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

Attorney For Shooting Suspect Not Satisfied With Investigation
('Associated Press' Says Multnomah County Sheriff's Office
Carried Out Two-Hour Investigation Clearing Itself In Connection With
Suspicious Jail Strangulation 'Suicide' Of Half-Paralyzed, Half-Deaf Man
Charged With Murder After Shooting Portland Marijuana Task Force Cops
During Warrantless Break-In - No Fingerprint Or Fiber Evidence Collected)

from oregonlive.com:

Attorney for shooting suspect not satisfied with investigation

The Associated Press
3/3/98 8:02 PM

By RICHARD GREEN
Associated Press Writer

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- When accused cop killer Steven Dons
was found dead in his jail medical cell last week, it only took a
couple of hours for deputies to say that the paralyzed suspect
strangled himself.

But Dons' attorneys have questioned that conclusion, especially
since the 250-pound man was bedridden, couldn't move from the
chest down and gave no indication to them that he wanted to kill
himself.

They are calling for an independent investigation, instead of the
one currently being led by the same sheriff's office that is in
charge of the jail.

"We're not saying that there had been foul play. We're saying an
investigation is needed to rule that out," Dons' attorney Gwen
Butkovsky said Tuesday. "Our problem is that the sheriff's office
is still involved in it, so it's not completely independent."

Dons, 37, was being held on aggravated murder charges in the
Jan. 27 shootout that followed a "knock and talk" marijuana raid
at his home. Killed was Officer Colleen Waibel, the city's first
female officer slain in the line of duty. He was also accused of
wounding two other officers in the exchange of gunfire and was
shot and paralyzed himself.

Dons' body was found in the hospital bed in his cell on Feb. 25.
The state Medical Examiner's office ruled that he died of
asphyxiation after tying a bed sheet around his neck, connecting
the sheet to a bed rail, and pressing a button to raise the back of
his adjustable bed.

Investigators said they did not check Dons' cell for fingerprints.
No fiber evidence was collected and, only hours after Dons' body
was removed from the room, reporters and camera crews were
given a tour of the cell.

Sheriff's spokesman Brian Martinek said Dons' spoke of suicide
before his death, but didn't seem suicidal. The sheriff's spokesman
said Dons' was like many inmates who talk about ending their
lives, but aren't really serious about it.

Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk said he
sees no reason to remove the sheriff's office from the
investigation.

"Their investigation started the moment he was discovered," he
said. "It seems kind of absurd to stop it and have someone else do
it."

Schrunk said a number of outside agencies -- including the FBI --
are also looking into the death and this gives the probe a measure
of independence.

He sent a letter to Butkvosky saying that "to provide an
independent review of the circumstances surrounding the death" a
special team of investigators from several police agencies would
join the sheriff's office in probing the case.

Schrunk said there are times when a crime investigation should
exclude a particular police agency because of conflict-of-interest
concerns.

"You want to avoid any actual impropriety," he said. "Then you
want to instill public confidence and make sure there's no
perception of impropriety. That's one of the things happening in
this."

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

Cash Incentive Could Help Pregnant Smoker Quit ('The Oregonian'
Notes A Study At Oregon State University Confirms What Behavioral Scientists
Have Known For 45 Years - The Carrot Is Much More Effective Than The Stick
At Influencing People's Behavior - Smoking Estimated To Add 10 Percent
To Cost Of Pediatric Care - In 1995, 6,274 Oregonians Died
From Smoking-Related Causes, 22.3 Percent Of All Deaths In The State,
Compared To Zero Deaths Caused By Marijuana)

The Oregonian
March 3, 1998

Cash incentive could help pregnant smoker quit

An OSU study of pregnant women finds that
handing out vouchers can overcome the urge for
a cigarette

by Patrick O'Neill
of The Oregonian staff

The carrot works better than the stick in
persuading low-income pregnant women to stop
smoking.

That is the finding of a new study by researchers
at Oregon State University in Corvallis.

The study, made public Monday, found that
low-income pregnant women were far more likely
to stop smoking if they were given vouchers
worth $50 a month than if they got only
counseling and self-help literature.

Women who participated in the study were
divided into two groups. The women in the
successful group also had friends or spouses who
gave moral support during the 10 months each
woman was observed. The partners received
vouchers for $25 a month except for the first and
last months, when they received $50 vouchers.

After eight months of pregnancy, 34.6 percent of
those who received vouchers were still
smoke-free, compared with 9 percent of those
who did not.

Two months after they delivered their children,
24 percent of those who received vouchers were
still smoke-free, compared with 5 percent of the
others.

The study, done over the last two years, has
drawn the attention of the U.S. Air Force which,
like other military branches, is struggling with
ways to cut smoking. The study will be presented
next Monday in a keynote speech by researcher
Susan L. Prows, an assistant professor of public
health at OSU, during the Air Force Worldwide
Prevention Conference, sponsored by the Air
Force and the U.S. Surgeon General. Prows
authored the study along with Rebecca J.
Donatelle, chair of the university's Department of
Public Health.

The idea of paying people to do something that's
good for their health has raised some eyebrows.

"It's been somewhat politically controversial,"
Prows said. "A lot of people say, 'People will quit
if you just tell them how bad it is for them.' But
we've shown that's not true."

Bill Smith, manager of environmental health and
tobacco control programs of the American Lung
Association of Oregon, called the results
interesting.

But Smith wondered where a permanent program
would find financial support.

"The findings are wonderful to see," he said. "But
how are we going to fund that kind of thing?"

Smith's opinion was echoed by Wendy Rankin,
manager of the Multnomah County tobacco
reduction program.

"It's an interesting idea, but I think it's very
expensive and I think selling it be would politically
tough," she said.

Prows thinks the cost of such a program would
be more than offset by savings in health care
expenditures. The study, financed with a
$240,000 grant from the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation, eventually will assess the
cost-effectiveness of the program.

If the program is shown to be worth the money,
Prows said, she hopes the study will be used to
change the way society approaches the problem
of smoking.

Health costs associated with smoking are
enormous. The Oregon Health Division estimates
that smoking was responsible for $267 million in
medical treatment in Oregon during 1993, the last
year for which figures are available. Death
certificate information shows that in 1995, 6,274
Oregonians died from smoking-related causes --
22.3 percent of all deaths in the state.

Counted in the overall cost is treatment for
children of smoking mothers. Women who smoke
during pregnancy are more likely than
nonsmokers to bear low birth-weight children.
Prows said smoking causes 20 percent of all low
birth-weight deliveries. Each low birth-weight
child generates $4,000 to $9,000 in added medical
expenses, she said.

In addition, she said, smoking is estimated to add
10 percent to the cost of pediatric care.

Here's how the study worked: 220 pregnant
women who agreed to participate were divided
into two groups. In one group, the women and
their partners received the vouchers, good for
merchandise -- except tobacco and alcohol -- at
Fred Meyer stores. They also received counseling
and anti-smoking literature.

The other group -- called the control group -- got
only counseling and literature.

Each month the women underwent saliva tests to
determine if they really were smoke-free.

A total of $50,000 for the vouchers came from
private sources, most of which have an interest in
cutting smoking, Prows said. Among the donors
were Regence BlueCross and BlueShield of
Oregon and HMO Oregon, Epitope Inc., Fred
Meyer Corp., Good Samaritan Hospital in
Corvallis, Albany General Hospital, and the
March of Dimes.

The real innovation in the approach, Prows said,
is that it avoids a punitive approach to quitting
smoking.

"We were interested in a positive approach and in
the social support," she said.

Other studies are planned to determine how
important it is to have a caring partner to lend
support. Prows suspects that social support might
be more important than the financial incentive.

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

Patient Wracked By Pain, But Defiant ('San Francisco Examiner'
Portrays Two Medical Marijuana Patients With Devastating Conditions,
Patrons Of Dennis Peron's San Francisco Cannabis Cultivators Club
Who Will Have To Buy Their Medicine On The Street
If California Attorney General Lungren Has His Way)

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 06:36:16 -0400 (AST)
Sender: Chris Donald 
From: Chris Donald 
To: mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com
Subject: US CA: MS Patient Wracked By Pain, But Defiant (fwd)
Source: San Francisco Examiner
Author: Ray Delgado, Of The Examiner Staff
Pubdate: March 3, 1998
Contact: letters@examiner.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/
Note: Our newshawk writes: This was a Page One story in yesterday's SFX. It
was continued inside, on a whole page with a number of pictures. Great Stuff.

