However, it is important to keep in mind that the parole board hasn't done anything to victimize Johnnie Mae (yet). And, since her fate is in their hands, letters should be thoughtful and informative without being confrontational. The idea is that a parole board which has been educated and softened will be more likely to release her. A parole board which feels cornered and angry might keep her longer. The parole board should be encouraged to hold hearings for Johnnie Mae a.s.a.p. so that she can get back to work and home and friends. N.J. Parole Board, P.O. Box 862, Trenton, NJ 08628 Johnnie Mae Brown, #98-29, c/o Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women, P.O. Box 404, Clinton, NJ 08809-4404. Thanks for your attention and support. *** 3. THE WEEK ONLINE SEEKS CALIFORNIA CORRESPONDENT Due to the high volume of drug policy (especially medical mj) news out of California, The Week Online is looking for one or two volunteers with the ability to cover the issue for us out there. You must be able to write concise accounts in journalistic format (we can help you to find sources of information) and be able to contact and get quotes from experts and players in the state (again, we can help you with contact info if needed). Perhaps you are involved in the ongoing efforts there and would like to get the story out to thousands of interested people nationally. (Believe it or not, the press outside of CA is not covering this at all.) Or perhaps you are an aspiring journalist who would like to get some great experience while building up a portfolio of published materials. Either way, send an email to email@example.com and please be prepared to provide a writing sample of some kind. Thanks! *** 4. 200 MARCH IN PROTEST OF INSTALLATION OF SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS IN WASHINGTON SQUARE PARK On February 1, 200 New York City residents, angered over Mayor Giuliani's installation of surveillance cameras in Washington Square, marched on the venerable park, centerpiece of New York's fabled Greenwich Village, to voice their concerns. Surveillance cameras are already in use in some public housing projects in the city, and Mayor Giuliani, citing a decrease in crime in areas where the cameras have been installed, says the city plans to expand the program. "We are at a point where we now have many more requests for cameras than we have cameras, or than we're ready yet to do, because we want to make sure we're doing this in a careful way" Giuliani told the New York Times. Speakers at the rally, however, had serious concerns. Tonya D. McClary, director of research at the NAACP legal defense fund, said, "once you give them the O.K. to do this, they will take it and run with it. We've pretty much allowed them a green light to put these cameras in parks, public schools, in the subway system and in city buses. Soon, none of us will have a place where we can sit back and be ourselves." The protest was organized by the New York Civil Liberties Union. *** 5. CONVERSATION WITH NORMAN SIEGEL Norman Siegel, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, and organizer of the Washington Square Park protest, spoke with The Week Online. WOL: Mayor Giuliani is obviously a strong supporter of the use of video surveillance of public spaces as an appropriate means of fighting crime. You obviously don't agree. NS: We (the NYCLU) oppose surveillance cameras in Washington Square Park because it raises the Orwellian spectre of Big Brother government spying and compiling video records of the free movements of citizens. WOL: Have you gotten any response from the city to your opposition? NS: As a result of the protest we've gotten verbal assurances from the city that these tapes will be erased after seven days, assuming that no criminal activity is revealed. We haven't seen that in writing. But some would say, and I don't disagree, that that's not enough -- that it's naive to think that the tapes won't at some point be used improperly. WOL: The Giuliani administration has been very vocal about their intention to conduct a "zero-tolerance" war on drugs in their second term. The cameras in the park are a very visible part of that campaign. What are your thoughts on that? NS: Well, the primary concern of the NYCLU in this case is certainly the cameras themselves, and all that they imply. But as you begin to examine the lengths to which the police must go to control even the smallest of marijuana transactions, which is the specific purpose of the cameras in Washington Square, you come to the point where you must begin to ask whether this is the way we ought to be spending our resources. The drug war, it seems, leads almost inevitably down this path. WOL: Surveillance cameras were first used in New York in public housing projects. How did that come about? NS: The cameras were first installed in the Grant Houses in Harlem in July of '97. There was a tenant meeting, of sorts, put together by the city. The problem was that that meeting wasn't publicized -- no notices were put under doors, none of the normal steps were taken to insure that people knew about it -- and only 75 people were in attendance out of about 4,000 residents. Somewhere between thirty and forty percent of those in attendance were opposed to the plan, and based upon that single meeting, with no other input, and no safeguards in place for how the videos would be used, the plan went into effect. WOL: So, in your opinion, the decision-making process itself is inadequate. NS: Absolutely. First, whether we're talking about public housing or public parks, why hasn't the public been more involved in decisions about a project with such disturbing constitutional implications? Under what circumstances can the