Portland NORML News - Sunday, March 1, 1998

Steven Dons Was Still a Human Being (An op-ed in the Sunday Oregonian by one
of the Portland attorneys who represented the partly paralyzed man with a
hole in his chest protests the appallingly cynical reaction to his death in a
jail hospital bed, from which he supposedly smeared toothpaste over a
surveillance camera and then strangled himself - after being charged with
killing one cop and wounding two others during a warrantless break-in by the
Marijuana Task Force.)

Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 14:58:14 -0800
From: Paul Freedom (nepal@teleport.com)
Organization: Oregon State Patriots
To: Cannabis Patriots (cannabis-patriots-l@teleport.com)
Sender: owner-cannabis-patriots-l@teleport.com

The Sunday Oregonian---Reader Forum- 3-1-98
by Gwen Butkovsky -- transcribed by Paul Freedom

As one of the attorneys who represented Steven Dons, I was not at
all surprised by the public hostility toward my client. He was after all the
man accused of killing Portland Police Officer Colleen Waible. Her death
was a tragic loss for the whole community.

But while I was not surprised by the public hostility toward Dons during
his life, I was not prepared for the appallingly cynical reaction to his death.

His death has been described as a relief to the state, which will no longer
have to pay for incarcerating him. His death has also been described as a
relief to the victims and the community because there will be no need for a
long public jury trial. The public response has been little more than "Now
we are rid of a worthless human being who didn't deserve to be alive anyway."

Our system of government is based upon the concept of human dignity.
Our criminal justice system guarantees rights to the accused, not just for the
benefit of the accused, but for the benefit of society as a whole. In affording
human dignity to the most reviled and despised of all of us, we affirm our
belief in humanity.

We have established a system that acknowledges that not all among us will
live according to out standards. The jury trial is the method we use to determine
whether an individual has committed an act that warrants depriving him of the
most basic of all human rights: his freedom.

Jury trials can be expensive and painful to victims, but they also give us
something. For the community, which has experienced a violent tragedy, a jury
can be the return of reason and lawfulness. While an individual may have committed
a violent act, we can act in a rational and humane manner to restore the balance
of society.

If all this is true, why has the reaction to Dons' death been a relief to many?

In the ultimate of all ironies, we would have used this trial to decide in a
reasonable manner if we should kill a human being. The death penalty robs us
of our claim to dignity and deprives us of a humane response when faced with
the worst of human conduct. We are reduced to vengeful cries of an eye for
an eye.

As a society, as we continue to meet violence with violence, it has become
embarrassing to even mention words such as compassion and mercy. We
somehow have reached a point where my acknowledgment of humanity
in the accused or convicted person is an affront to the victims.

While I continue to mourn the death of Officer Waibel, I also mourn the
death of Dons simply because he was a human being.

This does not in any way diminish the tragic loss of Waibel. She was a
dedicated police officer. She gave to the community her skills and talents.
She showed her concern for others in real and tangible ways. The loss long
will be felt in our community.

Hatred, hostility and cynicism toward another, even one accused of her
death, is not a fitting tribute to this woman.

We will never know the full facts of Dons' life and all of the facts of that
fateful day that brought him to our attention. We will never be given the
opportunity to determine his guilt or innocence. We will never be able to
fully air the many other issues surrounding this case.

I regret that we will not be given the opportunity to know why our
community suffered such a violent loss. Most of all, I regret that those
questions would have been answered only in the context of the state
seeking permission to kill.

In the specter of the death penalty there is no chance to restore a sense
of lawfulness and humanity to our community.

Perhaps I should not be surprised that Dons' death has been cynically
applauded as the most convenient means to an end.

(Gwenn Butkovsky is a criminal defense attorney for the Portland law firm
Squires and Lopez.)


Send e-mail to majordomo@teleport.com
with subscribe cannabis-patriots-l
in the body of the message.
Or e-mail me if you have trouble or
someone you want me to subscribe!
Paul Freedom

Stop And Search Law Beginning of a Police State (A letter to the editor of
the Sunday Oregonian pans the new state law abridging the Fourth Amendment.)

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 18:55:32 EST
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: "Geoffery S. Thomas" (high_420@hotmail.com)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drctalk@drcnet.org)

Looks like you people in Oregon really have some narrow minded
lawmakers out there. Can we expect this for the rest of the nation?

Geoffrey S. Thomas

the rajun cajun of Baton Rouge

Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 15:10:10 -0800
From: Paul Freedom (nepal@teleport.com)
Organization: Oregon State Patriots
To: Cannabis Patriots (cannabis-patriots-l@teleport.com)
transcribed by PF


Letter to the editor
The Oregonian 3-1-98

So, Oregon police now have the right to stop and search anyone whom they at
their discretion, suspect may have committed a crime (Feb. 23 article).
Should I start learning to goose-step now?

The relevant point made by the American Civil Liberties Union that Hispanic
and African-Americans will be the first and hardest hit by abuses of this new
law is only the tip of the iceberg. This is a crack in the door to a
full-fledged police state.

I implore you to study history - the KGB and the Gestapo had identical

Matthew B. Clements
Gresham, Oregon

Baker City cops ruled 'builty of stupidity' (The Sunday Oregonian says a
yearlong inquiry by a grand jury in Baker City, Oregon, into alleged racism,
brutality and inappropriate sexual behavior by police has resulted in the
indictment of one officer, Bill Steele, and a demand that Police Chief
Douglas Humphress resign. But a Portland attorney says the Baker City jurors
might have let other officers off because many from the small community had
conflicts of interest that clouded their objectivity.)

The Sunday Oregonian
March 1, 1998
letters to editor:

Baker City cops ruled 'guilty of stupidity'

After a yearlong inquiry into alleged crimes,
grand jurors indicted only one officer and
demanded the chief's removal

By J. Todd Foster
of The Oregonian staff

State detectives and prosecutors have finished a
yearlong investigation of alleged crimes by Baker
City police but gained only one indictment, The
Oregonian has learned.

Other than one domestic violence case in May,
four of the six grand jurors said police misconduct
they reviewed was blown out of proportion and
amounted to stupidity and lack of training more
than criminal behavior.

Grand jurors agreed that longtime Police Chief
Douglas Humphress had to be removed from
office. On May 30, within days of their
recommendation, Humphress quit after 24 years
as the city's top cop and 32 years with the

"We had to start from the top and clean the ...
thing up," grand juror John Ackerman, 58, said.
"What we saw mostly was stupidity. It was 30
years of good-ole-boy stuff that finally came to a

City officials and Baker County District Attorney
Greg Baxter asked for a state investigation after
The Oregonian reported last March 16 that eight
of the department's 12 officers had engaged in
misconduct including racism, brutality and
inappropriate sexual behavior.

Baxter, the Oregon attorney general's office and
Oregon State Police will release their investigative
findings Wednesday.

The six grand jurors met between March and
September and said they reviewed about a dozen
cases of what prosecutors said were crimes by
police. They returned one indictment - on May
14, against Officer Bill Steele on charges of
assaulting his girlfriend. Steele was in uniform and
on a dinner break in late 1995 when his girlfriend
threatened to leave him. He punched her in the
face, choked and kicked her, and put a pillow
over her face and threatened to kill her, the
indictment states.

Steele, 36, has moved from Baker City and is
awaiting trial on fourth-degree assault and two
counts of menacing, all misdemeanors.

"He was the only one guilty of a crime," grand
juror Patricia Everson said. "The rest were guilty
of stupidity."

Everson, 46, said that grand jurors were
hard-working and open-minded about the cases
but that the experience left her with a "heavy

"This is a really small community," she said.
"When you get a jury of your peers here, that's
what you get. Everybody knows everybody."

Everson and three other grand jurors had personal
stakes in the investigation. Although not involved
in this case, Portland attorney Jan Baisch has
handled other police misconduct cases. She said
the Baker City jurors might have had conflicts of
interest that clouded their objectivity:

* Everson's husband, Chuck, has worked for
the city for 20 years and runs Baker City's
water reservoir.

* Grand juror Patrick Ryan's sister is a Los
Angeles police officer.

* Grand juror Jacquelyn Turner's husband,
Jack, publishes the local newspaper. He is
friends with Humphress, and he editorialized
on behalf of the department in the wake of
the allegations. Jacquelyn Turner, 54, could
not be reached for comment.

* Four years ago, police Officer Dennis Beyer
- the main whistle-blower against his fellow
officers - shot and killed grand juror Frances
Dixon's dog as it charged at him, a police
report states. Dixon, 31, could not be
reached for comment.

Because grand jury proceedings are secret, it's not
known whether Baxter or Rick Whitlock, Oregon
assistant attorney general, questioned jurors about
conflicts of interest.

Kristen Grainger, executive assistant to Oregon
Attorney General Hardy Myers, would not
answer questions about the Baker City
investigation until the Wednesday news
conference. But she said grand jurors routinely
are not questioned about possible biases and
rarely are eliminated, except in extreme
circumstances, such as illness.

There is no change of venue with grand juries,
Grainger said. Jurors must live in the county
where the alleged crimes occurred.

Baisch, who recently won a $500,000 verdict
against the city of Portland for an illegal arrest,
said if he had been the prosecutor, he would have
excused several of the Baker City jurors for

"I'd be very concerned about the objectivity of
that grand jury," he said. "I don't see how you
could get a fair verdict."

Everson said she disclosed her husband's job but
sees no conflicts of interest, noting that grand
jurors were not shy about the painful
recommendations that Humphress be removed
and that department procedures and policies be

Ryan said the main problem was that Humphress
used lack of money as an excuse not to
continually train his troops.

"There was a lack of training, a lack of
education," said Ryan, 48, a recreation specialist
for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. "But I
personally thought this whole thing was a waste
of time."

Grand juror David Durr, 64, said the investigation
was "much to-do about nothing" and a waste of
tax dollars. Although he thought the department
was operating behind the times, "I think we've got
a good Police Department," he said.

State officials said they would disclose
Wednesday how much money was spent
investigating Baker City police.

Everson, a Baker City native who has lived in
Boston and Chicago, said the experience was
draining and that she would rather go to jail
before serving again on a grand jury.

She said she hopes changes the city has
implemented - a new chief with a master's degree,
a new lieutenant, more officers including a
woman, and updated training and equipment - will
result in permanent improvements.

"I'm very skeptical," Everson said. "They need to
prove they're competent. This sounded like Andy
Griffith and Barney. There was no leadership.
The chain of command did not exist.

"To find out that the people you believed were
supposed to be taking care of you and holding the
bad guys at bay are so inept was terrible. It really
shakes your confidence."

J. Todd Foster works for The Oregonian's
Crime, Justice and Public Safety Team. He can
be reached by phone at 221-8070, by fax at
294-5009, by mail at 1320 S.W. Broadway,
Portland, Ore. 97201, or by e-mail at

Oral Drug Test Appears To Be Breakthrough (The Bulletin, in Bend, Oregon,
says the FDA has approved an enzyme immunoassay device to be marketed by
Epitope, in Beaverton, Oregon - the nation's first oral drug testing device
for cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana.)

From: cwagoner@bendnet.com
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 15:12:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: HT: Oral drug test: The Bulletin
To: hemp-talk@hemp.net
Sender: owner-hemp-talk@hemp.net
Newshawk: Curt Wagoner
Source: The Bulletin
Contact: bulletin@bendbulletin.com
Website: http://www.bendbulletin.com
Mail: 1526 NW Hill St., Bend,Or. 97701
Pubdate: 3/1/98
Page: 1


Drug testing soon will become as easy as popping a cookie into one's
mouth, thanks to an Oregon research company.

Epitope Inc. of Beaverton has Food and Drug Administration approval of
the nation's first oral drug testing device for cocaine, methamphetamine
and marijuana.

STC Technologies of Bethelehem, Pa., developed the actual lab test,
called an enzyme immunoassay.

Epitope produces the OraSure collection device, a specially treated pad
placed between the cheek and gum. The pad absorbs a fluid that migrates
into the mouth from blood vessels.

The pad is sealed in a case and sent to a lab for analysis.

The oral test is less embarrassing than the traditional urine test, and
will be much harder to defeat by trickery or drug-blocking chemicals
ingested by a subject.

Epitope will begin marketing the test kit to three primary markets:
government-mandated drug testing, such as testing of federal transportation
workers; forensic testing, including police work; and workplace testing.

California Marijuana Club Stands Firm Against Rulings (The New York Times
quotes Dennis Peron of the San Francisco Cannabis Cultivators Club, whose
physician has endorsed his use of cannabis to combat depression, saying, "If
we can't sell here, we will sell on the sidewalk. They will have to throw all
of us in jail" if authorities try to close the medical cannabis dispensary.)

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 00:29:34 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Olafur Brentmar (peace@mind.net)
Subject: MN: US CA: California Marijuana Club Stands Firm Against Rulings
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn)
Source: New York Times (NY)
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Pubdate: Sun, 1 Mar 1998


SAN FRANCISCO -- The advertised price was $30 for an eighth of an ounce of
``Five Star Mexican Gold,'' and dollar bills were exchanged at a brisk clip
Friday for plastic bags of marijuana. But, in deference to a new court
ruling barring the sale of the drug by clubs, a hastily erected sign over
the marijuana bar read: ``Remuneration Station.''

``We are not selling marijuana anymore,'' Cannabis Cultivators Club founder
Dennis Peron said Friday, explaining his latest strategy to keep open what
looks like America's closest copy of an Amsterdam hashish bar. ``We are
selling fertilizer, nutrients, lighting, pruning, the labor for

Not so, retorts California Attorney General Dan Lungren, a Republican
candidate for governor. The state's roughly 20 ``cannabis clubs'' will have
to close, he said, based on a state Supreme Court decision Wednesday. The
court let stand a lower court ruling that clubs, because they are not
``primary caregivers,'' cannot sell or give away marijuana to ill people.

And Thursday, a San Francisco County Superior Court judge issued a
preliminary injunction, based on those same grounds, prohibiting Peron from
selling, furnishing or giving away marijuana.

In 1996, California voters approved a measure to allow primary caregivers
to administer marijuana to the ill, under a doctor's supervision.

Ignoring last week's court ruling, Peron's five-story emporium served about
1,000 members Friday. He said that the club sells various types of
marijuana, all of which is grown either in the basement of the club or by
about 200 California farmers who have contracts with him. In his office,
barely screened from the thick clouds of marijuana smoke, Peron vowed to
``wait for the tanks.''

Behind his desk was a hand-sewn silk banner, resplendent with green
marijuana leaves, announcing his campaign to win the Republican nomination
for governor.

``I'm going to have to be governor, so I can pardon myself,'' joked Peron,
who won his spot on the ballot two weeks ago under the state's new open
primary law. Peron gleefully noted that the primary battle pitted him
against his nemesis, Lungren, who shut down Peron's Cannabis Buyers Club
for five months in 1996. The club reopened after the state referendum
allowing the medical use of marijuana.

On hearing that Peron planned to run against him in the June 2 primary,
Lungren responded, ``If Dennis Peron is running for governor on the
Republican ticket, he has smoked more marijuana than even I thought.''

The animus between the two men reflects how little was solved by the
referendum in November 1996, when 56 percent of voters approved the medical
use of marijuana.

Today, about 10,000 ailing Californians are thought to buy marijuana for
medical use. Marijuana is used by AIDS sufferers to restore their
appetites, by cancer and chemotherapy patients to control nausea, by people
with multiple sclerosis to control muscle spasms, and by people with
glaucoma to reduce blinding pressures in their eyes.