WRACKED BY PAIN, BUT DEFIANT

Through a cloud of pungent marijuana smoke, 46-year-old Dixie Romagno
speaks of her hate for Attorney General Dan Lungren.

"Hate" is not too strong a word, she explains, because this is the man who
would throw her life into upheaval should he get his way and close down the
Cannabis Cultivators Club.

"I hate Dan Lungren, I really feel that way," said Romagno, in her 20th
year of chronic multiple sclerosis. "I want him to come and spend the day
with me to see what it's like."

Romagno is one of thousands of San Franciscans caught in the cross-fire of
a legal and political war pitting governor-hopeful Lungren and the U.S.
Department of Justice against the 7-year-old pot club founded by activist
Dennis Peron. The club has endured police raids, investigations into its
taxes and court proceedings at the criminal, civil and state levels, but it
continues to provide medicinal marijuana to more than 8,000 customers with
doctors' notes.

Even though voters approved a ballot initiative in 1996 that allowed the
use of marijuana for people who suffer from AIDS, cancer, arthritis and
other ailments, the cannabis club never has stood on shakier ground than it
does now. Although Lungren wants to shut down all cannabis clubs throughout
California, he has focused on San Francisco's operation, the largest and
most open in the state.

The latest setback came last week when a Superior Court judge granted a
loosely worded preliminary injunction against Peron. Another hearing for a
permanent injunction is scheduled for early next month.

Lungren heralded the injunction as a vindication of his position and
notified district attorneys around the state that the clubs within their
jurisdictions would have to close as well.

Stuck in the middle of it all are patrons such as Romagno who closely
monitor the club's setbacks while fearing the closure of a resource on
which they have come to depend.

A grandmother of two, Romagno never thought she'd end up fighting for the
right to get high on a daily basis. But she also didn't know that multiple
sclerosis would get such a grip on her life.

Routine activities such as shopping, cooking and even showering are
excruciatingly difficult for her because of extreme bone pain, spinal-cord
problems and raw nerves throughout her body.

Her disease has progressed consistently since it was diagnosed in 1978. But
Romagno manages to keep its symptoms in check with the one thing that works
where most other prescriptions have failed: marijuana.

"Sometimes you just need to be comfortably numb to function with all the
problems that I've got," said Romagno, detailing her daily habit of five
joints and various marijuana-laced baked goods delivered to her by club
volunteers. She rarely goes to the club these days because of the
difficulty she has getting there.

The modest, two-bedroom apartment she shares with her boyfriend in the West
Portal District is sparsely furnished, but it does display a fake marijuana
leaf necklace and other symbolic tokens.

Romagno shudders to think how she will obtain her "medicine" if the club is
forced to close its doors. If that happens, she says, she will do
everything she can to get her hands on it.

"I'd go homeless," Romagno said. "I'd buy pot before I pay my bills. The
disease makes me feel like I want to jump out of my skin 99 percent of the
time."

Mary Gennoy can understand those sentiments.

Born with multiple disabilities due to the radiation her pregnant mother
received for cancer treatment, the 46-year-old Gennoy has lived a lifetime
of operations, life-threatening illnesses and constant pain. Gennoy stands
4 feet 6 inches tall, weighs less than 65 pounds and is missing numerous
bones and joints from her body.

Most affected by the radiation treatments she was subjected to while in her
mother's womb were her arms and hands. Her thumbs are useless, her hands
are deformed and doctors even coined the phrase "radial club hands" to
describe Gennoy's lack of forearm bones. Gennoy suffers from constant
arthritis and bowel and colon problems and is allergic to almost every pain
medication she has taken, except marijuana.

But despite all the dire predictions and medical setbacks, a strong spirit
- - and a little bit of pot - have helped Gennoy lead as normal a life as
possible.

She lives with her three cats in an apartment near Duboce Park that is
heavily decorated with mystical paintings of wolves and black jaguars
surrounded by various stickers in support of medical marijuana. Most
symbolic, however, is the marijuana leaf necklace draped over a mask of the
Statue of Liberty, a reminder of the freedom to take care of herself how
she sees fit.

"If you were born like me, you'd have no choice," said Gennoy, explaining
her 25-year pot habit. "You'd just do it. There have been times when I've
almost died, and I really need this to help me out."

Gennoy said she would do just about anything to defend her right to smoke
the three or so joints she lights up every day, including distribute it
herself if she could find the means.

"I want to be like Robin Hood and steal from the rich and give to the poor
who need it," Gennoy said. "The existence of the clubs is absolutely
necessary because it helps so many people."

But with all the legal issues up in the air, no one really knows just how
long the club will exist.

Lungren was unavailable for comment, but he has had extensive
confrontations with the club, most notably with a raid he ordered in 1996
and the ensuing legal battles.

Lungren has made closing the few clubs scattered across the state a top
priority in his office, and critics say it is being done to bolster his
campaign for governor.

But the attorney general's office is not the only law enforcement agency to
challenge the legality of the clubs. The U.S. Department of Justice filed
suit in U.S. District Court in January to stop pot distribution by six
clubs in Northern California.

But the root of the legal troubles, in Gennoy's opinion, comes from
Lungren's efforts.

"I don't understand that man," Gennoy said. "He needs to go see the Wizard
because he needs a heart and some compassion."

(c) 1998 San Francisco Examiner

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

Government Attacking Supply Of Medicine For Seriously Ill
(Letter To Editor Of 'Sonoma Index-Tribune' By Dave Ford,
Author Of Book, 'Marijuana - Not Guilty As Charged,'
Protests Federal Government's Attempt To Shut Down Northern Californian
Medical Cannabis Dispensaries, Citing 5,000 Years Of Use As Medicine
Without One Overdose Death, Compared To 140,000 Deaths Annually In US
Caused By FDA-Approved Prescription Drugs)

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 22:11:18 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service 
From: Richard Lake 
Subject: MN: US CA: PUB LTE: Government Attacking Supply Of Medicine For Seriously Ill
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Dave Ford
Source: Sonoma Index-Tribune
Pubdate: Tuesday, 3 March 1998
Contact: bill@sonomanews.com
Website: http://www.sonomanews.com/

GOVERNMENT ATTACKING SUPPLY OF MEDICINE FOR SERIOUSLY ILL

Editor, Index-Tribune:

For the federal government to cause the closing of the California medical
cannabis outlets is shameful. It is attacking the supply of medicine for a
least 10,000 seriously-ill patients who rely on medical marijuana to
alleviate the suffering caused by cancer, AIDS, anorexia, muscle spasms,
chronic pain, and numerous other ailments.

On December 29th. 1997, I wrote to Attorney General Dan Lungren. I
mentioned that his "help is desperately needed and will certainly be
appreciated by the majority of voters who believe that the ill and dying
are permitted the legal use of a virtually non-toxic medicine. I'm certain
you will agree, I said, that it is not feasible to expect sick people, many
who are in wheelchairs, to have to break the law to obtain their medicine.
Many are not able to even leave their homes."

I made it clear that there must be a safe and legal distribution system. No
reply. (Perhaps he's too busy running for Governor.)

Many patients have no place to grow pot. Those who do are afraid of being
ripped-off. To go into back alley's the ill are subjected to receiving
poor grade, and possibly poison-sprayed marijuana.

Marijuana prohibition was created by ignorance, hypocrisy,
misrepresentation, greed, power, money, racism, perjury, and government
betrayal. The government has always been aware that marijuana was coveted
medicine used in China for more than 5,000 years.

In 5,000 years of history pot has never caused one toxicity related death.
Compare that figure with FDA approved drugs in the Physicians Desk
Reference (PDR), which cause the death of some 140,000 Americans each year
from toxicity, or adverse drug reactions. Alcohol and tobacco, together,
kill some 500,000 American's annually.