government videotape its citizens? Where can this be done? Where can't it be done? What safeguards does the public have against abuse? The city hasn't been very forthcoming about these issues. WOL: It sounds as if there are few established limits on the public use of video technology by the police. NS: Not specifically, no. And the impact of that type of legal environment may already be upon us. We have received information from sources within the New York City Police Department that there are unmarked vans patrolling three different neighborhoods, Far Rockaway and Jamaica in Queens, and East New York, and that they are videotaping people they think are 'suspicious'. The New York Times recently asked police officials about this and the answer they got is that the officials 'could not confirm' that such activity was in fact taking place. WOL: So what's your next step? NS: The NYCLU plans to investigate this. If we can't get satisfactory answers from the city we'll go down and check out those neighborhoods ourselves. If, in fact, the police are secretly videotaping citizens, we would likely take legal action under the theory that if police can't keep pictures or fingerprints of citizens who have not been charged with a crime, they certainly can't keep video records of the free movement of the citizens of a free society. Ironically, the alleged rationale for videotaping the public is security, but I would argue that the implications of such intrusive government action makes all of us less secure in very fundamental ways. (For information on the New York Civil Liberties Union, visit http://www.aclu.org/community/newyork/ny.html or call (212) 344-3005.) *** 6. ENORMOUS DRUG-CORRUPTION SCANDAL ROCKS SCOTLAND YARD A team of internal investigators has found that up to 250 high-ranking members of some of Scotland Yard's most elite squads have been working with major drug dealers and criminal organizations. Suspects include both active officers up to the rank of detective chief inspector, and retired officers up to the rank of commander, with most having between 10 and 25 years on the force, according to The Independent. That paper also cites Sir Paul Condon, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who said that the vast profits available in the narcotics trade meant that officers could collect bribes of fifty to eighty thousand pounds to "subvert a single job" or to "recycle drugs". The offenses allegedly committed by the officers include the destruction of evidence, stealing drugs and re-selling them to other dealers, and protecting criminal operations by passing along information and derailing investigations. *** 7. CANADIAN ACTIVISTS TO STRIKE ANOTHER BLOW IN FIGHT FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA Mark Brandl for DRCNet A group of Ontario activists have recently decided to tackle the problem of patient access to medical marijuana through the creation of cannabis buyers clubs (CBC's) throughout the province, and they haven't kept it a secret. A letter sent January 30th to federal authorities explains the intentions of the group to open CBC's and asked for a legal exemption from the law. The letter gives authorities until February 12th to respond at which point the group plans to start distributing marijuana to patients with a prescription regardless of permission from the government. The group, consisting mainly of young hemp entrepreneurs, met in January in Toronto to organize around two central goals in the struggle for legal access to marijuana. The first goal is to give sick patients who have a doctor's prescription marijuana so they don't have to deal in the black market. The second goal is to make the creation of the CBC's such a public display of civil disobedience that Canadian officials will be forced to confront the issue. "We would prefer to do this legally, but failing that, civil disobedience will be the path to take," stated long time marijuana reform activist and law professor Alan Young in a January 30th interview with the Ottawa Citizen. There is reason to believe this effort can be successful. An Ontario court recently decided Terry Parker, who suffers from epilepsy, has a constitutional right to grow and administer marijuana. Although the ruling is viewed as a specific exemption for Parker only, these activists hope the decision can be applied to others in need of medical marijuana. This most recent action follows several major initiatives in Canada to allow chronically ill and dying patients access to medical marijuana. In December a team of doctors and lawyers were turned down in an application filed with Health Canada to allow Jean Charles Pariseau, who suffers from AIDS, access to a legally sanctioned supply of marijuana to smoke for his nausea. A CBC in Vancouver, the Cannabis Compassion Club, is now up and running as well. According to Chris Clay, proprietor of Hemp Nation, web site, the future is a bright one for medical marijuana in Canada. "Whether change comes from the government or the courts, it seems Canada's medical marijuana users will finally have a legal supply sometime in the new year. In the meantime, underground buyers clubs will fill the need and keep the pot flowering." (Hemp Nation has a very informative web site online at http://www.hempnation.com) *** 8. MEXICAN UNIT CONDUCTING INQUIRY INTO DISAPPEARANCES FOUND TO BE INFILTRATED BY DRUG TRAFFICKERS An investigation being conducted by the Mexican government into the disappearances of over 90 people, including some Americans, in and around Ciudad Juarez, was reportedly infiltrated and compromised by at least one police officer with ties to drug traffickers. Ciudad Juarez is a known crossroads for the multi-billion dollar drug trade which