``I have been using marijuana every day for the last six years,'' Hazel
Rodgers, a 78-year-old grandmother who has glaucoma, said Saturday between
puffs on her pipe at the Cannabis Club. ``It keeps the pressure down in
your eyes. I also use it for arthritis.''

Monday and Tuesday, the medical effectiveness of marijuana was debated at
hearings in Washington conducted by the National Academy of Sciences. And
the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy has commissioned a
$1 million study on the issue, which is to be ready by December.

In November, voters in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, D.C.,
and Washington state are expected to vote on medical marijuana measures
like the ones passed in California and in Arizona in 1996.

``We believe we are going to have strong victories in those states,'' said
Robert Kampia, a director of the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that
lobbies for medical access to marijuana. National polls, he said, show
widespread support for allowing ailing people to use marijuana.

But state and federal officials have shown their determination to prevent
Northern California from becoming the nation's pot pioneer.

In January, six of the cannabis clubs operating in the Bay area were named
in a lawsuit filed by the federal government that sought court orders to
close them for violating federal laws against growing, distributing and
possessing marijuana. Since then, three of the clubs have closed.

In legal papers filed Friday, lawyers for the clubs contend that the
federal government has no jurisdiction because all the marijuana the clubs
distribute is grown in California and interstate commerce laws do not apply.

But Michael Yamaguchi, U.S. attorney for Northern California, said in
seeking the court orders: ``Under our system of federalism, laws passed by
Congress cannot be overridden or supplanted by state law. Federal law
continues to prohibit the distribution of marijuana at the cannabis clubs.''

In a warning to other medical marijuana clubs in California, Gregory King,
a Department of Justice spokesman, said Friday: ``Our enforcement efforts
are continuing. Charges may be brought in the future.''

In California, the suits have highlighted the legal gray area of medical

In conservative areas like Orange and Ventura counties in the southern part
of the state, sheriffs and local officials have closed clubs, acting as
though the 1996 referendum never took place. In more liberal areas, local
health and police officials have worked with cannabis clubs, encouraging
such controls as standard medical forms from doctors and photo
identification cards for members. In November, a state conference attended
by 28 ``medical cannabis providers'' drew up uniform guidelines.

Until the federal civil suits were announced, officials in San Mateo
County, a coastal area south of San Francisco, were drawing up plans to
provide marijuana to certified ill people through public dispensaries.

North of San Francisco, in Mendocino County, local officials debated
whether to use a vacant lot behind the Fort Bragg police station to grow
marijuana, which city police would then distribute to registered sick
people. Plans have since been suspended.

Local officials in Northern California reacted negatively to news of the
lawsuits. In Santa Cruz and Oakland, the city councils unanimously passed
resolutions condemning the federal action and defending local cannabis

In San Francisco, where the police and city attorneys have long tolerated
the medical use of marijuana, Mayor Willie Brown attacked the suits.

On another front, doctors and a lawyer in the San Francisco city attorney's
office have brought a class-action suit to prevent federal authorities from
punishing doctors who recommend the medical use of marijuana for patients.

``The federal government and the state government have totally failed to
carry out the mandate of the voters, which was that the government should
establish a safe and affordable system of medical marijuana for the
patients that needed it,'' said Dale Gieringer, California coordinator for
the National Organization for the Reform of the Marijuana Laws, a private

Down at the Cannabis Cultivators Club, which sells about 30 pounds of
marijuana a month, Peron considers the clubs closing around San Francisco
and admits, ``Everybody has just panicked.''

His assistant, Randi Webster, recalled what happened to her, and to the
club's ill clients, when the club closed in 1996.

``Marijuana makes the difference from me being here as a useful member of
society and laying at home in the fetal position in constant pain,'' said
Ms. Webster, whose illnesses include two kinds of arthritis. Ms. Webster, a
43-year-old who has decorated the club with her hand-folded origami swans,

``With marijuana, I can type 150 words a minute, fold origami, and walk
without assistance. When the club closed, people died; I was paralyzed.''

Nibbling on a Rice Krispie cookie laced with marijuana, Peron vowed that he
and his 8,000 members would resist with civil disobedience if state or
federal agents ever tried to padlock his premises again.

``If they get an injunction against us, we are going to stand in the
doorway, and open again,'' said Peron, who smokes and eats marijuana to
combat depression. ``If we can't sell here, we will sell on the sidewalk.
They will have to throw all of us in jail.''

Casualties of War (A lengthy op-ed in the San Jose Mercury News by Craig
Reinarman, a professor at the University Of California at Santa Cruz, and
Harry G. Levine, a professor at Queens College at the City University of New
York, co-authors of a recent book, "Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social
Justice," notes Congress's "Drug-Free America Act" of 1986 caused the most
massive wave of imprisonment in U.S. history, paradoxically increasing rather
than decreasing the number of inner-city youths in the drug trade.)

Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 22:24:02 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US CA: OPED: Casualties of War
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Marcus-Mermelstein Family (mmfamily@ix.netcom.com)
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
Pubdate: Sun, 1 Mar 1998


BY Craig Reinerman and Harry G. Levine

POLITICIANS are beating on the old drug-war drum again. President Clinton
recently proposed a record $17 billion National Drug Control Strategy. It
includes a five-year, billion-dollar anti-drug advertising campaign,
millions of dollars of grants to anti-drug organizations, ambitious new
long-term performance goals for the 50 federal agencies involved in drug
control, and still more money for police, prisons and border patrols.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich immediately blasted the strategy as ``a
hodgepodge of half-steps'' that is the ``definition of failure,'' and
charged the president with having a ``timid, defeatist attitude'' about
drug problems. As an alternative, Gingrich called for ``a World War
II-style victory campaign against illegal drugs.'' The president's drug
czar, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, shot back, denouncing Gingrich as

Does any of this sound familiar? In the mid-1980s politicians of both
parties drug-baited each other for being ``soft on drugs'' while calling
for increasingly punitive and expensive drug war policies. Presidents
Reagan and Bush led the charge, having their own urine tested for evidence
of drug use. The media uncritically reported even the wildest
unsubstantiated claims about crack cocaine -- the latest chemical bogeyman
-- and reporters competed to tell hair-raising drug horror stories, no
matter how atypical.

Then, members of Congress, citing all the media coverage they had helped to
create, passed the harshest drug laws in the Western world, requiring long
mandatory minimum sentences for possession of small amounts of crack. In
the course of the crack scare, politicians never met a drug-war weapon they
didn't like. As a result, annual drug-war spending has increased 16-fold
since 1980.

Some of this might be funny if it weren't so expensive, repressive and
ineffective. The drug war unleashed by the crack scare has had horrendous
consequences, especially for young inner-city men and women.

The wishfully named ``Drug-Free America Act'' of 1986, followed by a string
of even harsher drug laws, caused the most massive wave of imprisonment in
U.S. history. The Justice Department recently reported that nearly
1,750,000 Americans were locked up in jail or prison in 1997 -- double the
number of a decade earlier. In 1985, our incarceration rate was 313 per
100,000 population. Now it is 645 per 100,000, which is three to 10 times
higher than rates of the other modern democratic societies. The largest
single factor contributing to this imprisonment wave is an eight-fold rise
in drug arrests. In 1980, when illicit drug use was peaking, there were
about 50,000 men and women in prison for violating drug laws. Last year,
there were about 400,000. According to Dr. Alfred Blumstein, a professor at
Carnegie Mellon University and the former president of the American Society
of Criminology, the current incarceration rate for drug offenders alone is
higher than the incarceration rate for all crimes combined during the
half-century from the 1920s into the 1970s.

African-Americans have unfairly borne the brunt of this imprisonment
epidemic. National Institute on Drug Abuse surveys show that drug use is
more or less proportionately distributed across racial and class
categories. But because the drug war's weapons are aimed selectively at the
street, the people most often caught in the crosshairs are poor blacks and
Latinos. This deepens their distrust of the legal system and their rage at
the racism American society tolerates.

Laws passed during the crack scare worsened all this by mandating a minimum
five-year prison sentence for possessing a mere 5 grams of crack cocaine
(worth a few hundred dollars), while it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine
to trigger the same five-year mandatory minimum. This 100-to-1 sentencing
disparity has become profoundly racist because crack-cocaine users are
disproportionately black while powder-cocaine users are overwhelmingly
white. There is no pharmacological or other scientific justification for
this gaping disparity between the sentences meted out to those who ingest
cocaine one way and those who ingest cocaine another way. The non-partisan
U.S. Sentencing Commission has recommended that the disparity be
eliminated, and even drug czar McCaffrey agrees. Yet, neither political
party has moved to right this wrong for fear of being labeled ``soft on
drugs'' by the other.

All this imprisonment has had the paradoxical effect of increasing rather
than decreasing the number of inner-city youth in the drug trade. In many
poor communities, the illicit drug business is the only growth industry and
the only truly equal opportunity employer. As hundreds of thousands of
low-level drug workers were arrested and imprisoned, hundreds of thousands
more moved into the available jobs. The net result has been many more young
people involved with illicit drugs than would have been the case if arrests
had focused mainly on large-scale dealers.

And for all of this, the Drug Enforcement Administration's own reports show
that both cocaine and heroin are purer and cheaper than they were 10 years
ago. In other words, after tens of billions of dollars and a decade of drug
war, the targeted drugs are in greater supply than ever.

We think Clinton's and Gingrich's call for more drug war is wrong because
the ``War on Drugs'' has already: 1) dramatically increased the number of
low-level, non-violent criminals in prison for long periods of time
(especially African-Americans); 2) increased the number of young blacks and
Latinos selling, using, and often becoming addicted to drugs; and 3)
created an atmosphere of political intimidation in which leaders in neither
party can even speak of drug policy alternatives. Other Western countries,
with very similar patterns of drug use, are handling their drug problems
more effectively without drug wars.

In recent years, American students have been given more anti-drug education
in school and have been bombarded with more anti-drug advertisements in the
media than any generation in history. Yet their experimentation with drugs,
and their general drug-use patterns, remain much like that of their peers
in other developed Western countries. Contrary to the political and media
hype, compared to other Western societies, the United States has not been
having an ``epidemic'' of teenage or adult drug use.

While American drug use is unremarkable, its drug problems and its drug
policy are the most severe in the Western world. No other industrial
country has the rates of heroin and crack cocaine addiction of the United
States. None has our rate of drug-related AIDS transmission. None has our
rates of imprisonment and our tax bill for that imprisonment.

All Western European countries, along with Canada, Australia and New
Zealand, have instituted needle exchange programs and/or pharmacy sale of
syringes to reduce the spread of AIDS. Needle exchange programs have been a
stunning success and every scientific commission to review the evidence has
recommended their adoption. Yet, to this day, politicians in Washington do
not permit federal money to be spent on needle exchange. As a result, the
United States still has the fastest-growing AIDS population in the Western

Most other Western countries are moving in the direction of decriminalizing
personal possession and use of marijuana or have done so already --
including the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Denmark, Poland,
Australia and New Zealand. In most regions of those countries, and
increasingly in many other countries, people are not arrested and put in
jail for possessing a small amount of marijuana.

Policymakers in those places have been influenced by the fact that every
scientific body in the 20th century that has examined the evidence about
marijuana has concluded that its use is much less risky than that of
cocaine or heroin, and probably significantly less risky than alcohol or
cigarettes. Right now, for example, Great Britain is in the midst of a
major debate about marijuana policy with members of Parliament, prominent
scientists, and major newspapers calling for decriminalization. In the
United States, on the other hand, the number of people arrested for
possessing marijuana continues to grow. In 1997, more than 600,000 people
were arrested simply for possessing marijuana. Despite the clear intent of
voters in California and Arizona, even medicinal use of marijuana by cancer
and AIDS patients under a physician's care remains a jailable offense.

Drug abuse, drug dependence, drug addiction, and the medical problems
resulting from drug use are health issues and should be dealt with as such.
In Europe, and increasingly in the United States, people seeking
alternatives to drug wars talk about ``harm reduction policies'': needle
exchange, methadone maintenance, experiments with heroin maintenance,
various other forms of treatment. Physicians and public health workers
should be dealing with drug problems, not police and prison guards.

Drug wars are not an ``investment in our future.'' They are frauds on the
taxpayers. If we want kids to say no to drugs, we need to give them
something they can say yes to: good schools; sports, music and art
programs; a future with decent jobs.

If we want to substantially reduce inner-city hard drug abuse -- heavy
heroin and crack use -- we must substantially reduce poverty. Drug wars and
the massive imprisonment of drug users -- what we have now, and what
Clinton and Gingrich threaten even more of -- are expensive, repressive,
and harmful. There is another way.

Craig Reinarman is a professor of sociology and legal studies at the
University of California-Santa Cruz.

Harry G. Levine is professor of sociology at Queens College, City
University of New York. Their new book, ``Crack in America: Demon Drugs and
Social Justice,'' was published last fall by the University of California
Press. They wrote this article for Perspective.

Firsthand View of Prison Leads to a Call for Restorative Justice (The Orange
County Register shares the message of Pat Nolan, a 16-year Republican veteran
of the California Assembly who returned to the capitol last week after
serving two years in federal prison on political-corruption charges. He once
saw convicts as less than human and voted enthusiastically for more prisons
and longer sentences, but now says the criminal-justice system is a failure
and a huge waste of money.)

Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 22:22:07 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US CA: Firsthand View of Prison Leads to a Call for Restorative
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: John W.Black
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Pubdate: Sun, 1 Mar 1998


After 16 years in the state Assembly and two in federal prison, Pat Nolan
has seen laws made and he has seen them enforced. Now the burly, graying,
onetime Republican leader wants legislators to know they are doing it all

The former lawmaker from Glendale says he once saw convicts as less than
human. He voted enthusiastically for more prisons and longer sentences. But
he returned to the Capitol last week as a man transformed. His message,
discovered and honed while doing time on political-corruption charges and
delivered now with a convert's zeal: The criminal-justice system is a
failure and a huge waste of money.

Nolan, 47, once touted as a potential governor, now is president of Justice
Fellowship, a Virginia-based group trying to change the justice system's
focus from punishment to healing. Locking people up and throwing away the
key, Nolan said, isn't doing the criminals or their victims any good.

"We've built 17 new prisons in this state," said Nolan, dressed in a
charcoal pinstriped suit, white shirt and red and black striped tie. "Blood
still flows in the streets. People don't feel any safer. Let's try a new

If all of this sounds familiar, that's because it mirrors themes long
advocated by liberal Democrats and prison reformers.

The problem, Nolan said, is that when prisoners emerge, many are no more
likely to obey the law then when they went in. They are jobless, homeless,
hooked on drugs and illiterate.

"We hand them 35 bucks and say, 'Don't come back,"' Nolan said. "But they
do come back. And in the process of coming back they usually harm somebody
else. ... We've done nothing to prepare them to re-enter society."

In other states, Justice Fellowship runs intensive programs for inmates
willing to accept the group's Bible-based teachings. In prison, they get
education, counseling and drug treatment while their families are linked
with local churches.

Called "restorative justice," this method also seeks to reconcile the rift
between offender and victim, emphasizing restitution over punishment. And,
crucially, it stresses the role of individuals and the community rather
than government.

"We define crime as a broken law," Nolan said. "The Bible defines crime as
a broken relationship. Humans are involved, not government structures, not
the authority of government. Real humans. There's a real person harmed and
a person who's done the harm. ... Make the victim whole. Now, that is

Nolan tells the story of a drunk driver who killed a man. The victim's
mother suggested a novel sentence: Make the offender write a $1 check in
the victim's name every day he would have spent in prison. Nolan says the
sentence allowed the man to keep his life and family together. But writing
the dead man's name each day became an awful reminder of what he's done.