The government has charged that marijuana is the most violence-causing drug
in the history of mankind. It turns people into criminals, and many
marijuana users go insane.

It was those false charges that caused the prohibition of marijuana. My
book, "Marijuana: Not Guilty As Charged," was written to educate American's
that marijuana is not a dangerous drug. That it is safe medicine. Safer
than aspirin. Aspirin has caused the death of thousands from internal
bleeding.

David R. Ford

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

Drug Laws Are Hypocritical - Is The Editorial The Same? (Two Brief Letters
To The Editor Of 'The San Diego Union Tribune' Point Out
Different Inconsistencies In Its Earlier Staff Editorial)

Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 07:15:06 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service 
From: Richard Lake 
Subject: MN: US CA: PUB LTEs: Drug Laws Are Hypocritical: Is The Editorial
The Same?
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Lynn Carol
Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)
Pubdate: Tuesday, March 3, 1998
Contact: letters@uniontrib.com
Mail: Letters Editor, San Diego Union-Tribune,
P O Box 191 San Diego, CA
92112-4106
Fax: (619) 293-1440
Website: http://www.uniontrib.com/

DRUG LAWS ARE HYPOCRITICAL: IS THE EDITORIAL THE SAME?

Re: "The wrong message" (Editorial, Feb. 27):

Due to its content, the comic "Doonesbury" appears on your Opinion pages.
Perhaps your editorial, which scolded us ("We are all to blame for kids
smoking and drinking") for not practicing what we preach, should appear
with the comics. I can only expect your editorial to mean that the
Union-Tribune no longer will be accepting advertisements from alcohol or
tobacco producers. Sure.

Craig A. Nelson, Cardiff by-the-Sea

***

You're right -- kids can see through hypocrisy. That is the problem with
the arbitrary way we criminalize certain substances. Telling kids that
marijuana will ruin their lives rings hollow when they see people who've
smoked marijuana as gold-medal winners in the Olympics, successful athletes
and entertainers, president of the United States and Speaker of the House
of Representatives. We cannot avoid hypocrisy, because the drug laws in
place in this country are founded in hypocrisy and hysteria.

Greg Handevidt, San Diego

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

Copitalism - Police State Promoters And Profiteers (New Article
From 'The Entheogen Law Reporter' Now Online)

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 13:12:08 +0000
To: press@drugtext.nl, drctalk@drcnet.org, maptalk@mapinc.org,
From: Peter Webster 
Subject: COPITALISM

A new article from *The Entheogen Law Reporter* a specialist magazine
written by Richard Glen Boire is now available at the Schaffer Library:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/media/copitalism.htm

Copitalism: Police State Promoters & Profiteers

"From drug detection, undercover infiltration and electronic tracking, to
incarcerating those captured and convicted, private companies are cashing
in on the War on Some Drugs and profiting from the police state. This new
breed of "copitalist" is a powerful force with a strong self-interest in
keeping certain drugs illegal and their users vilified."

Peter Webster
email: vignes@monaco.mc

***

The drugtext press list.
News on substance use related issues, drugs and drug policy
webmaster@drugtext.nl

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

1998 Seattle Hempfest (Will Be Sunday, August 23, On The Waterfront -
Follow The URL To Web Site For Vendor, Volunteer And Other Information)

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 14:24:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Robert Lunday 
To: hemp-talk@hemp.net
Subject: HT: 1998 Seattle Hempfest
Sender: owner-hemp-talk@hemp.net

The 1998 Seattle Hempfest is scheduled for Sunday, August, 23, in Myrtle
Edwards Park on the Seattle waterfront.

Vendor and volunteer information/applications are now on our website.

http://www.seattlehempfest.com

Please help spread the word.

Thanks.

Jim

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

Sometimes An Apology Isn't Enough ('San Francisco Chronicle' Account
Of Federal Official's Misconduct Towards Oakland Archaeologist Allen Pastron,
Whose Business Has Dropped By Half Since A Raid Three Years Ago -
Pastron Has Explored His Legal Remedies, And They Add Up To Zero -
Apparently, Federal Agents Enjoy Layers Of Protection From Prosecution
In Such Matters)

Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 20:54:51 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service 
From: Richard Lake 
Subject: MN: US CA: Column: Sometimes An Apology Isn't Enough
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Frank S World, on the road in CA
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Contact: chronletters@sfgate.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/
Pubdate: Tuesday, March 3, 1998
Columnist: CHIP JOHNSON
Note: Chip Johnson's email address is: johnsonc@sfgate.com

SOMETIMES AN APOLOGY ISN'T ENOUGH

Oakland Archaeologist Still Reeling From Raid

Finally, after a three-year wait, Oakland archaeologist Allen Pastron has
received the apology the U.S. Department of Justice owed him.

Pastron, 51, is one of at least three men who were investigated by the
Bureau of Land Management after they came under suspicion of stealing
Native American artifacts from federal lands.

Now it appears that the only crime the men committed was knowing Patrick
Hallinan, a San Francisco defense attorney who was tried and acquitted of
helping a client smuggle marijuana and conceal profits from illegal drug
sales.

``That was part of the government's attempt to get me, and it ended up
lousing up the lives of a lot of good people,'' Hallinan said yesterday.

Pastron, Steve Allely of Sisters, Ore., and Carl ``Billy'' Clelow, a
Southern California resident, were investigated after federal agents found
a letter from Allely during a 1993 raid of Hallinan's house. Allely
included a photocopy of some arrowheads he found after a Nevada camping
trip with Hallinan.

``I suppose (the copy) would be evidence if the wrong BLM `archaeo-cop' saw
it, so you'll have to douse it with some of that good salad dressing you
had out at our desert camp and eat it,'' Allely wrote.

Investigators made a few inquiries that led them to Pastron. They proceeded
to raid his business office on Broadway in Oakland in April 1994. He wasn't
happy then, and he isn't any happier after receiving the Justice
Department's apology.

``As you will recall, you alleged that the affidavit used in connection
with the search lacked probable cause,'' said the letter by Justice
Department attorney Michael Shaheen. ``Our investigation substantiated that
allegation.

``In addition, we found that the prosecutor who approved the search
committed misconduct by doing so. . . . We apologize for any negative
consequences suffered as a result of this misconduct,'' Shaheen wrote.

You want negative consequences? Pastron has a few examples.

``To this day, my neighbors near my office think I'm a drug dealer,'' he
said.

``When you tell your neighbors it was about arrowheads, what do you think
they believe?''

His business has suffered, dropping by about half in the three years since
the raid.

Pastron has explored his legal remedies, and they add up to zero.
Apparently, federal agents enjoy layers of protection from prosecution in
such matters.

Justice Department officials in Washington, D.C., refused to comment beyond
the letter.

The entire episode has served to sour Pastron on the concept of freedom,
justice -- aw, heck, the whole American way.

``I don't even watch the news anymore -- I only read the sports page,''
Pastron said. ``And except for Ron Dellums, whenever I hear a politician
talking, it sounds like a bunch of dogs barking.''

[snip - rest of column on another topic]

(c)1998 San Francisco Chronicle

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

Helping The DC Campaign (Brief From American Medical Marijuana Organization
Gives Contact Information For Contributions To ACT UP Ballot Initiative Drive
In Washington, DC, Including New URL For Campaign)

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:26:05 EST
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: AMMO (ammo@levellers.org)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: Helping the D.C. Campaign

Send contributions to help support the medical marijuana initiative
campaign in D.C. to:

ACT UP
409 H Street, NE Suite 1
Washington, D.C. 20002-4335
Phone: (202) 547-9404
Email: voteyes57@aol.com
Web: http://www.actupdc.org

***

AMERICAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA ORGANIZATION (AMMO)
Defending The Rights Of Medical Marijuana Patients
Board of Directors:
--Steve Kubby (kubby@alpworld.com),
--Ed Rosenthal (asked@well.com)
--Laura Kriho (cohip@levellers.org)

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

Kennedy Proposes Crime Program ('Associated Press'
Says Democratic US Senator Edward Kennedy Introduced Bill On Monday
To Spend $7.25 Billion Over Five Years On After-School Programs
To Keep Youths Occupied Between 3 PM And 8 PM - Would Direct That Half
The $500 Million Already Approved By Congress For Juvenile Justice
Law Enforcement Could Be Used For Prevention Activities - 1994 Crime Law
Authorized $6.9 Billion For Crime Prevention, But Only $688 Million
Has Been Spent - Kennedy And Fellow Massachusetts Senator John Kerry,
A Co-Sponsor, Hope Congress Takes Cue From Boston, Where Similar Program
Helped City Go 29 Months Without A Juvenile Murder)

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 15:05:59 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service 
From: Richard Lake 
Subject: MN: US: Wire: Kennedy Proposes Crime Program
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Kevin Zeese 
Source: Associated Press
Pubdate: Tue, 03 Mar 1998

KENNEDY PROPOSES CRIME PROGRAM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Edward Kennedy is trying to revive efforts to
channel federal money into crime prevention for youths, four years after
``midnight basketball'' became a buzzword for Republican critics of such
prevention efforts.

