Portland NORML News - Friday, February 6, 1998
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Medical Marijuana Cartoon ('Rex Organs, MD' - Dr. Rex Faces A Dilemma)

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 12:13:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Terry Miller (pdxnorml@pdxnorml.org)
To: pdxnorml@pdxnorml.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

Cartoon, 'Rex Organs, MD'
-------------------------------------------------------------------

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 ,
"libnw@circuit.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
davidanderson@news.oregonian.com 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 ,
"libnw@circuit.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
davidanderson@news.oregonian.com 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
letters@news.oregonian.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)
Dons, paralyzed
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: 104730.1000@compuserve.com
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: Dave Fratello <104730.1000@compuserve.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: roi@legalize.org, ukcia-l@sorted.org, usa@legalize.org, mape@legalize.org,
DPFT-L@TAMU.EDU, medmj@drcnet.org, drctalk@drcnet.org,
mattalk@islandnet.com, maptalk@mapinc.org, hemp-talk@hemp.net,
november-l@NOVEMBER.ORG, update@adca.org.au, israel@legalize.org,
norway@legalize.org, sweden@legalize.org, france@legalize.org
From: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.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: nahasg01@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Gabriel G. Nahas)
> To: rlake@utoledo.edu
>
> 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 editor@mapinc.org 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: creator@islandnet.com (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: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US: Camarena Case Witness Recants Allegations, U.S. Says
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield
Source: Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
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: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US: Law Enforcement Veteran to Head Customs Service
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield and Bartman (zorcher@ix.netcom.com)
Source: Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
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: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.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: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.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: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.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: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.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
<104730.1000@compuserve.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
<76322.1165@compuserve.com>

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: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: AMMO (ammo@levellers.org)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drctalk@drcnet.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 (kubby@alpworld.com),
--Ed Rosenthal (asked@well.com)
--Laura Kriho (cohip@levellers.org)
-------------------------------------------------------------------

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: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US: OPED: Answers, Please -- Contras And Drugs?
CIA Should Tell What it Knows
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Art Smart 
Source: Houston Chronicle
Contact: viewpoints@chron.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: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
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: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US TX: I-10 Traffic Stop Nets 230 Pounds of Cocaine Bags
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Art Smart 
Source: Houston Chronicle
Contact: viewpoints@chron.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: ai256@chebucto.ns.ca
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: Chris Donald (ai256@chebucto.ns.ca)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drctalk@drcnet.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 (ucj@vcn.bc.ca)
Subject: The 1998 Global Days against the Drug War !!! (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:42:08 EST
From: Louis Roggeveen (stony@idnet.xs4all.nl)
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: alliance@legalize.org.

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

***

pr@legalize.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 majordomo@legalize.org,
with unsubscribe pr as text of the message.

***

E-mail! stony@idnet.xs4all.nl 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: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US: OPED: High time we close the door on age of entrapment
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Art Smart 
Source: Houston Chronicle
Contact: viewpoints@chron.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: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: "Frank S. World" 
Pubdate: Fri, 06 Feb 1998
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Author: Jesse Garza of the Journal Sentinel staff
Contact: jsedit@onwis.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: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: "Frank S. World" 
Pubdate: Fri, 06 Feb 1998
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Author: Neil D. Rosenberg of the Journal Sentinel
Contact: jsedit@onwis.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: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US CA: OPED: Just Say No to Prison Drug Testing
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Tom O'Connell
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Contact: chronletters@sfgate.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: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US CA: U.S. Gives $212,712 To Help Fight Drugs
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: "Frank S. World" 
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Contact: chronletters@sfgate.com
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: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US CA: 1,900 Pot Plants Seized at Commercial Building
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Bartman 
Source: Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
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: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US: Tobacco Firms Targeted Blacks, Documents Show
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield
Source: Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
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: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: Canada: Drug Eases Pain, Restores Appetite, Says Man, 53
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: creator@mapinc.org
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: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: Canada: Suit Asks Government To Provide Marijuana
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: creator@mapinc.org
Source: Halifax Daily News
Contact: letterstoeditor@hfxnews.southam.ca
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: creator@islandnet.com (Matt Elrod)
To: mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com
Subject: Canada: Illegal money-laundering sting jeopardizes drug busts
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 09:08:38 -0800
Lines: 70
Newshawk: creator@mapinc.org
Source: Vancouver Sun
Contact: sunletters@pacpress.southam.ca
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: creator@islandnet.com (Matt Elrod)
To: mattalk@listserv.islandnet.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: lherald@lis.ab.ca

***

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: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: petrew@pcug.org.au (Peter Watney)
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: Series of published LTEs
Organization: P.I.C.

---- The following is the original message ----

To: editor@mapinc.org
Subject: LTEs publishe The Canberra Times
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 98 22:40:01 +1100
Message-Id: <98020781601@pcug.org.au>
From: petrew@pcug.org.au (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: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: petrew@pcug.org.au (Peter Watney)
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: Series of published LTEs
Organization: P.I.C.

---- The following is the original message ----

To: editor@mapinc.org
Subject: LTEs publishe The Canberra Times
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 98 22:40:01 +1100
Message-Id: <98020781601@pcug.org.au>
From: petrew@pcug.org.au (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: manager@drcnet.org
Originator: drc-natl@drcnet.org
Sender: drc-natl@drcnet.org
From: DRCNet (manager@drcnet.org)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drc-natl@drcnet.org)
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:listproc@drcnet.org with the
line "signoff drc-natl" in the body of the message, or
mailto:drcnet@drcnet.org 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
drcnet@drcnet.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 drcnet@drcnet.org 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

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[End]

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

Comments, questions and suggestions. E-mail

Reporters and researchers are welcome at the world's largest online library of drug-policy information, sponsored by the Drug Reform Coordination Network at: http://www.druglibrary.org/

Next day's news
Previous day's news

Back to 1998 Daily News index for February 5-11

Back to Portland NORML news archive directory

Back to 1998 Daily News index (long)

This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/980206.html

Home