"As each day went on, that became a tougher and tougher sentence," Nolan said.

The victim's mother, Nolan said, put the checks in the bank and, when the
sentence was complete, returned the money to the offender to help him put
his life back together.

"That truly is restorative," Nolan said.

Nolan's crusade is not without flaws. Since pleading guilty to a single
count of racketeering, he has insisted he was the victim of trumped-up
charges by a politically motivated prosecutor. Nolan's call for healing on
a mass scale might carry more weight if he admitted that what he did was

Beyond that, his cause faces determined opposition from his former allies
in government. Officials in Gov. Pete Wilson's administration, citing
declining crime rates, say the prison-building boom has worked to make the
state safer by taking crime-prone thugs off the streets.

Advocates for crime victims, meanwhile, oppose spending millions to help
criminals find jobs and housing while the people they harmed face a lonely
struggle without government aid.

But Nolan says his approach is better for victims than the current one,
which uses them as "props" for the government's case against the criminal.

"We should lock people up because we're afraid of 'em, not because we're
mad at them," Nolan said. "We lock up a lot of people just because we're
mad at them. It's very destructive. We don't heal them."

Letter to the editor of Playboy (Arthur Livermore of Arch Cape, Oregon,
praises the magazine for exposing the political nature of the drug war.)

Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 14:37:30 EST
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: alive@pacifier.com (Arthur Livermore)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: PUB LTE: Playboy magazine, March 1998

Source: Playboy magazine
Pubdate: March 1998, page 48

Thank you for exposing the political nature of the war on drugs.
Prohibition has created an enormously profitable underground distribution
system for so-called controlled substances. We spend billions every year to
enforce prohibition, but we haven't kept these drugs away from our children,
nor made our communities safe from crime. Let's create a system that works.

Arthur Livermore
Arch Cape, Oregon

Drug Testing is a Scam (A list subscriber forwards the URL to a site where
the scam is "revealed in full.")

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 07:01:09 -0600 (CST)
From: wbruceh@ix.netcom.com ()
Subject: CanPat - Fwd: Drug Testing is a Scam
To: cannabis-patriots-l@teleport.com
Sender: owner-cannabis-patriots-l@teleport.com

---- Begin Forwarded Message

Drug testing, the scam revealed in full, at

---- End Forwarded Message

International Medical Societies Endorse Marijuana Ingredients (Paul Armentano
of NORML, writing in High Times, notes the Society for Neuroscience, in
Washington, D.C., and the British Medical Association, in London, both came
out late last year in support of new evidence demonstrating that
cannabinoids - active chemical compounds in marijuana - provide safe and
effective relief for a number of serious health conditions. Combined, the two
organizations represent approximately 140,000 physicians and researchers

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 07:11:37 -0500
From: "R. Lake" (rlake@utoledo.edu)
Subject: MN: NORML: International Medical Societies Endorse Marijuana
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
Organization: The Media Awareness Project of DrugSense
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: The Media Awarness Project of DrugSense
Source: High Times
Pubdate: March, 1998, No. 271
Author: Paul Armentano, NORML Director of Publications
Contact: letters@hightimes.com
Website: http://www.hightimes.com/

Editors note: You may email the National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws (NORML) at natlnorml@aol.com
NORML Website: http://www.norml.org/


Two prestigious American and British medical associations recently announced
their support for legalizing the use of marijuana-derived chemicals for
medical purposes.

The Society for Neuroscience in Washington and the British Medical
Association in London both came out late last year in support of new
evidence demonstrating that cannabinoids - active chemical compounds in
marijuana - provide safe and effective relief for a number of serious health
conditions. Combined, the two associations represent the interests of
approximately 140,000 physicians and researchers worldwide.

In New Orleans last October, at the 27th annual meeting of the Society for
Neuroscience, several of the nation's top researchers in pain management
announced that new studies indicate certain cannabinoids are safe and
effective analgesics for patients suffering from chronic or severe pain.

"Cannabinoids, at least in animal models, can reduce pain," said Dr. Ian
Meng, a pharmacology expert at the University of California at San
Francisco. Some cannabinoids, he noted, appeared to be as effective as
opiate-based drugs like morphine. Other researchers added that the use of
THC and other compounds found in marijuana, such as cannabidiol, do not
appear to carry the risks associated with the use of opiates, such as
addiction and tolerance.

Researchers from the University of Texas reported that the localized
injection of anandamides - cannabinoid-like chemicals produced in the brain
- can greatly relieve the inflammation associated with arthritis. An
additional team of scientists from the University of Minnesota found that
certain cannabinoids can also block the onset of an extreme sensitivity to
pain called hyperalgesia, a condition often associated with nerve disease
and spinal-cord injuries.

"These results suggest that local administration of... cannabinoid[s] to the
site of injury may be able to prevent pain from occurring and reduce pain
which has already occurred without producing side effects," said Dr. Kenneth
Hargreaves, a University of Texas researcher.

Many of the neuroscientists attending the annual conference agreed that
marijuana's apparent utility as a painkiller would broaden the drug's appeal
as a medicine. NORML Executive Director R. Keith Stroup said that the
findings directly challenge the federal government's position that marijuana
has no medical value. Federal law now forbids the medical use of any
cannabinoid other than THC.

In England, the British Medical Association last November reported similar
findings and endorsed the legalization of cannabinoids found to have medical
value. Its recommendations appeared in a report published by the BMA's Board
of Science and Education, entitled "The Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis."
Recommendations from the BMA traditionally springboard a drug into
regulatory acceptance.

The 80-page review concluded that "present evidence indicates that
[cannabinoids] are remarkably safe drugs, with a side effect profile
superior to many [conventional] drugs."

"The Government should consider changing the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow
cannabinoids to be prescribed to patients with particular medical conditions
whose symptoms are being inadequately controlled under present
arrangements," the BMA said in a statement released Nov. 18th. The group
also suggested that law enforcement use discretion when they encounter
people using marijuana for medical reasons.

NORML board member Dr. John Morgan, of the City University of New York
Medical School, said that these latest findings and endorsements hold major
implications for future medical-marijuana research. "Not only do the studies
provide strong support for the use of cannabinoids - including THC - as
analgesic medications, but they also demonstrate that cannabinoids are
minimally subject to misuse and dependence."

While neither group came out wholeheartedly in favor of legalizing smoked
marijuana for medical purposes, the latest cannabinoid research makes it
virtually impossible for federal officials to deny the plant's value as a
medicine. "This scientific research supports thousands of years of anecdotal
evidence and hundreds of 'Phase III' human studies indicating marijuana's
potential as a therapeutic agent," Stroup announced. "The debate in America
must now shift from discussing whether marijuana is medicine to how best to
provide and administer this drug to those who may medically benefit from its

Copyright 1998 by Trans-High Corporation. Redistributed by the Media
Awareness Project, Inc. by permission of High Times and NORML.

Feds Stonewall Medical-Marijuana Study - Until It Switches Focus to 'Risk
Factors' (High Times provides a needed update on the longstanding campaign by
Dr. Donald Abrams of the University of California at San Francisco to obtain
cannabis from the hopelessly biased NIDA in order to scientifically test its
efficacy as medicine for AIDS patients.)

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 18:12:44 -0500
From: "R. Lake" (rlake@utoledo.edu)
Subject: MN: US: Feds Stonewall Medical-Marijuana Study - Until it Switches
Focuse to 'Risk Factors'
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
Organization: DrugSense
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: The Media Awarness Project of DrugSense
Source: High Times
Pubdate: March, 1998, No. 271
Author: Paul Armentano, NORML Director of Publications
Contact: letters@hightimes.com
Website: http://www.hightimes.com/
Editors note: You may email the National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws (NORML) at natlnorml@aol.com - check out their sharp updated
website at: http://www.norml.org/


Last August, amidst fanfare generated by a National Institutes of Health
report endorsing medical-marijuana research, NIH Director Dr. Harold Varmus
announced that the agency "is open to receiving research grant applications
for studies of the medical efficacy of marijuana," adding, rather
disingenuously: "We want to make clear what has always been the case."

Dr. Donald Abrams, a noted AIDS researcher and professor at the School of
Medicine of the University of California at San Francisco, might beg to

In 1992, Dr. Abrams designed a pilot study that would have compared the
effectiveness of inhaled marijuana with that of synthetic THC as a treatment
for the weight loss associated with AIDS "wasting syndrome." He quickly
secured private funding for it, and also gained approval from the Scientific
Advisory Board of the San Francisco Community Consortium, the California
Research Advisory Panel and the federal Food and Drug Administration to move

Half a decade later, Abrams may finally be getting a severely truncated and
re-directed version of his idea off the ground.

"When we first embarked on this, all the medical-marijuana advocates were
weaving this government-conspiracy business, and I just told them, 'God, you
are so paranoid!'" Abrams told the Los Angeles Times in 1996. "But now,
after butting my head on this thing for years, I'm just as paranoid and just
as convinced that there are politics being played."

The "politics" inherent in medical-marijuana research involve the drug's
illegality. As marijuana is a Schedule I substance, research on it may only
take place if approved by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) - the
only legal US supply source - or if an importation license is secured from
the Drug Enforcement Administration. Abrams soon learned that neither agency
was interested in permitting research that sought to determine whether
marijuana was anything other than the "Devil's Weed."

In 1994 the DEA denied Abrams' request to carry out his study using
Dutch-grown marijuana, and advised him to obtain his supply from NIDA, from
whom he then requested 5.7 kilograms of government-grown marijuana. After he
waited nine months for a response, NIDA flatly rejected the request and
attacked his methodology. Abrams later wrote NIDA head Alan Leshner,
"Dealing with your institute has been the worst experience of my career."

Abrams spent the next year revisiting his study's protocol to address many
of NIA's concerns. His 1996 protocol called for an inpatient study at a
local hospital that would have measured such details as caloric intake,
weight change, energy expenditure, immune function, viral load and hormone
levels. An NIH grant-giving committee denied this protocol as well.

"Two of the reviewers questioned why in the world we would ever consider
studying [the medical potential] of such a... substance," Abrams told the
Washington Post after this rejection. One NIH reviewer had actually worried
that AIDS patients using marijuana to boost their food intake might raise
their cholesterol levels, putting them at long-term risk of developing
hardening of the arteries.

This past May, Dr. Abrams revised his protocol yet again. Rather than
estimating the relative medical efficacy of marijuana and synthetic THC, the
latest version will instead seek to determine whether either
cannabis-derived drug may have potential harmful effects on HIV-positive

Specifically, the study will examine whether marijuana interferes with the
effectiveness of the new protease-inhibitor drugs frequently prescribed in
AIDS treatment. Abrams requested nearly $1 million to complete the 18-month
study. The NIH approved his application on September 18.

"Only after Abrams revised the study to limit its scope to determining if
there are risk factors associated with the use of marijuana by HIV-positive
humans did NIH allow the trial to go forward," observes Allen St. Pierre,
executive director of the NORML Foundation. "This approved protocol is a far
cry from what Abrams proposed five years ago, and demonstrates that
Washington's definition of 'open to research' is far different from anyone

At least two additional medical-marijuana research proposals are awaiting
NIDA approval. One study proposes to examine the use of marijuana in acute
migraine treatment, while the other requests government-approved marijuana
for distribution in a Massachusetts state research program.

If Abrams' ordeal serves as any lesson, medical-marijuana proponents and
researchers shouldn't hold their breath


For more information medical-marijuana research, please contact the NORML
national office at (202) 483-5500 or Rick Doblin of MAPS at (704) 334-1798.

Copyright 1998 by Trans-High Corporation. Redistributed by the Media
Awareness Project, Inc. by permission of High Times and NORML.

Are You Sure You Want to Ruin Your Career? (Extra!, the magazine of FAIR,
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, recounts the saga of Gary Webb of the
San Jose Mercury News, which let him take the fall when his "Dark Alliance"
series on the CIA-Contra-cocaine scandal was challenged by the Los Angeles
Times, the New York Times and the Washington Post. The government uses the
giant corporate press rather than saying anything directly. If you work
through friendly reporters on major newspapers, it comes off as the New York
Times saying it and not a mouthpiece of the CIA.)

Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:28:48 -0500
From: "R. Lake" (rlake@utoledo.edu)
Subject: MN: US: Are You Sure You Want to Ruin Your Career?
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
Organization: The Media Awareness Project of DrugSense
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Anne R. Kist
Source: Extra! - The Magazine of FAIR
Author: Barbara Bliss Osborn
Pubdate: March/April 1998
Contact: fair@igc.apc.org
Mail: 130 W. 25th St., New York, NY 10001
Website: http://www.fair.org/
Note: FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) is the national media watch
group that offers well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship.


Gary Webb's Fate a Warning to Gutsy Reporters

Imagine this: You're and investigative reporter with nearly 20 years
experience. You publish a multi-part investigative series in a reputable
daily paper. The story electrifies the public and sends the country's
premier newspapers scurrying to find fault with it. After exhaustive
examination involving dozens of journalists at several major newspapers, the
original story is found - except for a few details and overstatements - to
be basically sound.

Yet you find yourself ostracized. Your follow-up stories go unpublished.
After being transferred and taken off the investigative beat, you leave

Is this how today's newspapers reward gutsy investigative reporting on
politically sensitive issues? It sure looks that way.

Extra! readers will have no difficulty putting flesh on this skeleton. The
reporter is the San Jose Mercury News' Gary Webb. The story is Webb's
three-part series, published in August 1996, that documented that
Nicaraguans linked to the CIA-backed Contras had brought crack cocaine into
Los Angeles and channeled profits into the Contras. In the months that
followed, Webb wrote additional stories that went unedited and unpublished.
In June 1997, 10 months after the initial series appeared, Webb was
transferred from Sacramento to the paper's outpost in Cupertino -- a
four-hour round-trip commute -- and told he was no longer an investigative
reporter. In December, he left the paper. He now works for a government
oversight committee in Sacramento.

Examining the aftermath of Webb's "Dark Alliance" series makes clear that
investigative reporting -- particularly reporting that approaches
politically sensitive agencies such as the CIA -- can cost a reporter

Steady backstep

As he began research on the story, Gary Webb didn't know what was at risk.
When he first spoke with Bob Parry -- the Associated Press reporter who,
along with Brian Barger, broke the Contragate and Conta/drug stories -- Webb
thought Parry was being "overly cautious." "I thought he was being kind of
foolish," Webb recalled, when Parry asked him: "Are you sure you want to
ruin your career?"

Webb kept digging. In the weeks that followed the series' initial
publication, the Mercury News defended it. But after what Webb describes as
the "Los Angeles Time/NewYork Times double-whammy" -- the two papers, along
with the Washington Post, ran articles furiously attacking the series -- the
Mercury News began a slow but steady backstep.

By January 1997, when Webb turned in follow-up stories, none of his editors
called to edit them. "It was just total silence," he said. By March, Webb
was told that the paper was going to write a letter to readers about the

On May 11, 1997, the Mercury News published an editorial written by
executive editor Jerry Ceppos which characterized the series as "important
work" and "solidly documented," but outlined several aspects of the series
in which the paper should have done a better job in presenting the "grey

The editorial was notably neither a correction nor a retraction. It asserted
that the Mercury News:

* presented "only one interpretation of complicated, sometimes-conflicting
pieces of evidence" in a "few key instances";

* failed to identify the amount of money involved as an estimate;

* oversimplified how the crack epidemic in America grew; and

* "created impressions that were open to misinterpretation" through
"imprecise language and graphics."