Kennedy's legislation, introduced Monday, would spend $7.25 billion over
five years on after-school programs. The aim is to keep youths occupied --
and away from trouble -- between the crucial hours of 3 p.m. and 8 p.m.

``It's not `Leave It To Beaver' anymore, June is not in the kitchen,'' said
Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., who is sponsoring a companion measure in the
House. ``Children need some help.''

One component of the ``American After-School Act'' would provide $1.25
billion over five years in matching grants to local public and private
agencies for after-school prevention programs in high-crime neighborhoods
and areas with high numbers of youths considered at risk for committing
crimes.

To fund the grants this year, Kennedy's bill would direct that half of $500
million already approved by Congress for juvenile justice law enforcement
could be used for prevention activities.

Kennedy said that proposal has met with resistance from Republicans on the
Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

``There will be a battle on the floor of the U.S. Senate,'' he said.

Jeanne Lopatto, spokeswoman for the committee, said juvenile justice
legislation now pending in committee already includes $1 billion over five
years that state and local governments could use for prevention.

``It can be used for anything,'' Lopatto said. ``We feel that's the best
way to go.''

Kennedy, who estimated that 5 million children -- some as young as 8 or 9
-- spend some time alone after school, favors linking federal funds more
directly to crime prevention efforts.

Crime prevention programs are a Democratic priority often denigrated by
Republicans, who undermined them after taking over Congress in 1995. Most
prevention programs have been eliminated in favor of providing block grants
with few strings attached to local communities.

Although the 1994 crime law, which spawned debate over the effectiveness of
midnight basketball leagues and other efforts targeting at-risk youths,
authorized $6.9 billion for crime prevention, only $688 million has been
spent.

Kennedy's bill would also provide $5 billion over five years to expand
state block grants to increase the availability and affordability of
before- and after-school care for school-age children, and for weekend and
summer activities. Kennedy has suggested funding this through a tobacco tax
or by reducing corporate tax breaks.

Another $1 billion over five years would go toward helping public schools
expand before- and after-school programs, such as by improving access to
their libraries, gymnasiums and computer laboratories. This program is
included in President Clinton's balanced budget proposal for 1999.

Kennedy and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a co-sponsor, hope Congress takes a
cue from Boston, where the city police department has developed a
nationally renowned program for preventing juvenile crime.

The city went 29 months without a juvenile murder before Dec. 11, 1997,
when 16-year-old Eric Paulding was shot to death in the city's Dorchester
section.

Copyright 1998 Associated Press.

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

Federal Workers Lose Bid To Halt Drug Testing ('Los Angeles Times'
Says US Supreme Court On Monday Rejected An Appeal From Workers With Access
To The White House Complex, Who Must Continue Mandatory Urine Tests
Based On A 'Theory' That Such Use Could Threaten The Safety
Of The President And Vice President)

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:30:36 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Olafur Brentmar (peace@mind.net)
Subject: MN: US: Federal Workers Lose Bid to Halt Drug Testing
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Pubdate: March 3, 1998
Fax: 213-237-4712
Author:David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer

FEDERAL WORKERS LOSE BID TO HALT DRUG TESTING

Government: U.S. Supreme Court rejects appeal of bureaucrats with access to
the White House complex. The safety of president, vice president is cited.

WASHINGTON--The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the government to continue
drug tests on federal white-collar employees whose occasional access to the
White House complex could in theory pose a security risk to the president.

Economists, budget analysts and other white-collar bureaucrats with passes
to the Old Executive Office Building "are uniquely well positioned to
threaten the president and the vice president," Clinton administration
lawyers had asserted in asking the court to uphold a lower-court ruling.

"Mind-altering drugs could induce a pass-holder to take actions that would
jeopardize the safety of those officials," the lawyers said.

The court, without comment, refused to hear a plea from two budget analysts
who contended that the rationale behind the drug tests was far-fetched.
"Suspicionless drug testing must be based upon real, not imaginary or
symbolic, dangers," they argued.

The case illustrates how uncertain the law on drug testing remains. The
high court has insisted that the 4th Amendment protects the privacy of
public employees from "unreasonable searches," including mandatory drug
tests. But when there is a true threat to public safety, such as in the
case of airline pilots or train engineers, the court has said that the
government can require workers to undergo drug tests.

Despite that invocation, the justices also have refused to block
drug-testing programs that go much further and include, for example,
teachers, student athletes and now some white-collar federal workers.

The case rejected Monday had its moments of unintended humor. White House
interns are not forced to take drug tests, Clinton administration lawyers
conceded, even though they sometimes can move freely in the West Wing of
the White House, where the president's office is located.

The budget analysts who challenged the drug tests, Arthur Stigile and Ellen
Balis, are not confidants of the president. They do not brief him on the
budget or even visit the main White House. They work one block away in the
New Executive Office Building. Their security passes also allow them to
enter the ornate Old Executive Office Building next door to the White
House. The mandatory drug-testing program began under President Reagan in
1986. He adopted the goal of having a drug-free federal workplace and
allowed federal agencies to test employees in "sensitive" posts. At the
White House, this included officials who worked with the president or who
had a top-level security clearance.

In 1995, the Clinton White House expanded that program to include the
budget analysts and other white-collar workers. Lawyers said that 7,000
full-time workers are covered by the order. A federal judge initially
blocked the broader testing as unwarranted and unconstitutional, but the
U.S. appeals court revived it last year. The appeals court opinion, written
by Judge David Sentelle, agreed that bureaucrats working a block away pose
a greater danger to the president than the White House interns.

These "permanent pass-holders are in a superior position to acquire
information on the comings and goings of the president and vice president,"
said Sentelle, the conservative North Carolinian who heads the panel that
appointed Kenneth W. Starr as an independent counsel. "They are therefore
far more valuable sources for blackmailers who wish to harm either
official," Sentelle said.

Without comment Monday, the justices dismissed the appeal in the case
(Stigile vs. Clinton, 97- 837).

Arthur Spitzer, an ACLU lawyer who represented the two budget analysts,
said he was disappointed by the court's action but doubts that it has broad
significance.

"Maybe they think the White House already has enough trouble without trying
to explain this," he said.

Copyright Los Angeles Times

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

Court Clears Drug Tests To Protect Presidency ('Reuters' Version
In 'Boston Globe')

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 21:52:14 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service 
From: Richard Lake 
Subject: MN: Court Clears Drug Tests To Protect Presidency
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: "Dick Evans" 
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Globe's Source: Reuters
Contact: letters@globe.com
Website: http://www.boston.com/
Pubdate: Tue, 3 Mar 1998

COURT CLEARS DRUG TESTS TO PROTECT PRESIDENCY

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court allowed random drug testing yesterday of
certain federal employees, to protect the safety of the president and vice
president.

The court refused to hear a challenge to a ruling by the US Court of
Appeals in Washington that permitted testing of some employees who work at
the White House Office of Management and Budget.

In 1986, President Reagan issued an executive order requiring the head of
each executive agency to establish a program for drug testing of employees
in ''sensitive positions.'' The White House staff then developed a plan
authorizing mandatory testing of all job applicants and random testing of
all employees in sensitive positions.