flows through Mexico. The discovery was made by the Mexican Attorney General's office during an investigation into the execution-style murder of the alleged corrupt officer, federal police commander Hector Mario Valera. The investigative unit itself was formed in response to pressure from people whose loved ones were among the missing. The Association for Relatives of the Disappeared complained that the original investigations were chaotic or corrupt, according to the New York Times. *** 9. EDITORIAL: Surveillance, Corruption, and the War on Drugs This week in New York, 200 people came to Washington Square Park to protest the installation of two surveillance cameras there, which are to be monitored on an ongoing basis by police. The cameras mark Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's latest attempt to impose his will and control over a drug market which has, for over 60 years, made a mockery of all attempts to enforce it out of existence. Giuliani's recent ascension into the ranks of "up and comer" on the national political scene makes it all but certain that such tactics, employed in the cause of New York City's much talked-about escalation in the War on Drugs, will go neither unnoticed nor unduplicated by mayors of cities around the country, quaint concerns over civil liberties notwithstanding. In the midst of a war, especially a war fought primarily at home against an enemy which integrates itself as seamlessly into the day to day life of our cities as the drug trade, it is oftentimes difficult to remember, much less take seriously, the admonitions of our founding fathers against the ceding of excessive powers to the State. Rudy Giuliani, for instance, former prosecutor, cannot seem to grasp the unease with which people regard the expansion of such powers. "Freedom is authority" he once said, without a hint of irony, before going on to explain that society must be kept under control by government in order to make it safe for people to exercise their liberties. Perhaps Mr. Giuliani has not read Orwell. Or, more disturbingly, perhaps he has. But despite the eerie silence which has marked our society's headlong rush toward the day when all public activity (and here we use the word "public" in the broadest possible sense) will be closely monitored and controlled by authorities whose mission it is to protect us from consensual drug transactions, the warning signs abound. In late January, 44 armed officers of the state of Ohio were arrested and charged with corruption. Their alleged acts included stealing and re-selling drugs, protecting criminal gangs and obstructing investigations. Around the same time, 250 high-ranking officers of Scotland Yard, one of the world's most respected and loyal forces, were alleged to have committed essentially the same offenses on a larger scale. The week before that, the Tory Party in England was accused of accepting a donation of more than a million dollars from a known drug trafficker. And in America, questions still abound regarding connections between Nicaraguan drug traffickers, the CIA, and the Bush administration. These are but a few in a long line of Prohibition-related corruption cases which date back to a time when the prohibited intoxicants came in bottles, rather than vials. The Drug War, like all Prohibitions of popular goods, presents a singularly dangerous double-edged sword. On the one side, its enforcement demands an expansion and accumulation of powers in the hands of agents of the state, and of the state itself. These powers, eagerly sought and greedily expanded, are predicated on the enforcement of a set of laws which are said to represent the last line of defense between a civilized society and an imponderable abyss. On the other, the lucrative markets which are created by the policy are among the most corrupting influences ever encountered in the history of governance. And corruption itself, once ensconced in the culture of power, is not limited to its original terms. Rather it infects the very essence of leadership, blurring lines and undercutting principles, until there are no rules left which are unimpeachable in the quest to maintain authority and increase the wealth of the infected. It is an explosive and a worrisome mix. And most worrisome of all, perhaps, is that the siren song of the prohibitionist rhetoric is so seductive that even the free citizens of America are lured to devalue their liberties, along with the wisdom handed down to them by their storied founders. Politicians, by their very nature, know well the allure of the sirens. "Trust us" they call, "and we will protect you." But sirens never change. And following their voices in search of soothing security brings us ever-closer to the jagged rocks of totalitarianism. Prohibition insures that the hands into which we are placing our liberties are ever more likely to get dirty. There are, in the world, a few people who are not corruptible at some price. But in determining the wisdom of handing over our freedoms to the state, we ought not assume its agents to be among them. Adam J. Smith Associate Director *** DRCNet *** JOIN/MAKE A DONATION http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html DRUG POLICY LIBRARY http://www.druglibrary.org REFORMER'S CALENDAR http://www.drcnet.org/calendar.html SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html DRCNet HOME PAGE http://www.drcnet.org STOP THE DRUG WAR SITE http://www.stopthedrugwar.org -------------------------------------------------------------------
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 February 5-11
to Portland NORML news archive directory
to 1998 Daily News index (long)
This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/980206.html