Ceppos acknowledged in the editorial that Webb disagreed with his
interpretation of the evidence.

A month later, Webb was transferred to Cupertino and told he was no longer
an investigative reporter.

Webb was told he was being transferred because of how he responded to the
paper's "review process." He now believes that this was management's way of
saying that they were unhappy he disagreed with their assessment of how
significant the Contra-linked "Dark Alliance" drug ring was in spawning the
crack epidemic in south central Los Angeles. "It was a disagreement on
epidemiology," he said.

Given his union contract, Webb couldn't be fired. In fact, after his
transfer to Cupertino, the Newspaper Guild prompted arbitration hearings.
When he left the paper, Webb signed a confidentiality agreement which
prevents him from discussing the terms of his departure. He now works for
the Joint Legislative Staff Task Force on Government Oversight in
Sacramento. (Through an email interview, Ceppos declined to be more specific
or contradict Webb's version of events concerning how Webb and his follow-up
stories were handled by the Mercury News.)

Pulling the rug out

In assessing the story and its aftermath, some journalists have been struck
by the fact that Webb took the blame for the series alone. That's the
reaction of James Aucoin, a former journalist and now a University of South
Alabama communications professor who specializes in the history of
investigative reporting. Aucoin said that Webb "followed all the standard
operating procedures. Any errors could have been corrected in follow-up
stories without destroying him or his career."

"If there's any bad guys in this," Aucoin continued, "it's the people at his
newspaper. They pulled the rug out from under him. The editors had the
responsibility to make sure the story was done right and make sure the
documents were correct. They had just as much responsibility for oversight.
Yet he's the one who took the fall."

Reflecting on the history of Watergate coverage, Aucoin noted that Bob
Woodward and Carl Bernstein "were not particularly supported by their fellow
colleagues outside the Washington Post. The reason those stories were
allowed to continue was because Ben Bradlee and Mrs. [Kathaine] Graham
allowed them," he said. "You see the tremendous importance of editors and
publishers at a publication. If they're not willing to back the reporter,
the report is not going to get done."

While Webb doesn't deny that he was abandoned by the Mercury News' editors,
he said he was given a chance to rejoin the club. "I was out on a limb
because I chose to be," he said. "If I had gone along with the crowd and
been willing to say, 'Yeah, we should have done that and that,' I'm sure I
would still be there. I felt strongly we got the thing right the first

Another aspect of the "Dark Alliance" aftermath which strikes Aucoin as
significant is who attacked the story. In the days when investigative
journalist Ida Tarbell took on Standard Oil in the pages of Harper's,
Standard Oil came after Tarbell. "In the case of Gary Webb's charges against
the CIA and the Contras," he said, "the major dailies came after him. Media
institutions are now part of the establishment and they have a lot invested
in that establishment."

Webb thinks the source of the attacks makes perfect sense. "The government
side of the story is coming through the Los Angeles Times, the New York
Times, the Washington Post," he said. "They use the giant corporate press
rather than saying anything directly. If you work through friendly reporters
on major newspapers, it comes off as the New York Times saying it and not a
mouthpiece of the CIA."

As for the impact of Webb's experience on other journalists, Aucoin expects
it to have a "chilling effect on the whole practice [of investigative
reporting.] If reporters are asked to do a story and then they lose their
careers over it, why should they even attempt to do the stories.? It sends a
major message to reporters about the kind of information they're supposed to
come back with."

Internet - or independent

So if politically sensitive investigations are unwelcome in many of the
nation's newspapers, are there outlets for such stories? Webb credits the
Internet (as well as talk radio) with generating the national uproar over
the Dark Alliance story. Recalling the press freeze-out in response to AP's
initial Contragate investigations, Webb said, "What [the national media] did
with Parry and Barger was try and ignore them, and to a large extent, they
succeeded. When they couldn't ignore the stuff we did [at the Mercury News],
they came after us. Back in 1985, Parry and Barger didn't have the luxury of
the Internet. Our website made it accessible to people who ordinarily
couldn't read or hear about it."

But the Internet, however valuable, is still only an ancillary distribution
mechanism which can't support the costs of investigative journalism. Nor
does it have the credibility of the nation's newspapers and magazines. Thus
initial publication of such controversial material remains problematic.

After leaving the Associated Press for Newsweek and leaving Newsweek for
independence, bob Parry decided to launch his own magazine called I.F.,
named for journalistic maverick I.F. Stone and George Seldes' publication In
fact. "To do what I want to do," said Parry, "I think I.F. is the only
option to report on these topics in an honest way."

"Even if you go to the left press, there's a lot of uneasiness about these
stories," Parry continued. "Editors are afraid of being called conspiracy
theorists. People say it's old. It's a hard sell. I got tired of making it

Given his experience the last two years, Webb is a convert to Parry's way of
thinking. "The only way you're going to do effective journalism is to be
truly independent," he said. "It's a difficult thing to do, but George
Seldes and I.F. Stone did it. There's no reason modern-day journalists can't
do it too. You don't get 401-Ks and health benefits, but at least you get to
tell the truth."

Copyright (c) 1998 Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting.

Freedom Fighter of the Month: Alan Gordan - UV-B, Pot, the Law, and You (High
Times celebrates the Pennsylvania reform activist who can't get arrested for
trying. Law enforcement's selective failure to prosecute him provides a
potential precedent for others.)
'High Times' photo - link to more information
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 17:14:04 -0500
From: "R. Lake" (rlake@utoledo.edu)
Subject: MN: US PA: Alan Gordan - UV-B, Pot, The Law, and You
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
Organization: DrugSense
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: The Media Awareness Project of DrugSense
Source: High Times
Pubdate: March, 1998, No. 271
Author: Jessica Loos
Contact: letters@hightimes.com
Website: http://www.hightimes.com/

Freedom Fighter of the Month


STATE COLLEGE, PA - One day last July, Alan Gordon walked into a
magistrate's office here carrying a cardboard lettuce box with 150 cannabis
seedlings sprouting in it. He explained that he planned to grow and
distribute this marijuana because it combats all the acute and chronic
effects of ultraviolet-B radiation sickness.

Symptoms of UV-B overexposure include salivation, appetite loss,
hyperthermia and hyperactivity; whereas pot's effects include cotton-mouth,
appetite stimulation, hypothermia and sedation. Hence, Gordon argues,
pot-smoking is legal under the criminal code's justification clause, which
universally countenances lawbreaking in circumstances where a greater harm
is prevented, such as swerving out of a legal traffic lane to avoid hitting
a child. In an era of ubiquitous and increasing UV-B exposure, he claims,
not smoking pot is more harmful than smoking it. He's repeatedly invited the
government to argue the point with him in court - and has been turned down
every time so far.

Gordon, 28, has a BA from Penn State University in drug policy, hemp and the
environment, an independently designed major. The scientific aspects of his
UV-B challenge to the pot laws are supported, he points out, by a vast
preponderance of epidemiological, botanical, meteorological and medical
evidence, whereas absolutely no evidence of similar probative quality could
be presented in court to refute it. And in fact, despite his efforts to
undergo a trial, Center County Assistant District Attorney Steven Sloane in
November moved to dismiss charges against Gordon, and Judge David Grimes
duly did so.

This was Gordon's fourth attempt to get himself prosecuted for pot. In
October 1996, he publicly planted pot seeds in front of the federal
courthouse in Ashville, NC. Federal marshals there simply refused to arrest
him after he presented them with an unpublished research paper outlining his
UV-B challenge. They cited "lack of manpower' - there were only four
marshals on the spot - and suggested he might try the US Forest Service for
this purpose.

A month later, Gordon was formally arrested for lighting up at a
medical-marijuana teach-in in Chapel Hill, NC, but when the case went to
court weeks later, the prosecution simply neglected to present the arresting
officer, and the judge dropped the charges regardless of the fact that
Gordon had brought along his own prosecution witnesses, who had agreed to
incriminate him at his own request.

Subsequently, claims Gordon, at the advice of those federal marshals, he
planted 60,000 pot seeds in Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina, and
phoned the US Forest Service, the FBI, and the Justice Department to tell
them where he seedling were growing, and turn himself in. "Each office said
it was one of the other offices' responsibility," Gordon says disgustedly.
But if they didn't have time to deal with me, why are so many pot prisoners
behind bars in this country?"

Gordon also gives out free "marijuana-growing licenses" thru his
organization. the American Drug History Institute, "a think tank dedicated
to the reduction of drug abuse through the research of historical trends."
License-holders who get arrested and present the UV-B justification
challenge are entitled to free expert-witness services from Gordon, who
agrees to incur all fines in event of conviction. He also encourages them,
if arrested, to turn him in to the prosecution as the perpetrator of a
larger offense, in exchange for having their charges reduced or dropped. He
estimates he's given out more than 10,000 licenses so far.

Gordon's documented record of dismissed marijuana prosecutions also presents
pot defendants everywhere with a challenge to their own charges under the
constitutional doctrine of equal protection under the law, embodied in the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Equal protection means that
criminal-justice authorities cannot choose to dismiss some cases while
continuing to prosecute others of similar gravity; if they selective neglect
to prosecute Alan Gordon, that is, then they're selectively prosecuting
everyone else who gets arrested for the same offense.


For information about Alan Gordon's marijuana licenses, contact the American
Drug History Institute, c/o Deborah Powell, 143 Keller St. #4, Waynesville,
NC 28786; phone (704) 687-6735. Email: Alangordon23@Hotmail.com

Copyright 1998 by Trans-High Corporation. Redistributed by the Media
Awareness Project, Inc. by permission.

Hemp Clothes May Sow Seeds of New Industry (The Courier-Journal says American
Sewing Technology, Inc., in Lebanon, Kentucky, has begun making hemp clothing
marketed around the United States by the New Kentucky Industrial Hemp
Association, Inc., which hopes to prove that industrial hemp, formerly "a
major cash crop in Kentucky, can once again aid rural economic development.")

Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 16:40:10 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.org)
Subject: MN: US KY: Hemp Clothes May Sow Seeds Of New Industry
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: davewest (davewest@pressenter.com)
Source: The Courier-Journal
Author: Missy Baxter
Pubdate: Sunday March 1, 19998
Contact: http://www.courier-journal.com/cjconnect/edletter.htm
Mail: 525 W. Broadway, PO Box 740031 Louisville, Ky. 40201-7431
FAX: 502-582-4200
Website: http://www.courier-journal.com/


LEBANON, KY - Seamstresses at a small sewing factory in a rural Kentucky
town made history recently as they stitched together 350 shirts that are
being touted as "the first industrial hemp clothing ever made commercially
in Kentucky."

The men's casual/dress shirts, which are being marketed by the new Kentucky
Industrial Hemp Association, Inc., hit the racks last month in shops across
the country.

"We've already gotten orders from stores in Kentucky, Tennessee, Oregon,
Missouri and New York," said Craig Lee, executive director of the
association, which formed last summer. "We know there is a big market for
hemp clothing."

Heather Gifford, a fashion designer, apparel merchandiser and the
association's president, said the group plans to create more hemp clothing,
including women's blouses, safari-style jackets and pants. "Hemp is a
really great fabric because it's durable and yet very comfortable," she said.

The association's members support the legalization of industrial hemp in
Kentucky and say they decided to start a line of apparel made from hemp
fabric imported from China to prove there is a market for hemp products.

Retailers agree that the popularity of hemp clothing is booming. Hemptech,
a California consulting firm that tracks the industry, expects worldwide
sales of hemp products to reach $200 million this year and $600 million by

"The demand for hemp products is increasing every day," said Rob Moseley,
the association's vice president and owner of Kentucky Hemp Outfitters, a
Louisville shop that sells everything from hemp shoes to hemp/silk-blend
evening gowns.

The association's shirts are available for $49.95 at Moseley's shop at
Bardstown Road and Eastern Parkway.

The hemp shirts will also be sold at Planet Hemp, an upscale specialty
store and catalog company in New York City.

John Howell, managing director of Planet Hemp, said his company is "pleased
to be working with the association and looking forward to getting even more
hemp merchandise from Kentucky."

The demand for many hemp products exceeds the supply, Howell said. "We're
always scrambling for suppliers," he said. "When we started this company
just over a year ago, we wanted to prove there is a market for hemp. We've
found out there is definitely a big market."

To create the shirts, the association hired American Sewing Technology,
Inc., a small Lebanon, Ky. firm that sews specialty apparel for companies
across the United States.

Rita Evanoff, one of the factory's owners, said working with the
association "seems like a natural partnership because we sew items for
companies that want to be able to say their products are made in the
U.S.A....that is our niche."

Evanoff said she hopes the association is "successful selling these shirts
so we can make more items for them."

The seamstresses at the plant, many of whom began working at American
Technologies after being laid off from other sewing factories, are "excited
about working on something new," said Denise Mattingly, a New Haven
resident who works at the plant.

"I think it's great they're trying to create jobs," she said. "We hope to
get to sew more clothes like this. The hemp material was easy to work with."

Lee said the workers at the factory "are a part of history now. With their
help, we can prove that industrial hemp, which was once a major cash crop
in Kentucky, can once again aid rural economic development." With the
recent layoffs and plant closings by Fruit of the Loom and other garment
manufacturers in Kentucky, Lee said, "this area needs jobs that would use
the skills those laid-off workers have....making hemp clothes would fit
right in with what this area needs and has the ability to offer."

Although the first 350 shirts were made from imported fabric, the
association's eventual goal is to make clothes from hemp grown in Kentucky.

"Hemp was once a major crop in this state, but it was used mostly for rope,
cordage and seeds for other states," explained Lee. "Hemp clothing has
never been made commercially here - until now." Industrial hemp, sometimes
called "marijuana's misunderstood cousin," is grown in Asia, Europe and
Canada as a source for fiber for fabric, twine and paper.

Kentucky, with its struggling tobacco economy, is one of about 15 states
where advocates are trying to get the plant legalized. Kentucky hemp
advocates, including actor/environmentalist Woody Harrelson, scored a legal
victory last summer when a district judge in Eastern Kentucky declared the
state's marijuana law unconstitutionally broad because it lumps hemp with
marijuana, which contains a much larger amount of the psychoactive
substance, THC.

Harrelson's case, in which he planted four hemp seeds in Lee County and was
charged with misdemeanor marijuana possession, soon will be heard by the
Kentucky Supreme Court, and hemp proponents see that as a good sign.

"There's a chance it could be legal to grow hemp here within the next few
years, and it's important that we show farmers that money and products can
be made with it," Lee said. "Farmers and other people have to realize there
is a market for industrial hemp, and that it can help create jobs and boost
the economy."

(c) 1998 The Courier-Journal

Beer Flavored With Hemp Seeds Does Well in Kentucky (The Courier-Journal says
Lexington Brewing Company, in cooperation with the recently formed Kentucky
Hemp Beer Company, has developed a new brew that uses industrial hemp seeds.
The micro-brewery began distributing the beer last month in liquor stores,
bars and restaurants throughout the state. It seems to be a hit.)

Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 17:36:54 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.org)
Subject: MN: US KY: Beer Flavored With Hemp Seeds Does Well In Kentucky
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: davewest (davewest@pressenter.com)
Source: The Courier-Journal
Author: Missy Baxter
Pubdate: Sunday March 1, 19998
Contact: http://www.courier-journal.com/cjconnect/edletter.htm
FAX: 502-582-4200
Website: http://www.courier-journal.com/


LEXINGTON, KY - Instead of just saying "cheers" when they toss back a beer,
the folks at the Lexington Brewing Co. have a new toast - "hemp, hemp hooray."