The OMB is an agency covered by the plan, and in 1992 it indicated which of
its employees would be subject to random testing. Many of the OMB's senior
staff have offices in the Old Executive Office Building, next to the White
House.

The suit was brought by Arthur Stigile and Ellen Balis, economists with the
OMB. While their offices are in the New Executive Office Building, they
have passholder access to the Old Executive Office Building. They argued
that the random testing was an unreasonable search in violation of the
Fourth Amendment. They said that hundreds of interns and visitors had
access to the Old Executive Office Building who were not required to go
through the ''humiliating'' experience.

The government responded that the search was justified as a means of
protecting the safety of the president and vice president.

The district court agreed with the employees, but its ruling was overturned
by the appeals court. It held that the government's interest in protecting
the White House outweighed the employees' interests.

(c) Copyright 1998 Globe Newspaper Company.

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

Drug Policy Foundation Grant Program Guidelines (Who DPF Funds,
Who It Doesn't Fund, And How To Apply For A Grant)

From: lbeniquez@mail.sorosny.org
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 98 09:50:23 EST
Subject: DPF grant guidelines
Sender: owner-tlc-cannabis@soros.org

THE DRUG POLICY FOUNDATION
4455 Connecticut Ave., NW
Suite B-500
Washington, DC 20008-2302 USA
Tel: (202) 537-5005 * Fax: (202) 537-3007

"Working toward reasoned and compassionate drug policies"

***

Grant Program Guidelines
Revised January 1998
Drug Policy Foundation, Washington, DC

The Drug Policy Foundation

The Drug Policy Foundation (DPF) is an independent, non-profit
organization, founded in 1986, with over 19,000 members that explores and
advances more reasoned and compassionate drug policies.

DPF Grant Program Time Line

Jan. 1-Feb. 15: Concept papers received and reviewed

April 1: Deadline for Spring grant cycle

June: Notification of Spring grant cycle awards

July: Funding of Spring cycle grants

July 1- Aug. 15: Concept papers received and reviewed

October 1: Deadline for Fall grant cycle

December: Notification of Fall grant cycle awards

January: Funding of Fall cycle grants

Should you require additional information, please contact:
Ruth V. Lampi, Grant Program Director
The Drug Policy Foundation
4455 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite B-500, Washington, D.C. 20008
phone: 202-537-5005, fax: 202-537-3007, E-mail: grants@dpf.org

Table of Contents

Grant Program Strategy
Guiding Principles
Goals
Project Funding
Direct Service Programs
Advocacy Efforts
Drug Policy Education
General Support Grants
Technical Assistance Funding
What DPF Does Not Fund
Grant Size
Geographic Area
Criteria for Evaluation
Requirements for All Grantees
Concept Papers/Letters of Intent
Proposal Submission
Proposal Guidelines
How to Write a Program Plan
Grant Administration Guidelines for Non-501(c)(3) Organizations
The Legality of Needle Exchange and DPF Grants
Proposal Summary Sheet
Project Budget Form

Strategy, Principles, and Goals

Grant Program Strategy

To create reasoned, compassionate and effective alternatives to drug
policies that are currently rooted in fear and punishment, we support
strategies that include:

* Advocating specific drug policy issues;

* Educating the public on the harm caused by current approaches combined
with a cogent outline of viable alternatives;

* Developing model programs programs that by their example will advance
the cause of drug policy reform and facilitate the identification and
replication of successful programs; and

* Building the capabilities of drug policy reform organizations through the
provision of technical assisstance.

Guiding Principles

* DPF is interested in supporting the formation of collaboratives,
alliances, coalitions and expanded efforts of existing groups. It is only
in the rarest occasion that DPF will support building the infrastructure of
a new group.

* DPF places a higher priority on projects that are designed to create
systematic change over those that provide direct assistance.

* DPF is interested in supporting work which is not likely to be initially
supported by mainstream funders.

* DPF prefers to provide seed grants to initiate an idea which, once
demonstrated, can continue without DPF funding. DPF is not interested in
being the sole source of financial support for an ongoing project.

* All grantees seeking funds must be capable of accounting for funded
activities consistent with 501(c)(3) requirements.
* DPF welcomes matching grants.

Goals

We support programs and organizations that further the achievement of DPF
goals. The goals of the Drug Policy Foundation s grant program are:

* To redirect state priorities from prison construction and incarceration
of nonviolent drug offenders toward cost-effective and humane alternatives
in order to encourage a transition from a punitive approach to a harm
reduction approach to drug problems. Of special interest is alternatives
for women with dependent children.

* To eliminate or reduce mandatory minimum sentencing for drug-related
offenses at both the state and federal level.

* To eliminate the criminal prohibition on drug use.

* To expand the availability of methadone treatment options, to increase
the range of acceptable methadone providers, and to transition the federal
government from a regulatory to a licensing approach to methadone.

* To expand the range of street-based harm reduction initiatives with
poly-substance users by forging demonstrable links to mainstream health
care, treatment and employment training sources.

* To develop international harm reduction alliances involving multiple
countries in places like Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe.

* To develop research-based motivational and truthful prevention curricula
aimed at young people that offer a viable alternative to DARE and other
abstinence-based approaches.

* To forge public policies in collaboration with public health, chronic
care, long-term care providers and pain patients that allow physicians to
prescribe medically-appropriate pain medication to suffering patients; to
develop state public policies that serve as alternatives to invasive
triplicate systems and other policies restricting appropriate medical
practice.

* To institute state policies that support medical marijuana.

* To start new needle exchange efforts in unserved states or cities; to
advocate for needle exchange programs in states currently prohibiting such
programs.

* To create policies which support the use of impairment-based drug
testing.

* To reduce the excesses of civil asset forfeiture.

Types of Funding

DPF mostly provides support for projects, including limited direct
service, advocacy efforts, and drug policy education. On occasion, DPF
makes general support grants. General support grants are only available to
501(c)(3) organizations. In addition, DPF will provide a small amount of
technical assistance funding.

DPF prefers to fund 501(c)(3) organizations, although this is not
essential. Projects without an independent legal status are encouraged to
become a project of an existing 501(c)(3) organization. All applicants
seeking funds must be capable of providing precise and accurate accounting
of grant expenditures. Those without a grant management track record should
seek a local 501(c)(3) agency which can function as a fiscal agent.

Project Funding:

Direct Service Programs

The only context in which DPF funds direct service is for harm reduction.
DPF s purpose in funding direct service harm reduction programs is
strategic: to support programs that can create a ripple effect programs
that by their example will advance the cause of harm reduction and
facilitate the expansion of such programs. In this vein, funds will be
awarded to organizations seeking to work with drug abusers to improve their
welfare; alleviate their physical, or mental health problems by linking
them to appropriate services; encourage non-coercive alternatives to
incarceration; or reduce the harm of substance abuse using other creative
strategies in ways which reflect the foundation s goals.

* Applicants should stress how their programs will attract new harm
reduction supporters and create a more hospitable climate for similar
efforts in the future.

* Grants should be significant enough to enable an organization to launch a
new program (including planning), expand a successful program or help
evaluate an existing program.

* Ideally, the organization would also receive grants from other public or
private sources.

* Organizations applying should include an evaluation component with their
proposal in order to determine the effectiveness of initiatives. Applicants
should address how lessons learned will be tracked and compiled to allow
others to learn from the experience, and how the information will be made
available to others and/or distributed to encourage program replication.

* Organizations submitting applications for needle exchange program funding
must include information on the legality of such activities in their state
and locality, including information about court decisions, pending legal
cases, the position of local law enforcement officials on needle exchange
programs and state law. DPF does not fund illegal needle exchange programs.

Advocacy Efforts

To advance drug policy reform, DPF will assist new or existing
organizations looking to broaden the policy debate and amplify the voices
of those advocating reform. Applicants seeking funds to do advocacy work
must be capable of accounting for these activities consistent with
501(c)(3) requirements (if you need information regarding lobbying
limitations for 501(c)(3) organizations, contact an attorney or DPF).
Priority will be given to:

* Proposals tied to specific reform activities;

* Applicants who show how they will reach communities currently
under-represented in the reform movement;

* Issue areas including state legislative reforms in methadone treatment,
medical marijuana, syringe deregulation, needle exchange, pain control,
prison construction/mandatory minimums, elimination or modification of
criminal sanctions for drug use, civil asset forfeiture and drug testing;
and

* Programs where the direction and impact for such reforms comes from the
targeted community.

