------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) Organization: Oregon State Patriots To: Cannabis Patriots (email@example.com) Subject: CanPat - STEVEN DONS WAS STILL A HUMAN BEING Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org STEVEN DONS WAS STILL A HUMAN BEING 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.) *** HOW TO SUBSCRIBE TO CANNABIS PATRIOTS Send e-mail to email@example.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! firstname.lastname@example.org 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: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org From: "Geoffery S. Thomas" (email@example.com) To: Multiple recipients of list (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: CanPat - STOP AND SEARCH LAW, BEGINNING OF A POLICE STATE 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 Subject: CanPat - STOP AND SEARCH LAW, BEGINNING OF A POLICE STATE! Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 15:10:10 -0800 From: Paul Freedom (email@example.com) Organization: Oregon State Patriots To: Cannabis Patriots (firstname.lastname@example.org) transcribed by PF STOP-AND-SEARCH LAW BEGINNING OF A POLICE STATE 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 powers. 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 oregonlive.com March 1, 1998 letters to editor: email@example.com 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 department. "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 head." 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 heart." "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 cause. "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 overhauled. 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: email@example.com Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 15:12:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: HT: Oral drug test: The Bulletin To: firstname.lastname@example.org Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: Curt Wagoner Source: The Bulletin Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.bendbulletin.com Mail: 1526 NW Hill St., Bend,Or. 97701 Pubdate: 3/1/98 Page: 1 ORAL DRUG TEST APPEARS TO BE BREAK THROUGH 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: email@example.com From: Olafur Brentmar (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: MN: US CA: California Marijuana Club Stands Firm Against Rulings Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn) Source: New York Times (NY) Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.nytimes.com/ Pubdate: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 CALIFORNIA MARIJUANA CLUB STANDS FIRM AGAINST RULINGS 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 production.'' 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 marijuana. 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 clubs. 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 group. 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, added: ``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: email@example.com From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Joel W. Johnson) Subject: MN: US CA: OPED: Casualties of War Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: Marcus-Mermelstein Family (firstname.lastname@example.org) Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA) Contact: email@example.com Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/ Pubdate: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 CASUALTTIES OF WAR 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 ``irresponsible.'' 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 world. 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: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (Joel W. Johnson) Subject: MN: US CA: Firsthand View of Prison Leads to a Call for Restorative Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: John W.Black Source: Orange County Register (CA) Contact: email@example.com Pubdate: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 FIRSTHAND VIEW OF PRISON LEADS TO A CALL FOR RESTORATIVE 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 wrong. 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 approach." 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 tough." 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 wrong. 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: firstname.lastname@example.org Sender: email@example.com From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Arthur Livermore) To: Multiple recipients of list (email@example.com) 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: firstname.lastname@example.org () Subject: CanPat - Fwd: Drug Testing is a Scam To: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org ---- Begin Forwarded Message Drug testing, the scam revealed in full, at http://www.nevada.edu/home/3/gladd/EPS/thesis.html ---- 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 worldwide.) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 07:11:37 -0500 From: "R. Lake" (email@example.com) Subject: MN: NORML: International Medical Societies Endorse Marijuana Ingredients To: DrugSense News Service (firstname.lastname@example.org) Organization: The Media Awareness Project of DrugSense Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: The Media Awarness Project of DrugSense Source: High Times Pubdate: March, 1998, No. 271 Author: Paul Armentano, NORML Director of Publications Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.hightimes.com/ Editors note: You may email the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) at email@example.com NORML Website: http://www.norml.org/ INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL SOCIETIES ENDORSE MARIJUANA INGREDIENTS 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 use." 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" (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: MN: US: Feds Stonewall Medical-Marijuana Study - Until it Switches Focuse to 'Risk Factors' To: DrugSense News Service (email@example.com) Organization: DrugSense Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: The Media Awarness Project of DrugSense Source: High Times Pubdate: March, 1998, No. 271 Author: Paul Armentano, NORML Director of Publications Contact: email@example.com Website: http://www.hightimes.com/ Editors note: You may email the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) at firstname.lastname@example.org - check out their sharp updated website at: http://www.norml.org/ FEDS STONEWALL MEDICAL-MARIJUANA STUDY - UNTIL IT SWITCHES FOCUS TO 'RISK FACTORS' 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 differ. 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 ahead. 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 patients. 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 else's." 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" (email@example.com) Subject: MN: US: Are You Sure You Want to Ruin Your Career? To: DrugSense News Service (firstname.lastname@example.org) Organization: The Media Awareness Project of DrugSense Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: Anne R. Kist Source: Extra! - The Magazine of FAIR Author: Barbara Bliss Osborn Pubdate: March/April 1998 Contact: firstname.lastname@example.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. "ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO RUIN YOUR CAREER?" 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 journalism. 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 dearly. 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 series. 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 areas." 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 time." 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 sell." 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.) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 17:14:04 -0500 From: "R. Lake" (email@example.com) Subject: MN: US PA: Alan Gordan - UV-B, Pot, The Law, and You To: DrugSense News Service (firstname.lastname@example.org) Organization: DrugSense Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: The Media Awareness Project of DrugSense Source: High Times Pubdate: March, 1998, No. 271 Author: Jessica Loos Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.hightimes.com/ Freedom Fighter of the Month ALAN GORDON - UV-B, POT, THE LAW, AND YOU 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 (email@example.com) From: Richard Lake (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: MN: US KY: Hemp Clothes May Sow Seeds Of New Industry Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: davewest (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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/ HEMP CLOTHES MAY SOW SEEDS OF NEW INDUSTRY 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 2001. "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 (email@example.com) From: Richard Lake (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: MN: US KY: Beer Flavored With Hemp Seeds Does Well In Kentucky Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: davewest (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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/ BEER FLAVORED WITH HEMP SEEDS DOES WELL IN KENTUCKY 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 seeds. 