In cooperation with the recently formed Kentucky Hemp Beer Co., the
Lexington Brewing Co. has developed a new brew that uses industrial hemp

The micro-brewery began distributing the beer last month in liquor stores,
bars and restaurants throughout the state. And it seems to be a hit.

"We wanted to use the natural flavors of the hemp seed to make a great
beer, and we've definitely done it....It's a great tasting beer and it's
selling well," said Mike Hart, president of the Kentucky Hemp Beer Co.

The new Kentucky brew was part of a hemp beer tasting held Thursday in
Philadelphia. The results will be featured in a coming issue of American
Brewer Magazine.

As far as Kentucky customers are concerned, thought, the results are
already in and "they're giving the hemp beer a thumbs up," said Chris
Franklin, vice president of the Lexington Brewing Co.

"We're selling out so quickly in the central Kentucky area that we've
already had to increase production tremendously," he said.

In Louisville, Kentucky Hemp Beer is available at Liquor Outlet, Party
Source and other locations. The company hopes to sell the hemp beer
nationwide eventually and possibly to export it.

Franklin describes the beer as "a rich, mellow American-style beer" with "a
unique smooth taste."

Kentucky Hemp Beer Co. is the second firm in the United States to receive
approval from the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to sell the
beer publicly. Several European brewing companies produce hemp ale.

The first U.S. company to be approved, Frederick Brewing Co. in Maryland,
makes Hempen Ale. It has been very successful, said Malcolm MacKinnon,
editor of Hemp Times, a New York magazine that plans an article about
Kentucky Hemp Beer.

Brewing hemp beer in Kentucky " seems to make perfect sense, based on the
state's strong history with hemp," said Bill Ambrose, president of the
Lexington Brewing Co.

Industrial hemp was once grown for fiber in large quantities in Kentucky,
especially the Lexington area.

Despite the recent publicity surrounding industrial hemp, Ambrose contends
that the new beer "is not just a marketing gimmick."

The Lexington Brewing Co., founded in 1994, also produces limestone amber,
pale and porter ales, as well as four seasonal brews.

The hemp beer was added, Ambrose said, to appeal to customers who prefer a
lighter, cleaner lager instead of the heavier, European-style ales that the
company also produces.

Using hemp seeds to replace some of the hops "worked very well," Ambrose
said, because hemp is related to hops.

In perfecting the recipe for hemp beer, Brian Miller, brewmaster of the
Lexington Brewing Co., experimented with various formulas using industrial
hemp seeds from Europe.

"When they first approached me about using hemp in beer, I wanted to make
sure I could brew one that was up to the same standards I use in making our
limestone beers," Miller said.

Drug Trial: Introduction (A seven-part article in Reason magazine focuses on
various aspects of the "medicalization" strategy for ending the war on
drugs - and whether medicaliation may just be the next step in continuing it.
Reason Editor Jacob Sullum opens the article by laying out the public health
to Reason
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:41:21 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service
From: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.org)
Subject: MN: US: Drug Trial: Introduction
(1 of 7 parts)
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: "Carl E. Olsen"
Source: Reason Magazine
Contact: EdReason@aol.com
Pubdate: March 1, 1998
Author: Jacob Sullum (jsullum@reason.com)
Website: http://www.reason.com/
Editor's note: Due to the size of the article,
it is being posted in seven parts.


Is "medicalization" the first step in ending
the drug war? Or just the next step in
continuing it? Jacob Sullum lays out the
"public health" issues and a panel of
experts responds.

Washington state's Initiative 685, the
"Drug Medicalization and Prevention
Act of 1997," failed by a big margin last
November. But "medicalization" is
here to stay. In one form or another, it
is the most frequently endorsed
alternative to the war on drugs - far more popular among reformers than the
free market favored by libertarians. That fact is a source of hope to some,
dismay to others.

In 1988, when Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke helped generate a surge of
interest in drug policy reform by calling for "a national debate on the
merits of decriminalizing drugs," it was medicalization he had in mind.
"Making drugs illegal has not diminished the American appetite for these
substances," he later explained. That is because drug abuse is a disease.
And like any other disease, it responds to medical treatment, not criminal
sanctions.... Decriminalization is in effect 'medicalization,' a broad
public health strategy - led by the Surgeon General, not the Attorney
General - designed to reduce the harm caused by drugs by pulling addicts
into the public health system. Criminal penalties for drug use would be
removed and health professionals would be allowed to use currently illegal
drugs, or substitutes, as part of an overall treatment program for
addicts.... Drugs would not be dispensed to non-users, and it would be up
to a health professional to determine whether a person requesting
maintenance is an addict."

This general approach - with some important differences in detail - has
played a leading role in criticism of the war on drugs during the past
decade. One cannot attend the Drug Policy Foundation's annual conference
without hearing repeatedly about the merits of a "medical" or "public
health" model. The Lindesmith Center, a New York drug policy think tank
funded by billionaire philanthropist George Soros, emphasizes "harm
reduction," a public health strategy aimed at mitigating the costs of both
drug use and drug laws through measures such as needle exchange, heroin
maintenance, and the legalization of marijuana for medical use.

Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy, a new group that includes
former FDA Commissioner David Kessler and former Secretary of Health and
Human Services Louis Sullivan, declares that "addiction to illegal drugs is
a chronic illness." Without calling for decriminalization, the group argues
that law enforcement has been overemphasized, saying "enhanced medical and
public health approaches are the most effective method of reducing harmful
use of illegal drugs."

Washington's Initiative 685, which was modeled after Arizona's Proposition
200, echoed this theme. "In addition to actively enforcing our criminal
laws against drugs," it said, "we need to medicalize Washington's drug
control policy and recognize that drug abuse and addiction are public
health problems that should be treated as diseases." Accordingly, it
prescribed "treatment" rather than incarceration for "nonviolent persons
convicted of personal possession or use of drugs." Such offenders would
receive probation, and the sentencing judge could "require participation in
an appropriate drug treatment or education program." If already in prison,
people in this category would be "eligible for immediate parole and drug
treatment, education, and community service," provided they were not
covered by a "habitual criminal" statute or serving a concurrent sentence
for another crime.

Despite the line about "actively enforcing our criminal laws against
drugs," these provisions would have eliminated jail time for simple
possession - a dramatic change from current policy. But another aspect of
the initiative, authorizing doctors to "recommend" Schedule I drugs for the
treatment of "seriously ill" patients, got more attention, since it tied
into the national debate over medical marijuana. This section said a
physician who recommended a Schedule I substance, such as heroin, LSD, or
marijuana, would not be prosecuted or disciplined as long as he cited
relevant scientific research, obtained the patient's written consent, and
got a second opinion from another doctor.

Washington's voters did not go for it. Although its backers spent 10 times
as much as their opponents - with infusions of money from Soros, Phoenix
entrepreneur John Sperling, and Peter Lewis, CEO of Cleveland-based
Progressive Insurance - the measure lost by 20 percentage points. Some
voters may have felt that out-of-state organizers with out-of-state money
were trying to pull one over on them. The opposition's ads, funded in part
by Microsoft and by presidential hopeful Steve Forbes's Americans for Hope,
Growth and Opportunity, sought to reinforce that impression. The
conservatives who turned out to oppose the state's highly publicized gun
control initiative probably also helped defeat Initiative 685.

The loss in Washington was a mirror image of the victory in Arizona, where
65 percent of voters endorsed essentially the same initiative in November
1996. Since then the Arizona legislature has passed bills overriding key
elements of the proposition. In response, the initiative's supporters have
gathered signatures to submit those bills to the voters as referendums on
the 1998 ballot. They are also backing the Voter Protection Act, a
proposition that would amend the state constitution to require a
three-fourths majority in each house of the legislature to overturn a
voter-approved initiative.

Unlike the Arizona and Washington measures, initiatives that deal
exclusively with medical marijuana do not explicitly advocate a 'public
health" approach to drug policy generally, but they do represent one aspect
of the "harm reduction" agenda. After California's Proposition 215 passed
by a comfortable margin in 1996, Americans for Medical Rights began pushing
similar measures in other states. Activists hope to have medical marijuana
initiatives on the 1998 ballots in Alaska, Colorado, the District of
Columbia, Maine, Nevada, and Oregon.

However medicalization fares on state ballots, it will continue to shape
opposition to the war on drugs for years to come. That is partly because it
offers a sharp contrast to the prohibitionist approach that has long
dominated U.S. drug policy. The stated aim of the prohibitionists is to
eliminate drug use - by which they generally mean the use of certain drugs,
set apart from accepted intoxicants by custom, superstition, and historical
accident. The stated aim of the public health specialists, by contrast, is
to minimize morbidity and mortality - including the harm associated with
the use of all drugs, whatever their current legal status.

Thus, the public health specialists are in some ways more realistic than
the drug warriors: They acknowledge that any drug, licit or illicit, can be
harmful under certain circumstances. And they stress harm rather than drug
use per se. This implies that the consumption of psychoactive substances is
not necessarily problematic. It also suggests a willingness to consider the
undesirable effects of attempts to discourage drug use. This openness to
evidence is probably the most important way in which public health
specialists differ from prohibitionists.

In terms of policy, both prohibitionists and public health specialists talk
a lot about "education." Prohibitionists seem more willing to bend the
truth if they think it will help scare people away from drugs, while public
health specialists are more likely to insist that drug "education" have a
sound scientific basis. They note that scare tactics tend to backfire in
the long run, as people recognize that they've been misled and learn to
distrust the source. Still, public health messages about drugs, like public
health messages in general, are aimed at changing behavior, not simply
disseminating facts.

Aside from education, the policy prescriptions offered by public health
specialists sound quite different from those offered by drug warriors.
Prohibitionists emphasize interdiction, crop eradication, and other
attempts to reduce the supply of drugs, along with arrests, fines, property
forfeiture, and imprisonment for producers, sellers, and buyers. Public
health specialists emphasize treatment, taxes, and regulations.

The prohibitionist orientation is basically punitive: Using certain drugs
is a crime; people who do it deserve to be arrested, humiliated,
imprisoned, and divested of their property. The public health orientation,
by contrast, is therapeutic: Drug abuse is a disease; people afflicted by
it need to be treated. From this perspective, current policy is irrational
and inhumane. After all, you don't lock people up for cancer or diabetes.

But as Thomas Szasz and other critics of contemporary psychiatry have long
argued, the ostensibly liberal policy of treating behavior like a disease
can have profoundly illiberal consequences. A disease is something
inherently undesirable that happens to people against their will. No one in
his right mind wants to be sick. Furthermore, drug addiction is said to be
a disease that impairs the patient's judgment. Where's the harm, then, in
forcing him to be well? Under the circumstances, it would seem to be the
compassionate thing to do. Presumably, that is the rationale behind
Initiative 685's "court-supervised drug treatment." When the disease model
is combined with the public health imperative to minimize morbidity and
mortality, and to enlist the state's assistance in that endeavor, the
logical result is never-ending intervention in personal decisions. (See
"What the Doctor Orders," January 1996.)

Some reformers who are privately skeptical of the disease model push it
because they think that's what the public is prepared to accept. From their
polling and their focus groups, the supporters of the Arizona and
Washington initiatives knew that voters were not ready for outright
decriminalization. They needed to be assured that somebody would be in
charge - if not cops, then doctors. Given the fate of Washington's
initiative, the wisdom of this strategy is open to question. But even if
the measure had passed, it might have made further reform more difficult by
reinforcing the disease model. If voters believe that people cannot
reasonably be expected to control their drug use, how likely are they to
support the repeal of prohibition?

On the other hand, the war on drugs is not going to end overnight. Certain
piecemeal reforms can mitigate injustice now and help prepare the public
for more radical change later. Reducing the penalties for marijuana
possession in the 1970s was, I think, such a reform. Making marijuana
legally available as a medicine may be another. By the same token, surely
drug users would be better off if they were never sent to prison, even if
they sometimes had to endure court-ordered "treatment."

Judging from my conversations with reformers, I'm not the only one who is
ambivalent about these issues. To help bring the debate into focus, REASON
invited several prominent critics of the war on drugs to discuss the pros
and cons of medicalization.

Senior Editor Jacob Sullum (jsullum@reason.com) is the author of For Your
Own Good: The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health,
forthcoming this spring from The Free Press.

Drug Trial: the Political Legitimation of Quackery (The second voice to be
heard in Reason magazine's seven-part article about the "medicalization"
strategy for ending the drug war is that of Thomas Szasz. The psychiatrist
discusses the lack of scientific basis for prevaling contemporary attitudes
about what is a medical problem and what is a behavior problem.)

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:50:31 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.org)
Subject: MN: US: Drug Trial: The Political Legitimation Of Quackery (2 Of 7)
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: "Carl E. Olsen" (carl@commonlink.net)
Source: Reason Magazine
Contact: EdReason@aol.com
Pubdate: March 1, 1998
Website: http://www.reason.com/
Author: Thomas Szasz
Note: Contributing Editor Thomas Szasz, professor of psychiatry emeritus at
the SUNY Health Science Center in Syracuse, is author of many books,
including Our Right to Drugs: The Case for a Free Market (Praeger).


The Washington State "Drug Medicalization and Prevention Act of 1997"
asserts that "we need to ... recognize that drug abuse and addiction are
public health problems that should be treated as diseases." The merits of
this claim cannot be intelligently debated without agreeing on the use of
the terms drug abuse, addiction, treatment, and disease, and on the kinds
of personal conduct that justify coercive state control by means of public
health measures.

From ancient times until recent years, the term public health, as
distinguished from private health, was used to denote activities undertaken
by a government to protect individuals from disease-causing agents or
conditions in the environment, both physical and human. The principal
public health measures have been sanitation and the control of infectious
diseases, aimed at protecting the community from microbial diseases such as
cholera and typhoid. In this connection, the control of venereal diseases
illustrates an important consideration: The prostitute's behavior, exposing
her client to the risk of venereal disease, was and is viewed as a public
health problem, justifying the coercive control of her conduct, whereas the
behavior of her client, exposing himself to the risk of venereal infection,
was and is viewed as a private health problem, not justifying the coercive
control of his conduct. By defining the behavior of the individual who
exposes himself to the risk of "addiction" as a public health problem, we
radically expand the range of legitimate state coercion in the name of health.

Public health measures play a crucial, but neglected, role in modern
political philosophy. Interventions justified in the name of health -
defined as therapeutic, not punitive - fall outside the scope of the
criminal law and are therefore exempt from constitutional restraints on
state coercion. On the contrary, such measures - promoted as protecting the
best interests of "sick patients" - are viewed as valuable "services"
provided by the Therapeutic State (the polity uniting medicine and state,
much as church and state formerly were united). Presciently, John Stuart
Mill anticipated this insidious tactic: "The preventive function of
government," he warned, "is far more liable to be abused, to the prejudice
of liberty, than the punitory function; for there is hardly any part of the
legitimate freedom of action of a human being which would not admit of
being represented, and fairly too, as increasing the facilities for some
form or other of delinquency."

Mill could not have put it better had he been addressing present-day
American drug policy. It is self-evident that free access to a particular
drug, like free access to any object, increases our opportunities for using
and abusing it: Freedom of action means the opportunity to act wisely or
unwisely, to help or harm ourselves. It is also self-evident that, since
"no man is an island," any private act may be viewed as affecting the
economic, existential, or medical well-being of others, and hence be deemed
to pose a "public health problem"; and that if protecting people from
themselves falls within the sphere of public health, then no private
behavior is exempt from being categorized as a public health problem,
subject to control by means of medical sanctions.