Drug Policy Education

Funds will be awarded to assist organizations in educating the public,
professionals, community groups and other important individuals and
organizations where work has an impact on drug policy reform issues.
Priority will be given to education efforts targeted to strategically
valuable groups who have not previously been involved in the drug policy
debate. Proposals should specify:

* Groups or organizations to be targeted;

* The kind of education to be done;

* Issues on which the education will focus; and

* The goal of such educational activities (related to the foundation s
priorities).

General Support Grants

General support grants are only available to 501(c)(3) organizations.

Organizations applying for a general support grant must demonstrate that
the work of the organization:

* Falls within DPF s funding priorities; and

* Is the type that DPF is interested in supporting.

Technical Assistance Funding

DPF is interested in building the capacity of drug policy reform
organizations. To that end, DPF will supply a small amount of technical
assistance support on a case-by-case basis. DPF grantees can apply for
funds to:

* Receive training in organizational development topics (such as board
development, financial management, coalition-building);

* Attend a DPF conference; and/or

* Receive other appropriate technical assistance.

If applying for project or general support funding, applicants should
incorporate these funding requests into their total grant request although
the rationale for technical assistance funding should be included as a
separate part of the proposal.

Other resources to respond to the needs of grantees will be developed such
as training seminars, publications of common interest, etc. Please advise
the DPF Grant Program of any technical assistance offerings that would
address your needs. Time and funds for these activities are greatly limited
at the moment.

Proposals that do not readily fall into any of the categories above should
not be submitted without first submitting a letter of intent or a concept
paper (discussed below).

What DPF Does Not Fund

* DPF does not fund documentary film projects.

* DPF does not fund research unless it is a component of a larger relevant
project. Research must be tied into a program advocacy or educational
and have a clear dissemination plan.

* DPF does not generally provide funding to individuals. In particular,
journalistic and academic projects are not generally supported.

Application Process

DPF provides grants in two cycles per year. DPF s current grants total
$1.36 million per year. All grant recommendations are determined by a
diverse committee of seven and are approved and finalized by the Executive
Committee of the DPF Board of Directors. All grant related communications
should be directed to the DPF grant director. Contacts with other members
of the DPF staff, members of the Grant Review Committee, and/or members of
the DPF Board of Directors regarding a grant application are strictly
prohibited. Discussions with any of these individuals regarding proposals
may cause a rejection of a grant application.

Grant Size

While there are no formal limits on award levels, past grants have rarely
exceeded $25,000. Indirect costs, to a maximum of 10% of salaries, may be
included when the sponsoring institution is providing tangible support to
the project.

Geographic Area

DPF provides funding to local, state, regional, national, and
international organizations.

Criteria for Evaluation

DPF will look at the:

* Strength and need of the proposed project or organization s work;

* capabilities of the proposing organization to carry out the work it set
forth;

* Impact of the project on drug policy reform;

* Capability of the proposing organization to provide adequate reports and
financial accounting of the grant;

* Future plans to sustain the program through other funding sources;

* Diversity of grantees in terms of funding type, project type, and
geographic area; and

* Degree to which the project addresses one or more of DPF s goals.

Requirements of All Grantees

All recipients of DPF funds must:

* Establish a separate financial account on their books for the grant
funds;

* Submit regular reports; and

* Maintain records for all expenditures, as well as copies of all reports
submitted to the foundation, for at least four years after the completion
of the grant.

All grantees must submit an interim report after every 6 month interval
and a final report after the completion of the grant. Reports must include
a description of all activities undertaken as part of the grant and a
financial report listing details of all expenditures (as compared to the
approved budget). All reports must be in English and account for funds in
U.S. dollars. Grant funds will be issued on a quarterly basis. Funds will
be withheld until required reports are submitted and repayment of grant
funds will be required if they are not used for the purposes specified in
the grant.

Concept Papers/Letters of Intent
DPF will accept and review concept papers or letters of intent (a 2 page
maximum plus a one page budget, if available) from Jan. 1 to Feb. 15 and
July 1 to August 15 (twelve to six weeks prior to both grant deadlines). If
at all possible, please E-mail concept papers to . Concept
papers may also be mailed. DPF will provide brief feedback as to whether
the grant idea falls within its guidelines and is worth developing into a
full proposal for consideration by the deadline.

Approval of a concept paper in no way implies approval of a grant.
Submission of a concept paper or letter of intent is not required. Proposal
concepts or ideas for grants will not be accepted by telephone.

Proposal Submission

All proposals are reviewed biannually. The two deadlines are April 1 and
October 1. Proposals must be postmarked by April 1 to be reviewed in the
Spring Round. Proposals must be postmarked by October 1 to be reviewed in
the Fall Round. All proposals and correspondence should be addressed to DPF
s office in Washington, D.C.

Nine (9) copies of the full proposal are required. One faxed proposal is
acceptable but additional paper copies are required. At least one of the
full proposal copies should be submitted in a format that is easily
reproduced (no bindings). If feasible, please send an E-mail copy of your
proposal to (grants@dpf.org) (Word Perfect for Windows format preferred).
An E-mailed proposal is not a substitute for any of the 9 printed copies.
Obviously, certain attachments will not be possible to E-mail.

Proposals must be typed in no smaller than 10 point font with no less than
a 1" margin. Proposals must be in English.

Proposal Guidelines

Proposals, No More Than 10 Pages in Length, should include:

1. Proposal Summary (Maximum 1 page)

Use the Proposal Summary Sheet format, found in the Appendix, to create a
one page summary sheet. You are encouraged to follow this format to create
your own form. Do not use a cover letter as the proposal summary. No
application will be considered without this one-page summary, which should
be placed at the beginning of the application. Summaries exceeding one page
will not be accepted.

2. Narrative (Maximum 6 pages)

A. Provide an Introduction and Background of the Organization

1. Briefly describe the history and major accomplishments of the
organization.

2. Describe your current programs and activities.

3. Describe your constituents; How are they involved? How do they benefit?

4. Describe your relationship with other similar organizations in your
area.

B. Describe Your Request

1. If seeking general support, state how this grant will be used. Include
organizational goals and planned activities.

2. If seeking project support, please address the following:

a. A problem statement: why it is needed?

b. What are the project goals? (List what you plan to accomplish and the
change you want to create. What are your outcome goals?) How will your work
address and change the underlying or root cause of the problem? (See the
appendix for program planning guidance.)

c. What are your planned activities? (What will you do?) List dates by
which activities will be completed. Use a time line or time-phased
description.

d. List other organizations, if any, involved in the project and their
roles.

C. Future Funding

1. Describe your plans for garnering support after the DPF grant.

D. Describe your plans for project evaluation and dissemination

1. What questions will be addressed? Who will be involved in evaluating
this work?

How will the evaluation be used and shared?

3. Key Operating Personnel (1 page)

List the name, titles, qualifications, and brief background of the chief
personnel of the organization and the proposed project.

4. Project Budget (2 pages)

Include a schedule of expenditures and income. Adhere to the budget
outline found in the Appendix. Include a brief narrative description of
each budget item on a separate sheet.

5. Attachments (required):

A. An organizational budget, including expenses and income and a list of
other pending grant applications. Note: If the organization and project
budgets are the same, state that fact.

B. Most recent completed full-year financial reports of organization
(Expenses, Revenue and Balance Sheet).

C. Your IRS determination letter (if the applicant is a 501(c)(3)
organization) or your fiscal agent s IRS letter. If using a fiscal agent,
please include a Letter of Authorization. NOTE: Past grantees must include
a copy of the relevant IRS determination letter as well.

D. A statement from a principle officer that the IRS determination letter
is still in effect.

E. Three references regarding the organization s work including name,
affiliation and phone (preferably from other area organizations).