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 issues.) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:41:21 -0500 To: DrugSense News Service (email@example.com) From: Richard Lake (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: MN: US: Drug Trial: Introduction (1 of 7 parts) Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: "Carl E. Olsen" (firstname.lastname@example.org) Source: Reason Magazine Contact: EdReason@aol.com Pubdate: March 1, 1998 Author: Jacob Sullum (email@example.com) Website: http://www.reason.com/ Editor's note: Due to the size of the article, it is being posted in seven parts. DRUG TRIAL: INTRODUCTION 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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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 (email@example.com) From: Richard Lake (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: MN: US: Drug Trial: The Political Legitimation Of Quackery (2 Of 7) Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: "Carl E. Olsen" (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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). DRUG TRIAL: THE POLITICAL LEGITIMATION OF QUACKERY 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 (email@example.com) From: Richard Lake (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: MN: US: Drug Trial: A New Metaphor For Autonomy (3 of 7) Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: "Carl E. Olsen" (firstname.lastname@example.org) Source: Reason Magazine Contact: EdReason@aol.com Pubdate: March 1, 1998 Website: http://www.reason.com/ Author: Jeffrey Singer (email@example.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. DRUG TRIAL: A NEW METAPHOR FOR AUTONOMY 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 ambitious. 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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) From: Richard Lake (email@example.com) Subject: MN: Drug Trial: The Medical Marijuana Menace (4 of 7) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Newshawk: "Carl E. Olsen" (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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. DRUG TRIAL: The MEDICAL MARIJUANA MENACE 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 change. 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 (email@example.com) From: Richard Lake (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: MN: US: Drug Trial: Medicalization And Scientism (5 of 7) Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: "Carl E. Olsen" (firstname.lastname@example.org) Source: Reason Magazine Contact: EdReason@aol.com Pubdate: March 1, 1998 Website: http://www.reason.com/ Author: John P. Morgan (email@example.com) 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). DRUG TRIAL: MEDICALIZATION AND SCIENTISM (5 of 8) 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 equivocal. 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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) From: Richard Lake (email@example.com) Subject: MN: US: Drug Trial: Show Me The Data (6 of7) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: "Carl E. Olsen" (email@example.com) Source: Reason Magazine Contact: EdReason@aol.com Pubdate: March 1, 1998 Website: http://www.reason.com/ Author: George D. Lundberg DRUG TRIAL: SHOW ME THE DATA 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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) From: Richard Lake (email@example.com) Subject: MN: US: Drug Trial: Defending The Public Health Trademark (7 of 7) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: "Carl E. Olsen" (email@example.com) Source: Reason Magazine Contact: EdReason@aol.com Pubdate: March 1, 1998 Website: http://www.reason.com/ Author: Ernest Drucker (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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. DRUG TRIAL: DEFENDING THE PUBLIC HEALTH TRADEMARK 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 (email@example.com) From: Richard Lake (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: MN: US: Editorial: Colleges Of Crime Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: Chris Clay (firstname.lastname@example.org) Source: American Demographics Date: March 1998 Author: Brad Edmondson Section: Editorial Website: http://www.demographics.com/ Contact: WebMaster@demographics.com Editors Note: Check out: http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm Editorial: COLLEGES OF CRIME * 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 cycle. 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 California-Berkeley. 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 (email@example.com) From: Richard Lake (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: MN: NYT: In Drug War, America Barks but Fear of Bite Fades Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: "Dick Evans" (firstname.lastname@example.org) Source: New York Times (NY) Author: Tim Golden Section: The Week in Review Contact: email@example.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 issue. 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 traffickers. 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.)From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Matt Elrod) To: email@example.com Subject: Beer just made for snowboarders Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 09:46:15 -0800 Source: Vancouver Echo Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org 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 each.) Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 18:07:26 -0500 To: DrugSense News Service (email@example.com) From: Richard Lake (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: MN: UK: Cannabis Campaign: Dope Figures Don't Add Up Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: Zosimos (firstname.lastname@example.org) Pubdate: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 Source: Independent on Sunday Author: Graham Ball Contact: Email: email@example.com Mail: Independent on Sunday, 1 Canada Square Canary Wharf, London E14 5DL England Editor's note: The IoS Cannabis Campaign has web pages at http://www.independent.co.uk/sindypot/index.htm DOPE FIGURES DON'T ADD UP 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 mark. 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 decriminalised. "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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) From: Richard Lake (email@example.com) Subject: MN: UK: Cannabis Campaign: Busted? You Can Still Avoid A Criminal Record Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: Zosimos (email@example.com) Pubdate: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 Source: Independent on Sunday Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org BUSTED? YOU CAN STILL AVOID A CRIMINAL RECORD 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 (email@example.com) From: Richard Lake (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: MN: UK: Cannabis Campaign - Campaign Supporters Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: Zosimos (firstname.lastname@example.org) Pubdate: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 Source: Independent on Sunday Contact: email@example.com CANNABIS CAMPAIGN - CAMPAIGN SUPPORTERS 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 Swindon 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 Oxford 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.Reporters and researchers are welcome at the world's largest online library of drug-policy information, sponsored by the Drug Reform Coordination Network at: http://www.druglibrary.org/
Next day's news
Previous day's news
to 1998 Daily News index for February 26-March 4
to Portland NORML news archive directory
to 1998 Daily News index (long)
This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/980301.html