It is ironic that, in 1997, Americans should recommend "drug
medicalization" as a cure for America's drug problem: It was the "drug
medicalization" act of 1914 - better known as the Harrison Narcotic Act -
that transformed widely used analgesics and sedatives into dangerous
"narcotics," specially monitored by the federal government, available only
by a physician's prescription. Horribile dictu, isn't it possible that
defiance of such controls is not a disease, and that coercive state
interference with the free market in drugs - like similar interference with
the availability of other goods - may be the root cause of the problem we
now try to solve by still further "medicalization"? Aren't we fools if we
fail to ask, cui bono?: who benefited from drug medicalization in the past
and who benefits from it today?

The die is now cast: Misbehaviors of all sorts are (defined as) medical
problems. Unwanted behavior, exemplified by the use of illegal drugs, is,
by fiat, a disease. The concepts of disease and treatment have thus become
politicized. The World Health Organization's definition of drug abuse as
the "use of a drug that is not approved by a society or a group within that
society" is illustrative. Thus, doctors, judges, journalists, civil
libertarians, everyone accepts - or pretends to accept - that
self-administering heroin is a disease and that a state agent administering
methadone to an "addict" is a treatment.

Some see the Therapeutic State as an instrument of compassion and science
in the service of "moral progress" and accordingly support "medicalization"
in all its many guises. Others see the Therapeutic State as an instrument
of cruelty and pseudoscience in the service of a new form of statism and
accordingly oppose "medicalization."

Drug Trial: A New Metaphor for Autonomy (The third part of Reason magazine's
seven-part article about the "medicalization" strategy for ending the war on
drugs features Dr. Jeffrey Singer of Arizona's Proposition 200 campaign
taking issue with Dr. Szasz's libertarian view of the "therapeutic state." In
Arizona, medicalization meant empowerment for the people. "Any drug policy
reform that engenders so much outrage from the political establishment can't
be all bad.")

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:12:03 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.org)
Subject: MN: US: Drug Trial: A New Metaphor For Autonomy (3 of 7)
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: "Carl E. Olsen" (carl@commonlink.net)
Source: Reason Magazine
Contact: EdReason@aol.com
Pubdate: March 1, 1998
Website: http://www.reason.com/
Author: Jeffrey Singer (dr4liberty@aol.com)
Note: Jeffrey Singer is a Phoenix surgeon who served as medical spokesman
for Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform, which ran the Proposition 200 campaign.


In November 1996, Californians voted to allow possession and use of
marijuana for medical purposes with a physician's recommendation. Arizonans
went further. They permitted patients to possess and use any illicit drug,
provided they receive a written prescription from a physician, who, in
turn, obtains a concurring second opinion. In addition, the Arizona ballot
measure gave drug users probation and rehabilitation rather than prison
time for the first two convictions. It prohibited incarceration of
nonviolent drug offenders until the third conviction. Finally, the measure
made eligible for release all inmates serving time for simple drug
possession with no other offenses.

Vice President Al Gore, Attorney General Janet Reno, drug czar Barry
McCaffrey, and former Presidents Bush, Carter, and Ford participated in
media events warning voters of the dangers posed by these initiatives.
Despite those efforts, the ballot measures passed easily, with 56 percent
support in California and 65 percent in Arizona.

From the perspective of some libertarians, most notably Thomas Szasz, the
public health model embodied in these initiatives can be seen only as a
pernicious extension of the meddlesome Therapeutic State. But when applied
to drug policy, medicalization actually represents a radical rupture with
the federal government's oppressive drug war.

I served as medical spokesman for the group that developed and promoted the
Arizona initiative. Our mission was to seek alternatives to current drug
policy. Accordingly, we commissioned focus group research to explore how
citizens felt about the drug issue.

Two dispositions were immediately apparent: 1) People overwhelmingly felt
the drug war was a failure, and 2) people strongly opposed the alternatives
of decriminalization and legalization. But this did not mean they opposed
significant reform. For example, focus group participants firmly rejected
the policy of "do drugs, do time." They believed treatment was much more
appropriate than imprisonment for drug users. This belief was so strong
that they were willing to parole offenders already in prison. Furthermore,
they believed that when it came to prescribing drugs - even marijuana,
heroin, and LSD - the patient/doctor relationship should supersede
government control. Arizona voters probably did not realize how widely such
beliefs were shared: Tracking polls showed that 60 percent supported the
initiative but only 25 percent thought it would pass.

The focus group and tracking poll results illustrate what postmodern
philosopher Michel Foucault calls "subjugated knowledge" - an implicit
belief that people cannot communicate unless given the language to do so.
The Arizona focus group research revealed a radical resistance to the drug
war that lacked a narrative with which to express itself. The common
"metaphors" of resistance - legalization and decriminalization - were
unsatisfactory. A new vocabulary took shape as a result of the focus group
experience. Group members repeatedly said drug abuse is really a "medical"
issue. They said drug treatment, even if it doesn't work, is a more just
form of punishment. Thus, a new discourse on drugs emerged, representing a
halfway position between prohibition and repeal. Years of prohibitionist
propaganda made it impossible to generate popular support for anything more

This new discourse of medicalization is not a top-down narrative of control
written by the government. Instead, the people have generated a language of
resistance to oppressive and ineffective policies. This discourse is
percolating up from citizens who believe medical authorities can address
the drug issue more effectively than government bureaucrats.

Libertarian critics mistakenly take the term medicalization to mean the
transfer of power from a political dictator to a medical dictator. To be
sure, the postmodernist would agree that medicalization is a metaphor of
control. But as Foucault argues, there is no way "outside of" power; all
human interactions involve power relations. Therefore, the only way of
conceiving issues of autonomy is through empowerment. In the context of
drug policy, "medicalization" is a metaphor of empowerment.

In practical terms, the Arizona and California ballot measures have eased
statist drug controls. The federal government responded by threatening to
punish doctors who prescribe illicit drugs to their patients. This policy
prompted federal lawsuits (including one in which I am a plaintiff) that
fundamentally challenge the way drugs and medical practice are regulated. A
recent national poll found that 69 percent of Americans oppose the federal
response to the medicalization initiatives.

During the Arizona campaign, I had many arguments with libertarian friends
who shared Dr. Szasz's suspicions of medicalization. But the reaction of
the federal government and the law enforcement community to the measure's
approval, coupled with strong public opposition to that reaction, has led
many of them to re-examine their positions. Any drug policy reform that
engenders so much outrage from the political establishment and incites such
widespread dissent can't be all bad.

Drug Trial: The Medical Marijuana Menace (The fourth person to weigh in in
Reason magazine's seven-part article about the "medicalization" strategy for
ending the war on drugs is Dave Fratello of Americans for Medical Rights, who
says medical marijuana initiatives should neither stoke nor calm fears about
the medicalization of drug policy.)

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:24:40 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.org)
Subject: MN: Drug Trial: The Medical Marijuana Menace (4 of 7)
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: "Carl E. Olsen" (carl@commonlink.net)
Source: Reason Magazine
Contact: EdReason@aol.com
Pubdate: March 1, 1998
Website: http://www.reason.com/
Author: Dave Fratello
Note: Dave Fratello, previously with the Drug Policy Foundation, is
communications director for Americans for Medical Rights, a Los
Angeles-based group that ran California's Proposition 215 campaign and is
sponsoring medical marijuana initiatives in several states.


California and Arizona voters changed the politics of the drug war when
they approved "medicalization" ballot initiatives in 1996. Both reformers
and prohibitionists have had to deal with the consequences.

On the reform side, as the movement begins to mature and achieve a tangible
success here and there, we are seeing internal debate and factionalization.
For years the movement has functioned amorphously, with a "big tent"
mentality and a lot of preaching to one another. Nowadays, those of us
working on medical marijuana initiatives for the 1998 ballot seem to catch
flak from every angle. Repeal advocates tell us that medical marijuana does
not go far enough. We are also criticized for how we would permit medical
marijuana - with regulation rather than declarations of complete freedom
for doctors and patients - and for limiting it to certain medical conditions.

At the same time, the 1996 votes have helped remind reformers of our common
enemies. When an issue like allowing some patients to use marijuana,
seemingly so peripheral to the broader drug policy debate, causes a panic
among the drug war's partisans, it is worth asking why. One way of
addressing that question is to speculate what might happen if voters
approve every state initiative on medical marijuana (a total of four to
six) this November. Could we expect anything like the over-the-top,
multi-agency roar federal officials let out in 1996? If so, perhaps the
drug warriors will further erode their credibility by fighting public
wishes and denying patients a useful medicine.

Alternatively, the federal drug warriors might give in on medical
marijuana, moving it to Schedule II or III so doctors could prescribe it,
and thereby put a "friendly face" on prohibition, exactly as Thomas Szasz
fears. The multi-state initiative strategy is designed, in part, to force
or facilitate the rescheduling of marijuana, with the underlying risk of
relieving pressure for reform. If federal officials choose to build a
firewall behind medical marijuana, but in front of legalization, hopes for
repeal of prohibition would dim.

But is it really plausible that the guardians of prohibition would make
that move? The ban on medical use of marijuana is rooted in the
restrictions established by the 1937 law that banned recreational use, a
mistake Congress failed to fix when it rewrote the drug laws in 1970.
Compelling studies of marijuana's therapeutic potential in the late 1970s
and early '80s did not affect federal policy, so it is difficult to believe
today's proclamations that science will resolve this issue. The evidence
suggests that the drug warriors believe prohibiting medical use is crucial
to the overall policy of intolerance toward marijuana.

If the problem is ideological, it may be impossible to get a concession.
The never-ending frustration of medical marijuana advocates is that the
drug war can't seem to accommodate a modest reform like making cannabis
available by prescription. By the same token, such a reform could be
devastating to the war on the drugs. That, at least, seems to be the
understanding of hard-core drug warriors.

Whatever the federal reaction, the fight for medical marijuana offers
benefits that abolitionist critics often overlook. In addition to being a
compassionate step in itself, changing state laws on medical marijuana
tends to put the right issues into play and the right people on the
defensive. It raises questions about the nature of drug prohibition and the
rationality of its enforcers. It enhances the credibility of reformers and
attracts allies who may ultimately be persuaded to support more radical

With those benefits in mind, medical marijuana initiatives should neither
stoke nor calm fears about the medicalization of drug policy. Permitting
the medical use of marijuana does not, as Thomas Szasz has written in
Liberty, endorse the "fiction that self-medication is a disease" or declare
"punishing it a treatment." The mechanism for allowing medical use is to
carve exemptions into existing criminal laws. That seems to reduce the
power of the state, especially since it forces those charged with
implementation to change their tactics, sometimes fundamentally. Police in
California, for example, are learning that marijuana they seize may be
someone's medicine, in which case they have to give it back.

If opponents of the drug war want to have an impact, rather than focusing
on the perfect policy or waiting for revolutions in the public's thinking,
we have to reach out to new people, find working compromises, and advance
concrete proposals. Proposals rooted in medicalization concepts currently
have the greatest public appeal, notwithstanding the recent vote in
Washington state. The more moderate and sensible our proposals seem, the
better our chances of success. At the same time, if it is true that any
successful challenge to the drug war, even on a relatively narrow issue,
threatens an overly rigid paradigm, so much the better. We can't count on
overthrowing the generals with modest peace offerings. But in the very
strange world of U.S. drug policy, it just might happen.

Drug Trial: Medicalization and Scientism (The fifth part of Reason magazine's
seven-part article about the "medicalization" strategy for ending the drug
war features Dr. John P. Morgan, co-author of "Marijuana Myths, Marijuana
Facts." The pharmacologist notes the medicalization strategy depends on
lawmakers understanding science correctly, which seems unlikely given the
mass media's inability to report accurately. As an example, he rebuts the
recent news that cannabis is addictive and explains why cannabis works like
an antidepressant rather than a drug of abuse.)

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 23:04:06 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.org)
Subject: MN: US: Drug Trial: Medicalization And Scientism (5 of 7)
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: "Carl E. Olsen" (carl@commonlink.net)
Source: Reason Magazine
Contact: EdReason@aol.com
Pubdate: March 1, 1998
Website: http://www.reason.com/
Author: John P. Morgan (drjpm@scisun.sci.ccny.cuny.edu)
Note: John P. Morgan, a physician and professor of pharmacology at the City
University of New York Medical School, is co-author of Marijuana Myths,
Marijuana Facts (Lindesmith Center).


Medicalization - the idea that drug consumption can be understood by a
scientific assessment of what drugs do in the body and brain - is not new.
Many physicians in the late 19th century tried to explain heroin or
morphine addiction as a kind of allergic reaction: The repeated injection
of opiates permanently changed the user's physiology, creating an illness
requiring lifelong use of the drug.

Today, medicalization relies on apparently scientific explanations of the
neurobiological mechanisms underlying addiction. Research in this area is
increasingly complex, if not abstruse, and journalists look to the
investigators themselves to explain how important and revealing it is.
These scientists take a pharmacocentric approach, focusing on the drug as
the cause of behavior and ignoring other factors. Their reports are
scientistic, using the neutral language of neurobiology to disguise value
judgments. Investigators usually assert that results from animal or
cell-culture experiments are clearly relevant to humans. Indeed, they often
claim that a given study "proves" the existence of a human drug reaction
that cannot be found among humans.

Two highly publicized studies reported in the June 27, 1997, issue of
Science illustrate these tendencies. In one, Fernando Rodriguez de Fonseca
and other investigators at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla gave
rats daily injections of a synthetic drug resembling delta-9
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main active ingredient in marijuana, for
two weeks. Then they gave the rats a cannabinoid antagonist, which
stripped the THC-like drug from its receptor sites. This provoked a
withdrawal syndrome lasting an hour or so, featuring tremors,
hyperactivity, and defensive posturing. The researchers also measured
increases in brain concentrations of corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF),
a neural hormone. Such increases have been seen in rodents undergoing
alcohol and heroin withdrawal.

The study and an accompanying editorial said these findings confirmed
cannabinoid withdrawal in humans and provided evidence that increases in
CRF create anxiety that drives marijuana users to ingest other drugs. De
Fonseca et al. claimed their study therefore offered support for the
"gateway" theory, which says smoking marijuana leads to the use of cocaine
and heroin.

In the second study, Gianluigi Tanda and other researchers at the
University of Cagliari in Italy measured the release of dopamine in the
mesolimbic area of the rodent brain following injection of THC, a THC-like
synthetic, and heroin. Neurobiologists have long wondered if cannabinoids
raise extracellular dopamine in this brain area because such increases are
triggered by many drugs that humans use for pleasure, including heroin,
alcohol, amphetamine, nicotine, and cocaine. Prior to the Tanda study,
evidence of dopamine release caused by injection of cannabinoids was

In their report, Tanda and his colleagues unhesitatingly compared marijuana
to heroin and, like de Fonseca et al., invoked their rodent findings as
evidence for the much-discussed gateway theory. They speculated that
marijuana use, by increasing dopamine, "primes" the brain, so the
dissatisfied cannabis smoker will be drawn to heroin for the familiar
dopamine rush.

Both studies were widely covered in American newspapers, framed in just the
way suggested by the researchers. Their extrapolations to humans were
reported without qualification, and their results were described as "new
evidence" of marijuana addiction and a gateway effect.

This unscientific interpretation ignored the findings of prior research
involving both animals and humans. Rodents and primates will not
self-administer THC or other cannabinoids even when they have been primed
with repeated injections and abrupt withdrawal. Simply put, these animals
do not like pot; they find small doses unappealing and large doses
aversive. Hence the de Fonseca study, in which the researchers went to
great lengths to precipitate a short-lived cannabinoid withdrawal reaction
in rats, has no obvious relevance to animal behavior, let alone human use,
which typically involves smoking small amounts of cannabis episodically,
with THC declining slowly after each session.