F. List of your Board of Directors, their affiliations and phone numbers.

G. If for a Needle Exchange Program, relevant laws and information
clarifying its legality.

Supplementary materials (such as news clippings) should be kept to a
minimum and only be submitted if they directly relate to the proposed
project and/or the organization s capability.

How to Write a Program Plan

Step 1

The first step in developing a plan is to identify the problem(s) or the
unacceptable condition(s) you are trying to change. Describe this
unacceptable condition in measurable ways. How severe is the problem? How
many are affected? How does your area compare with the problem in
surrounding areas? When possible, use statistics to support your claims.
Make sure the problem(s) you identify reflect the root causes, not the
symptoms. Problems are often like icebergs. The part you see on the surface
is small compared to what lies underneath. One way to get to the root cause
is to repeatedly ask yourself why?

Step 2

The second step is to develop goals for your project to address those
problems. A goal is a statement of the new condition that you are trying to
create. Goals should:

* Relate to the problem (if you achieve your goal, will the problem be
solved?);

* Define the measurement of the new condition (how will you know it when
you see it?);

* Define the number to be affected by the change (how many will be affected
by the new condition?);

* Specify an acceptable level of program performance (how much do you need
to fix for it to be called a success ?); and

* Specify a time frame for the change (how long will it take your group to
create the new condition?).

Program goals need to be outcome goals. They should state the CHANGE you
are striving to create, not the PROCESS you will use to get there.
Publications, programs, classes, activities of all kinds are tools you use
to build toward a new condition. Your goals are the end-product you create
by using those tools. One way to test whether you are writing an outcome or
a process goal is to ask so what? Did it change anything?

For example, writing and distributing a pamphlet is not an outcome goal or
objective it is a process. How do you know anyone read the pamphlet? Even
if some people read it, were they the right [target] people? How do you
know it was understood or was information that the reader needed? Making
sure your pamphlet was produced or read is not your end goal changing the
behavior of specific readers is. You are assuming that if they read your
pamphlet, they will gain information which will lead them to change their
behavior. How will you know whether you are accomplishing the change you
seek if all you ever measure is whether or not you did the activity? The
goal might be solid but the activity might not be an effective way to get
there. You need to make sure your focus is on the change you are trying to
create, not the process you assume will create the change.

Example:

By the end of one year, Project X will increase by 20% the amount of drug
recovery slots available to women with children through the education of
substance abuse providers and policy makers about gaps in services and the
need for increased services in City Z.

Step 3

The next step is to develop specific objectives for accomplishing your
goals. Objectives are like stepping stones or check points, to lead you
toward your larger goal. One goal will likely have several objectives. If
all the objectives have been accomplished, you should have accomplished
your goal. Like goals, objectives should:

* Be measurable,
* Be quantified (state how many),
* List an acceptable level of performance,
* Establish a time frame, and
* Relate to the goal(s).

Goals and objectives can help you tell whether you are on track or not.
They can help you identify when you need to revamp your activities because
they are not getting you where you planned to go. In order to know whether
your results are good enough, you need to have set a specific target for
yourself.

Your objectives need to fit into the time frame of your goal. It is
helpful if they are spread out over the span of the goal s time frame, so
that you can check your program s progress. Many programs find it useful to
develop monthly or quarterly objectives.

Step 4

The fourth step is to develop activities which will accomplish your
objectives and goals. These are the small, specific things you DO the
PROCESS which you believe will lead you to the OUTCOME you seek.

Step 5

After completing steps 1-4, you can determine a budget. Now that you know
what activities you are going to undertake, you can assess how much staff
time and materials you need to carry out the program.

Step 6

The final step is evaluation. Evaluations occur on many levels, process
and outcome. Process evaluation determines the quality with which you did
what you planned to do. Outcome evaluation examines whether the activities
you conducted accomplished the change you were seeking in your goals and
objectives. Since you made your goals and objectives measurable, quantified
them and listed an acceptable level of performance, evaluation should be
easy if you plan for it.

Make sure you determine your evaluation method and incorporate it into
your plans before beginning the project. Otherwise you could miss valuable,
and unretrievable, data. Obviously, some outcome evaluation is long-term.
However, it must be planned.

In fact, don t wait until the end of your project to evaluate. Evaluate
early and often. Did your activities accomplish your first quarter
objectives? If not, you want to find out why. There may be some small
adjustment you can make which will greatly increase the effectiveness of
the entire project. If you are conducting outreach in the wrong location,
if your materials are not understandable, if you missed some cultural clue
or if you did not address the needs of a significant segment of your target
population, you need to know. The sooner you know, the better. If you have
taken a wrong turn, you want to know. This is not information to be afraid
of, but rather to be embraced.

Grant Administration Guidelines for Non-501(C)(3) Organizations

The Drug Policy Foundation (DPF) does make grants to organizations that
are not tax-exempt, not-for-profit organizations under section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code. However, these organizations are required to
adhere to the following administrative and programmatic grant restrictions:

1. You Must Follow 501(c)(3) Rules.

As is indicated in all DPF grant agreements, there are numerous
restrictions that DPF grantees must follow whether or not they are
501(c)(3) organizations. Restrictions include:

* Funds may not be used for lobbying (except where explicitly permitted by
DPF);

* Funds may not be used for illegal activities;

* Funds may not be used in any political campaign; and

* Funds must be used for charitable, scientific, literary, educational or
religious purposes allowable under section 501(c)(3).

2. You Must Carry Out a Specific Project With the Grant.

DPF cannot make general support grants to non-501(c)(3) organizations.
Grants to non-501(c)(3) organizations must be for a specific charitable
project and must be accompanied by a budget. Budgets cannot contain
unspecified expenditures. If your project involves a lobbying component, a
separate project grant must be made for this purpose.

3. You Must Maintain the Grant Funds in a Separate Fund Dedicated to
Charitable Purposes.

You may not co-mingle funds for charitable and non-charitable purposes. A
separate fund must be established for the grant funds dedicated to one or
more charitable purposes. The grant funds must be continuously maintained
in this separate fund. You must keep records of all receipts and
expenditures for at least four years after completion of the use of the
grant funds. The grantee must make its books and records available to the
grantor at reasonable times.

4. You Must Submit Detailed Reports on the Funded Project.

Each DPF grantee must submit detailed reports both narrative and financial
that document the activities carried out under the grant and project
expenditures (including copies of receipts). These reports are filed at six
month intervals and a final report when the grant is complete. DPF will not
make subsequent grants or any further installment on the current grant to
any organization which fails to submit these reports.

5. No Violation of these Guidelines Will Be Tolerated.

DPF must closely monitor grants it awards to non-501(c)(3)s. The
activities and expenditures of these grantees reflects on DPF s own
501(c)(3) status. Consequently, DPF is strict in its application and
enforcement of these guidelines. Grantees that fail to comply will not be
considered for future DPF grants and could forfeit the outstanding balance
of an existing grant.

If you have any questions concerning DPF s grant making to non-501(c)(3)
organizations, please contact the Grant Program at 202-537-5005.

The Legality of Needle Exchange Programs and DPF Funding

Supporting the efforts of needle exchange programs (NEPs) is among the
highest priorities of DPF s Grant Program. However, in order to fund these
programs DPF must establish the legality of NEPs in an applicant s state.

Among the relevant considerations are the following:

* Does state law (statute or regulation) prohibit or authorize the
operation of NEPs?

* Have any court decisions been rendered which prohibit or authorize NEPs?

* Are there any pending court cases that address the legality of NEPs?

* Where the legality of NEPs has not been formally established, have
important public officials such as the Governor, State Attorney General,
District Attorney or local Police Chief made any public comments concerning
their support or opposition to NEPs?

* Does any locality or state agency provide funding for NEPs?

Grant applicants requesting funding for NEP services should assist DPF in
the legal review by submitting any citations, court decisions, news
articles, state statutes, state regulations or other materials that
document the legality of NEPs in their state. Applicants should also
provide to DPF a summary of pertinent conversations with leading public
officials.

Should it become clear that NEP services are not legal in an applicant s
state or locality, DPF is prohibited by federal tax law from funding those
services.