De Fonseca et al.'s most egregious extrapolation was their speculation that
cannabis smokers move to other drugs because of the "anxiety" seen in
withdrawal. It is difficult to show any marijuana withdrawal phenomenon in
humans, and I know of no study that links cessation of cannabis use with
the use of other drugs. Yet somehow the release of a neural hormone in rats
signaled to the researchers that human cannabis users suffer abstinence
anxiety that they try to alleviate with cocaine or heroin.

Similarly, it's hard to know what to make of the dopamine increases found
in the Tanda study, since rats do not actually like cannabinoids. Earlier
research in this area was based on the theory that reinforcing drugs raise
dopamine levels. Now we have an experiment linking increased extracellular
dopamine with a compound that is not reinforcing in rodents and has not
been shown to be an important drug of dependence in humans. There are many
drugs that increase extracellular dopamine which humans do not find
attractive, including levodopa, tricyclic antidepressants (Elavil,
Tofranil), and anticholinergics (atropine, Artane).

These attempts to scare people about marijuana through animal studies,
because actual human experience with the drug is not alarming enough,
suggest the pitfalls of the biological reductionism on which medicalization
depends. Where medicalization is the practice, scientism is the theory.

Drug Trial: Show Me the Data (The sixth part of Reason magazine's seven-part
article about the "medicalization" strategy for ending the war on drugs
features George D. Lundberg of Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy,
PLNDP, a new group being organized to lobby for the evaluation of policies
using principles of scientific evidence.)

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 23:10:39 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.org)
Subject: MN: US: Drug Trial: Show Me The Data (6 of7)
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: "Carl E. Olsen" (carl@commonlink.net)
Source: Reason Magazine
Contact: EdReason@aol.com
Pubdate: March 1, 1998
Website: http://www.reason.com/
Author: George D. Lundberg


My personal activities in the field of substance abuse go back about 30
years to my time as a faculty member at the University of Southern
California in Los Angeles. I am, by training and experience, a forensic
pathologist and a toxicologist. The 1960s in Los Angeles were the early
heyday of our modern drug abuse epidemic and provided a natural laboratory
for studying voluntary human street drug experimentation, informing the
academic and clinical fields, albeit with great pain and sadness.

I define drug as any chemical which, when administered to a living thing,
produces an effect. I define drug abuse as the use of a drug in a manner
that is likely to cause harm. This definition deliberately ignores law and
medical practice because most drug abuse is legal (alcohol and tobacco) or
within the bounds of medical practice (e.g., prescription sedatives). For
practical purposes, drug abuse is confined to psychoactive drugs, which are
chemicals that affect the way a person thinks, feels, or behaves. Drug use
is not necessarily a problem; harm from drug use is the problem. Of
course, you cannot have drug harm without drug use, but you can have drug
use without drug harm.

We in the new group called Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy
(PLNDP) believe that scientific evidence should drive American drug policy
and that up to this point it has not. The PLNDP is a group of leading
physician activists and pragmatists who intend to work with the public and
with policy makers to improve the lives of our patients and our communities
by reducing drug harm.

Chronic psychoactive drug use can lead to addiction, which is a chronic
illness. Addiction does not go away. Physicians don't always strive for
cures. We generally don't cure hypertension, arthritis, diabetes, or
asthma, for example, but we can medically manage them quite well. The same
is true with chronic chemical addiction. We cannot cure it, but we can
manage it, often successfully, at a reasonable cost to society.

We in the PLNDP believe that when one considers the tens of billions that
our federal and state governments spend each year on drug control, we
should be getting better results. We should be applying principles of
scientific evidence to the various methods available to intervene in the
drug field - for primary prevention, secondary prevention, treatment, and
rehabilitation. Available evidence strongly suggests that emphasizing
source control, interdiction, and domestic enforcement - methods that
account for 75 percent of drug control spending - is a very inefficient
strategy. It is clear that the government is throwing large amounts of
taxpayer money away each year. We don't have all the answers yet, but we
do know that proven treatment methods offer a more cost-effective alternative.

Drug law enforcement has a place, but not necessarily the premier place,
because the evidence does not support that approach. Now that the U.S.
military (of which I was a loyal full-time member for 11 years) has run out
of real wars to fight, it is getting involved in phony wars on marijuana
fields in Mexico and coca fields in Bolivia. Let's stop playing drug war
games. They are no longer entertaining, and they don't work.

Drug Trial: Defending the Public Health Trademark (The seventh and final part
of Reason magazine's article about the "medicalization" strategy for ending
the war on drugs features Ernest Drucker, the editor of Addiction Research,
asking, "If the advocates of drug prohibition want to justify their position
on public health grounds, why do they consistently overlook public health
data suggesting measures that might actually save lives? Current attempts to
justify our demonstrably unhealthy drug policies in public health or medical
terms make a mockery of both professions.")

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 23:21:47 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.org)
Subject: MN: US: Drug Trial: Defending The Public Health Trademark (7 of 7)
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: "Carl E. Olsen" (carl@commonlink.net)
Source: Reason Magazine
Contact: EdReason@aol.com
Pubdate: March 1, 1998
Website: http://www.reason.com/
Author: Ernest Drucker (drucker@aecom.yu.edu)
Note: Ernest Drucker is professor of epidemiology and social medicine at
Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a senior
fellow of the Lindesmith Center, and editor-in-chief of the journal
Addiction Research.


Public health is concerned with the well-being of populations and therefore
shares with medicine the goal of reducing suffering due to disease. But
its "patient" is the community and its measure of successful "treatment" is
the reduction of collective morbidity and mortality, usually measured in
terms of prevention. Indeed, clinical medicine exists as a function of
public health's failure: It treats the casualties of unhealthy social
policy and poor public health practice.

The problem with public health comes from its close historical association
with clinical medicine, i.e., an over-reliance on the disease model. While
a perfectly appropriate way of understanding the course and characteristics
of individual illness, the disease model is only a small part of what is
required to appreciate the complex biological and social circumstances that
contribute to morbidity and mortality. Many critics of the public health
perspective fail to distinguish its perspective from that of medicine.
Workplace injuries, highway accidents, and home poisonings are not
diseases, but they are well understood (and prevented) using a public
health model.

When it comes to drugs, public health data usually focus on the most
negative outcomes (disease and death) and the "hard realities" of drug use:
addiction, overdose, AIDS, crime, domestic violence. But this is only part
of the picture. In the vast majority of cases, the positive aspects of
drug use, such as psychological benefits and social involvements, outweigh
any harm. Because of the stigma attached to illegal drug use, these "soft
realities" are largely ignored in public discourse. But they can be
inferred from public health data.

While tens of millions of Americans have used illicit drugs - 70 to 80
million marijuana, 40 million cocaine, and 20 million heroin - the number
of heavy or problematic users is only 5 percent to 10 percent of those
figures, similar to the proportion seen with alcohol. Public health data
on moderate alcohol use (one or two drinks per day) suggest it is not only
harmless but actually beneficial. I suspect a similar case could be made
for other drugs, which are often used (successfully) to "self-medicate"
anxiety, depression, and attentional difficulties.

Through public health data we can also see that, despite an overall
reduction in the number of drug users during the most vigorous prosecution
of the war on drugs, from 1972 on, the consequences of drug use have
generally gotten worse: There has been an absolute increase in drug-related
health problems such as AIDS and overdose deaths. Meanwhile, the huge
economic and social costs of massive incarceration and criminalization
associated with drug prohibition generate a cascade of adverse consequences
in the targeted communities. These are consequences not of drug use but of
drug policy. And it is public health methods that make them visible to the
naked eye.

So who could be against public health? Well, for a start, our gracious
editorial host, Jacob Sullum. His forthcoming book about America's current
"war on tobacco" bears the subtitle The Tyranny of Public Health. The
phrase is provocative, suggesting that public health could operate contrary
to the public interest, and possibly oxymoronic, since most of us who work
in the field are impressed by our relative powerlessness to affect
policies. But it does capture something of the battle for the right to use
the "trademark" of public health: One can cite many moralistic (and often
useless) restrictions imposed on victims of past epidemics in the name of
public health, or the contemporary use of imaginary or overblown health
risks to exert social control, as in bans on smoking in outdoor spaces.

On the face of it, any public which is fully and accurately informed of a
serious risk to its collective well-being may fairly decide that it wishes
to protect itself and restrict the freedom of some individuals to achieve
that goal. But if the advocates of drug prohibition want to justify their
position on public health grounds, why do they consistently overlook public
health data suggesting measures that might actually save lives? The
continued ban on the use of federal funds for needle-exchange programs, for
example, defies a large body of scientific literature demonstrating their
efficacy and ignores the recommendations of multiple expert commissions.
As a consequence of this failed policy, my colleague Peter Lurie and I
estimate, 10,000 to 20,000 preventable AIDS cases have occurred in the
United States.

The message of history is that most people are willing to forgo some
individual freedom for the larger good if the threat is real, the process
is fair, and the response is effective at saving lives - as with confining
or isolating carriers of easily infectious diseases such as typhoid or
bubonic plague. These examples seem to me the opposite of tyranny. But
current attempts to justify our demonstrably unhealthy drug policies in
public health or medical terms make a mockery of both professions, whose
best efforts are sorely needed to deal with our all-too-real drug problems.

Colleges of Crime: Tough, no-appeal drug laws turn first-time offenders into
career criminals (A staff editorial in American Demographics notes some
criminologists worry that first-time drug offenders who spend years in prison
are likely to become real criminals once they are paroled. Statistics show it
could be happening already.)

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 06:06:43 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.org)
Subject: MN: US: Editorial: Colleges Of Crime
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Chris Clay (chris.clay@hempnation.com)
Source: American Demographics
Date: March 1998
Author: Brad Edmondson
Section: Editorial
Website: http://www.demographics.com/
Contact: WebMaster@demographics.com
Editors Note: Check out:


* Tough, no-appeal drug laws turn first-time offenders into career criminals.
It doesn't have to be that way.

Statistics show that crime is going down, but the numbers hide stories like
Angela Thompson's. She was 17, with no criminal record and plans for
college, when her drug-dealing uncle convinced her to sell two ounces of
cocaine to an undercover police officer. Under New York's draconian drug
laws, the judge had no choice but to sentence her to 15 years to life in
state prison. Angela took college courses anyway. When the state cut
funding for them, she was six credits shy of an associate's degree. And
when the governor commuted her sentence in December, she had spent eight
years behind bars.

Tough, no-appeal drug laws are driving the number of prisoners higher and
higher, even as the crime rate drops. The number of violent and property
crimes per 100,000 Americans has declined from nearly 6,000 in 1991 to just
over 5,000 in 1996, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Meanwhile, the number of persons in custody per 100,000 has risen from 481
in 1991 to 614 in 1996 and 645 as of mid-1997. Several trends might explain
why crime is dropping, including a decade of decline in the number of young
men, who are most likely to commit crimes; more effective police work; and,
of course, tougher laws. But what happens to first-time, non-violent drug
offenders who get long prison sentences? Some pull through, as Angela did.
Others are trained to be professional criminals.

The number of Americans in prison or jail custody has been increasing at
6.5 percent a year since 1990, and more than one-third of this growth is
due to drug offenses. More than 1.7 million Americans are now serving time,
or about as many as the population of New Mexico. Some criminologists worry
that first-time drug offenders who spend years in jail will be likely to
return to crime once they are paroled, using the connections they made
while serving time. If this happens, the prison boom will become a vicious

It could be happening already. For most of this decade, growth in state and
federal prisoners has been faster than growth in inmates of local jails.
Between 1996 and 1997, however, the number of jail inmates shot up 9.4
percent, to 567,000, while the number of prisoners increased just 4.7
percent, to 1,159,000. This is ominous because most people in jails are
awaiting trial or serving sentences of less than a year. In this way,
today's jail numbers are a leading indicator of tomorrow's prison numbers,
says Franklin Zimring, a criminologist at the University of

In the 1980s, many politicians got elected by promising mandatory jail time
for drug dealers. As a result, thousands of low-level drug runners are now
spending their college years in prison. In New York alone, the cost of
prison for nonviolent drug offenders is about $600 million a year. That
money would be better spent on prevention, treatment, and education.

In Drug War, America Barks but Fear of Bite Fades (The New York Times
suggests South American countries no longer fret as much about obtaining
certification from the United States as an ally in its war on some drug users
as they did when the certification process was legislated in 1986. It has
become clear that considerations such as trade and security will outweigh the
drug war issue.)

Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 15:14:14 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.org)
Subject: MN: NYT: In Drug War, America Barks but Fear of Bite Fades
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: "Dick Evans" (emr@javanet.com)
Source: New York Times (NY)
Author: Tim Golden
Section: The Week in Review
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Pubdate: Sun, 1 Mar 1998

In Drug War, America Barks but Fear of Bite Fades

WASHINGTON -- The driver was late, the aide had the directions all wrong,
and as Colombia's ambassador rode up Capitol Hill the other day to defend
his country's drug-fighting record before one more skeptical audience, his
only armor was two copies of a thin, boring-looking government report.

For the emissary of a country whose drug-enforcement efforts had failed the
United States' certification test two years in a row, the ambassador, Juan
Carlos Esguerra, was looking remarkably unperturbed.

"When we didn't know what it would mean to be decertified, we were terribly
worried that it would have catastrophic effects," Esguerra said, recalling
the all-out lobbying campaigns that Colombia waged in past years in vain
attempts to avoid the Clinton administration's censure. "Once you know the
impact, you know you can handle it."

The 12-year-old federal law requires that, by the end of every February,
the White House publicly evaluate the drug-control efforts of countries
that produce or ship the cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamines
that are consumed in the United States.

And each year by the beginning of March, critics attack the process known
as drug certification, mostly because of the anger and irritation it
produces in U.S. relations abroad.

Lately, though, the irritation has appeared to be mostly skin deep. For
countries like Mexico -- which was fully certified again Thursday despite a
confidential assessment by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration that
was stingingly pessimistic -- it has become clear, officials say privately,
that considerations like trade will outweigh dissatisfactions over the drug

Similarly, the practice of recent years has shown nations like Pakistan and
Lebanon that even if they are denied certification, their strategic
importance to the United States is such that they can expect the White
House to waive the penalties in the national interest.

Under the 1986 statute, the penalties include a mandatory halt to some U.S.
foreign aid, a requirement that the United States vote against their
applications for multilateral development bank loans, and the possibility
of trade and economic sanctions. But when the law was written, both the
Cold War power of the United States and the promise of such sanctions had a
fresher smell.

Last year, as the administration and Congress wrestled with the question of
whether to decertify Colombia for the second year in a row, the government
of President Ernesto Samper dispatched its police chief and half a dozen
cabinet members to lobby in Washington. The issue was Samper himself, and
the $6.1 million that U.S. officials say he took as a campaign contribution
from cocaine traffickers. But his government nonetheless took out full-page
advertisements in American newspapers to describe the sacrifices that
Colombia's people had made, the blood that its soldiers and police had
spilled. Brightly colored booklets detailing the country's anti-drug
achievements inundated Congress.

This winter, the strategy changed. "No publicity. No advertising.
Absolutely none," Esguerra said. "The certification issue has become less
important." (Last week, in a gesture that U.S. officials did not take
seriously, Samper offered to resign a few months early if it would improve
Colombia's relationship with the United States.)

At a Senate subcommittee hearing about certification Thursday, Sen. Joseph
Biden, D-Md., spoke up for the process. It remains, he said, "an effort to
prod other governments into action -- actions they would not otherwise take."

But in the past, U.S. officials have been able to count on at least some
flurries of police activity abroad as the judgment day nears: drug
traffickers arrested, drug crops eradicated, drug shipments seized. Recent
years have seen less and less of that kind of push.

More significant than the end of Colombia's lobbying are the issues on
which it flatly ignored U.S. appeals -- and threats of further
decertification. In November, the Samper government allowed the legislature
it controls to reinstate its extradition treaty with the United States with
the proviso that it would not apply retroactively -- and thus to the
powerful Cali Cartel bosses who are serving relatively short prison
sentences in Colombia but are wanted by U.S. courts.

The frustration of U.S. law-enforcement officials with Mexico has been
harder for some in Washington to interpret: Last year, the government of
President Ernesto Zedillo has overhauled its anti-drug force, arrested some
military and civilian officials on corruption charges and taken small but
potentially important steps toward extraditing Mexican drug criminals to
the United States.

But at what is typically the busiest time of the law-enforcement year, U.S.
agents were reporting to their headquarters that the "new" Mexican police
units were making no discernable effort to arrest the most important

In Pakistan, the government has steadfastly ignored U.S. pleas for the
release of a Pakistani employee of the Drug Enforcement Administration who
is serving a five-year sentence at hard labor for helping U.S.
law-enforcement agents with an undercover operation that led to the jailing
of two Pakistani air force officers on charges of heroin trafficking.

The drug-enforcement aide, Ayyaz Baluch, was found guilty of "seducing" the
officers to commit a crime. Pakistan's ambassador to the United States,
Riaz Khokhar, dismissed what he said had been open threats of
decertification over the matter. "We have lived with certain sanctions in
the past," he said in an interview. "Frankly, it won't bother us."

Some U.S. officials blame the toothlessness of decertification on the
limits of the law. Colombian officials, for their part, noted that they
have been authorized to receive more anti-drug aid since being decertified.
In Washington, support is rising for a multilateral approach to setting
drug-enforcement standards.

But even if U.S. legislators have an alternative, they may still have a
problem. "If you favor repeal of the certification statute, then you look
like you're weak on drugs," said Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., the ranking
minority member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "And that's still
an uncomfortable position for a politician to be in."

Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company

Beer Just Made For Snowboarders (The Vancouver Sun assumes snowboarders will
love the new Hemp Cream Ale being produced in Vancouver, British Columbia, by
Bowen Island Brewing.)
Link to earlier story
From: creator@islandnet.com (Matt Elrod) To: mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com Subject: Beer just made for snowboarders Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 09:46:15 -0800 Source: Vancouver Echo Contact: rshore@vanecho.com Pubdate: March 1998 Beer just made for snowboarders Attorney General Ujjal Dosanjh has seen cows eat it and go on to act very strangely, presumably exhibiting odd, un-cow-like behaviors. He didn't use the word riot nor the term axe murder, so we are left to assume that bovine under the influence of marijuana giggle foolishly and eat Kraft Dinner much like any one else who partakes of the wild wood weed. Since Canadian snow-boarder Ross Rebagliati won and then retained his Olympic gold medal after failing a urine test for the marijuana derivative THC, the debate over cannabis is at a full boil. Even Premier Glen Clark has failed to deny that he has inhaled and suggested that even if Ross had consumed more than the one billionth of a gram that he was busted for, it shouldn't be serious enough to strip him of the gold. That has to come as good news for all those people languishing in jail cells for marijuana-related crimes. But the debate over legitimate uses for marijuana has actually been simmering for the past several years and was the subject of a recent international symposium in Vancouver on industrial uses. Under its industrial name hemp, wacky tabaccy has turned up in salad dressings, paper, rope, clothing and - wait for it - beer. Several American microbrewers already have hemp flavored brew in production and two Vancouver-based brewers have also pursued the idea of hemp beer. The first batch of highly experimental hemp ale I came across was produced by the highly experimental brewmaster of Commercial Drive's Storm Brewing. It had a color and texture I can only describe as highly experimental. Storm's big brain James Walton has dropped Hempen Ale as a recipe because it lacked a distinctive flavor ("All I got was a bit of peppery flavor from it."), but he did very well selling Hempen Ale t-shirts. Can you imagine? A beer success built on marketing rather than flavor? It will be Walton's highly-polished competitors at Bowen Island Brewing who will cash in on the post-Olympic hemp craze. In just a few days Bowen will go to market with its Hemp Cream Ale. Made with sterilized, non-viable hemp seed, Hemp Cream Ale will be Canada's first legal hemp beer. Bowen will begin buying its hemp seed in Canada when the first federally-approved crops of seed are harvested later this year. Every batch of seed used by Bowen will be tested for THC content before it is used to ensure the ale remains within the letter of the law. The marketing materials for Hemp Cream Ale are explicit: Bowen Island does not condone the use of illegal drugs and has no political agenda to see marijuana legalized. Snowboarders will drink it for their own reasons. Since word of the hemp beer leaked out last week, the phone has been ringing long and loud in Bowen Island's sales office on the Port of Vancouver. Sales manager Les Patterson told me pubs in Rebagliati's home town of Whistler are literally groveling for the first kegs. "One pub manager told me he could have sold dozens of kegs during Rebagliati's homecoming party," said Patterson. Potheads hoping to catch a buzz from Hemp Cream Ale will, however, be disappointed to learn that the only active ingredient is plain old alcohol. Industrial hemp seed is not exactly loaded with mind-expanding alkaloids. But the THC content might just be enough to get you banned from high level athletic competition, so world class athletes should drink with caution. One hemp beer could put you over the legal limit. As for the rest of us: Party On Dudes!

Cannabis Campaign: Dope Figures Don't Add Up (Britain's Independent on Sunday
continues its weekly push for the reform of marijuana laws by showing that
the government's official estimate of the number of cannabis consumers is
either absurdly low or else British pot smokers average 27 joints per week

Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 18:07:26 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.org)
Subject: MN: UK: Cannabis Campaign: Dope Figures Don't Add Up
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Zosimos (mjc1947@cyberclub.iol.ie)
Pubdate: Sun, 1 Mar 1998
Source: Independent on Sunday
Author: Graham Ball
Contact: Email: cannabis@independent.co.uk
Mail: Independent on Sunday, 1 Canada Square
Canary Wharf, London E14 5DL England
Editor's note: The IoS Cannabis Campaign has web pages at


Who smokes dope, or, more to the point, how many of us smoke dope? The
Government say it is less than half the number who regularly tune into The
Archers, but the IoS has evidence which proves they are well short of the

Last month, in a private meeting, Brian Iddon, Labour MP for Bolton South
East, put the question to Home Office minister George Howarth.

"The minister told me that 1.5 million people in Britain use cannabis,
which surprised me," said Mr Iddon, who believes cannabis should be

"I know that many believe the number to be more than twice the Government
estimate. However, I was assured that this was the best and most up-to-date
calculation. The Home Office based this figure on a 1996 survey of 9,000
people from a broad spectrum of social classes," he added.

But a careful review of the official statistics reveals the implausibility
of the Government's estimate. The most recent figures for the amount of
cannabis seized by both the police and customs are 13,871kg (13.6 tons) of
dry plant matter and 44,607kg (43.9 tons) of resin.

The total - 58,478kg - is accepted by customs and police intelligence
sources as representing, on average, 10 per cent of the total amount that
is in circulation.

The police calculate that it is possible to roll four joints from each gram
of cannabis. Therefore, over a full year, 526,302kg of cannabis will be
consumed or 2,105,208,000 (2.1 billion) individual joints.

This, in turn, means that every day, throughout Britain, 5.7 million joints
are lit and that for the Government's estimate to be correct, each of the
country's 1.5 million cannabis smokers would have to puff their way through
27 joints a week, every week of the year.

The correct appraisal of cannabis use is far more complicated than the
Government would have us believe. While it is true that a minority of users
smoke as many as 27 joints a week and more, the vast majority use the drug
intermittently. Many only smoke at weekends, others once a month or less
frequently - no one can tell for certain.

However, the number of individuals who indulge in one smoke or more in the
course of a year in Britain is most likely to be at least three times as
many as the number the Government claims.

Cannabis Campaign: Busted? You Can Still Avoid A Criminal Record - But Steady
Nerves Are Required To Refuse A Caution, Writes Graham Ball (Britain's
Independent on Sunday notes more than 40,000 people, not to mention the home
secretary's 17-year-old son, will be cautioned for cannabis offences this
year, although many could escape with a lesser charge.)

Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 18:15:21 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.org)
Subject: MN: UK: Cannabis Campaign: Busted? You Can Still Avoid A Criminal
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Zosimos (mjc1947@cyberclub.iol.ie)
Pubdate: Sun, 1 Mar 1998
Source: Independent on Sunday
Contact: cannabis@independent.co.uk


But Steady Nerves Are Required To Refuse A Caution, Writes Graham Ball

This year, more than 40,000 people will be cautioned for cannabis offences,
but many could escape with a lesser charge.

The increased use of cautions is not restricted to drugs offences. Its
purpose is to avoid wasting police and court time on petty offenders. So
how does the system work in practice and what should you do if cautioned?

A serving police officer, whose identity is known to the IoS but cannot be
named, has revealed the truth about cautions. The officer says a caution is
a contract which most offenders accept without reading the small print.

What is a caution?

A caution is a criminal conviction of limited duration. Acceptance
indicates that the individual has waived his or her right to a defence and,
in return, the state waives its right to punish. A caution is recorded on
the police national computer and remains there for five years (three for
juveniles). This can have an adverse effect on applications for certain
jobs, university places and travel visas to some countries.

Do you have to accept a caution?

No. A caution is not a pre-requisite to release. It requires the prisoner
to actively acknowledge guilt. But once it has been decided that a caution
is the most appropriate way of dealing with an offence, the police cannot
revert to a more serious charge.

The decision to caution is not arbitrary. The arresting officer must refer
to the police Case Disposal Manual, which awards points for factors of an
offence - attempts to avoid arrest, intent to supply etc. The points are
added up and it is this tally, not the whim of an officer, that dictates
how a case is dealt with.

If the points equate to a caution, they cannot be pushed up the scale to a
charge simply because you decline to accept culpability. To accept a
caution, you must accept guilt and your acceptance or rebuttal can have no
bearing on how the law perceives you should be dealt with.

Should I accept the caution and have done with it?

For some the answer is yes: if you can live with a criminal conviction, and
do not intend to emigrate or apply for a position from which a criminal
conviction would disqualify you. But everyone should consider the matter
carefully. A caution will ensure that you are charged with the offence if
you are arrested again.

What will happen if you refuse?

If you refuse, the law ordains that you must be given a Formal Warning or
that the case be No Further Actioned. A Formal Warning does not require
your consent and you are not required to sign for it. It is recorded
locally only and will have no influence on how you are dealt with at a
later date in court. It does not establish your guilt and it is not a
conviction. However, if you decide to play thistrump card, you would be
well advised to have a solicitor present when the caution is offered.

Cannabis Campaign - Campaign Supporters (Britain's Independent on Sunday
prints the names of some prominent people who support its drive to quit
making criminals out of pot smokers.)

Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 19:11:39 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.org)
Subject: MN: UK: Cannabis Campaign - Campaign Supporters
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Zosimos (mjc1947@cyberclub.iol.ie)
Pubdate: Sun, 1 Mar 1998
Source: Independent on Sunday
Contact: cannabis@independent.co.uk


Add Your Name To The List

Professor James Curran, Goldsmiths University London

Don Barnard, Essex

Seven Inmates of D Wing, HMP Linholme, names and addresses withheld

Dr Jill McKeown, London

Colin Balm, Leicester

Mandy Hubbard, London

Gillian Booth, Bristol

David Day, Rosalind Hubbard, Mark Day, all London

Louise Meechan, Ayrshire

Neil Levers, Keith Levers, Charlie Levers, FA Mari, K Brome, all London

MG Wallace, J Wallace, RS McMurray, all Norwich

R Quilty, HJ Quilty, both Guildford

Peter Jones, Colin Bellis G Bellis, all Suffolk

Jimmy Stevens, Merseyside

John Edwards, USA

Bob O'Neill, Ben Connor, both Cumbria

Gavin Andrews, Kirstie Dennis, both Newcastle

Jethro Bartlett, Amanda Woodchild, Martin Cummings, Samantha Hobon, Emily
Boil, Michael Fellizi, Stu Miller, Ruth Hampshire, Amanda Woodchild, Alan
Smith, R Wilkinson, M Walker, C Collins, S Baker, N Crofton-Sleigh, W
Wilson, C Masters, T Colgan, Stephen Cutting, Oliver Block, Katherine
Childs, Daniel Scott, Daniel Manser, Samantha Youngman, Dean Vincent, David
McAndie, Sam Wright, Michelle Lee, Jim Wilson, T Millington, S Stockton,
Annette Childs, Adrian Smith, Sian Ward, C Ganlia, DP Seitton, Stephen
Green, Victoria Price, Lucy Holland, Ben Tilford, Lawrio Pointon, P
Goodall, E Bowles, Francesco Cuturi, Roberta Rutigliano, Roger Campbell,
Sandrine Doggon, Nicki Bell, Chris Jones, Kerry Hudson, Lara Bowles, Laila
Wright, TT Jones, CD Ford, B Stratford, Stuart Goodwin, Francesco Cuturi,
Tricia Ballantyne, Greg Nicks, all Norwich

Kirk Martin, Grant Porter, Pat Gibbs, Sanjay Seerthan, E Cook, J
Shoebridge, D Ashdown, S Robson, R Ingram, all Surrey

Chris Macintyre, Sam Parsons, Mark Stanley, all Redhill

Anji Todd, Doug Cleeve, Southampton

David Harper, Lisa White, Joel Buckley, Elizabeth Edwards, Chris Mathews,
Mike Smith, Lorna Williams, all Southsea

Dee McCall, Scott Stanley, Russell Inns, Malcolm Hardwick, Hannah Degg,

all Portsmouth

Wendy Kellett, Bath

Torben Betts, London

Campbell Deeming, Matt Brownhill, Rhoderic Walls, Robin Davey, Antonia
Norton, David Ferreira Pinto, Sarah Thorn, Ross Gemmell, Mark Fielding,
Aston McNeilly, Fraser Laing, all Edinburgh

Carol Wint, Joanna Lee, both London

Bridget Wruften, Stratford

Mrs PE Locker, London

JP Wrafter, Doncaster

B Leake, Illford

John Leake, Illford

Michelle Davis, Peterborough

Syrena Price, Lisa Mayhew, Roger Bryant, Rick Rodgers, Chris Penella, all

Robert Skeggs, Loughborough

Robin Sheehan, James Smith, Simon Harrington, Ted Parrot, all Liverpool

Kevin Croombs, Maria O'Connor, both Farnborough

Susan Green, London

EL Sturgeon, Sussex

Margaret Evans, Worcestershire

Geraldine Senges, London

Linda Manning, Mark Gensbury, Paul Wolf, Jonna Richards, Maggie Lloyd, all

David Manny, London

Annabel Caithness, Denham

Derek Vance, Northants

F D Cousin, Jane Cousin, both Suffolk

Shauna Fitzpatrick, Uxbridge

L Latham, Jersey

N Forrest, Syreeta Forrest, BJ Forrest, J Roberts, Sacha Forrest, all London

Joanna Rittman, Chippenham

Marian Richardson, London



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 26-March 4

Back to Portland NORML news archive directory

Back to 1998 Daily News index (long)

This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/980301.html