If you would like to apply for NEP funding from DPF but are unsure of the
legality of needle exchange in your state or locality, please contact DPF
at 202-537-5005 before proceeding with a grant application.

Proposal Summary Sheet

Organization Name:
Date of Application:
Tax-exempt Status:
Year Founded:
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Telephone:
Fax:
E-mail/Website:
Director:
Contact Person & Title:
Grant Request: $
Time Period Grant Will Cover:
Level of Impact:
(Local, state, national, international)
Fiscal Agent, If Applicable:
(Identify organization, contact person and phone number)
Previous Funding from DPF:
(When, how much, name of organization if different from above)
Type of Request:
(General support, project, technical assistance)
Total Project Budget: $
(If other than general support)
Total Org. Budget: $
(Current year, operating)
Summarize the Organization s Mission:
(2-3 sentences)
Brief Summary of the Project or Grant Request:

Project Budget
(List Organizational Fiscal Year and Time Period this Budget Covers)

Expenses: Include: Total Project and DPF Grant breakdowns
(skip categories for which there are no expenses)
Salaries: (by position & include full or part time)
Payroll taxes & Benefits:
Professional Fees & Consultants:
Rent & Utilities:
Conferences & Training: (include DPF conference)
Equipment:
Insurance:
Postage & Delivery:
Photocopying & Printing:
Supplies:
Telephone & Fax:
Travel: (including DPF conference)
Other: (specify category)
Indirect: (not to exceed 10%)
Total Expenses: Entire Project Budget and DPF Grant

Income (skip categories for which there is no income)

Foundations: (specify)
Government Grants & Contracts:
Corporations:
Religious Institutions:
United Way & Other Federated Campaigns:
Individual Contributions:
Membership Income:
Subscription Income:
Fund Raising Events & Products:
Interest Income:
In-Kind Support:
Other: (specify; e.g. fees for service)

Total Income
Balance

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

New Additions To The Stanton Peele Addiction Web Site (Bulletin From
Alcohol And Addiction Researcher And Theorist Provides Summaries
Of Such New Papers As 'The Antidote To Alcohol Abuse - Sensible
Drinking Messages'; 'Gateway To Nowhere - How Alcohol Came To Be Scapegoated
For Drug Abuse'; Review Of 'Psychological Theories Of Drinking
And Alcoholism'; And 'Why And By Whom The American Alcoholism Treatment
Industry Is Under Siege')

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 10:35:38 EST
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: A.Sas@frw.uva.nl (Arjan Sas)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: The Stanton Peele Addiction Web Site
begin forwarded text
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 02:40:13 +0100
To: (Stanton Peele Announcement Mailing List)
From: SPAWS Webmaster (webmaster@sas.nl)
Subject: The Stanton Peele Addiction Web Site

New additions to the Stanton Peele Addiction Web Site:

***

ADDICTION

The antidote to alcohol abuse: Sensible drinking messages.

Stanton and Archie Brodsky, of Harvard Medical School, detail the remarkable
differences in amount, style, and outcomes from drinking in Temperance and
non-Temperance cultures (there is a strong negative correlation between
volume of alcohol consumed in a country and AA membership in that country!).
They derive from these stark data and similar information healthy and
unhealthy group and cultural dimensions to the drinking experience and how
these should be communicated in public health messages.

http://www.peele.net/lib/antidote.html

***

Gateway to nowhere: How alcohol came to be scapegoated for drug abuse.

Stanton and Archie again tackle popular temperance messages in America whose
goal is to discredit, disqualify, and discourage all consumption of all
psychoactive substances--as though the issue were not self-evidently what,
how, and by whom all such substances are used. And they will be used--both
the legal and illegal ones! Facing this fundamental reality, distinguishing
among types of use, and educating young people about these differences is
exactly the opposite approach to the one taken by Joseph Califano's
neoTemperance CASA and its supporters.

http://www.peele.net/lib/gateway.html

***

Review of "Psychological Theories of Drinking and Alcoholism"

Stanton reviews the entire scope of psychological theorizing in the field of
alcoholism. He finds that these theories are robust and disprove many
assumptions about the pharmacological determinants of alcoholism and the
disease nature of alcoholic behavior. But he also notes (along with the
volume's editors!) how the theories ignore the major determinants of
alcoholic behavior--e.g., alternative opportunities, values, and
associations in people's lives. Moreover, he is stunned that the one larger
theoretical model of addiction presented in the
volume--opponent-process--consists entirely of stories from AA, omits any
reference to data, and breezily espouses an abstinence only
approach--contrary to the gist and substance of most of the rest of the
volume! It is fascinating to see how this watershed volume, and the
limitations it underlines, are exactly as true today as they were when the
volume first appeared.

http://www.peele.net/lib/psychthr.html

***

Why and by whom the American alcoholism treatment industry is under siege.

In this barn-burner, Stanton stands alone in protecting the likes of Alan
Marlatt, Peter Nathan, Bill Miller et al. from the onslaughts of John
Wallace in his war on the "Anti-Traditionalists." One in a series of
exchanges between Peele and Wallace, this is an important historical
document. For example, it recounts how Peter Nathan, Barbara McCrady, and
Richard Longabaugh's chapter on treatment in the Sixth Special Report to
Congress was rewritten by Wallace. But it is also tremendously important
for predicting and evaluating current developments in treatment and
treatment evaluation. Of course, shortly after the article appeared, and
despite Wallace's claims for its remarkable treatment success, the
Edgehill-Newport clinic closed because insurers refused to pay its bills as
a result of Stanton's articles. Since this time, however, Longabaugh now
sides with Enoch Gordis in saying that current treatments (including the
12-step variety Wallace practiced at E-N) are great! Moreover, in this
forward-looking document, Stanton describes the concept of harm reduction by
indicating that severely dependent alcoholics who may not abstain can still
show improvement. And, in light of Gordis, Longabaugh, et al.'s tap dancing
on the results of Project MATCH, do consider Gordis's quote, cited in this
article, that "To determine whether a treatment accomplishes anything, we
have to know how similar patients who have not received the treatment fare.
Perhaps untreated patients do just as well. This would mean that the
treatment does not influence outcome at all...."

http://www.peele.net/lib/siege.html

***

ASK STANTON

"How do I get the police to cooperate in drug reform efforts?"

http://www.peele.net/faq/

***

NEW URL

The Stanton Peele Addiction Web Site can now be accessed at a new URL:

http://www.peele.net/

Please update your bookmarks or links to our site.
Also, see the new layout for the Stanton Peele Addiction Web Site! All new.
Simpler access and more pleasing to the eye.

***

This message was issued on the Stanton Peele Mailing List. To join this
low volume read-only list, send e-mail to  and in the
subject field say only "SUBSCRIBE PEELE". To leave this list send a
message to the same address saying "UNSUBSCRIBE PEELE".

The Stanton Peele Addiction Web Site - http://www.peele.net/

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

Marijuana Flap Gets Pot Boiling At WHO - Report That Suggested
Drug Less Risky Than Alcohol, Tobacco Was Suppressed (Despite Denials
By WHO Officials That The Report Was Quashed For Scientific Reasons,
Toronto's 'Globe And Mail' Quotes One Scientist Familiar With It Who Says,
'They Came Under Tremendous Pressure From Some Quarters')

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 08:47:29 -0500
From: Carey Ker 
Subject: Canada: Marijuana flap gets pot boiling at WHO
To: mattalk@islandnet.com
Priority: Normal
Newshawk: carey.ker@utoronto.ca
Pubdate: Tuesday, March 03, 1998
Source: Globe and Mail, Page A1
Contact: letters@globeandmail.ca
Author: Carolyn Abraham, Medical Reporter
Website: http://www.globeandmail.ca/

Marijuana flap gets pot boiling at WHO

Report that suggested drug less risky than alcohol, tobacco
was suppressed

Tuesday, March 3, 1998
By Carolyn Abraham
Medical Reporter

The World Health Organization is being forced to defend
itself around the globe after excluding information from a
recent report that suggests marijuana poses fewer health
risks than alcohol and tobacco.

The Geneva-based agency said it dropped the findings of
leading Canadian and Australian scientists from last
December's final report on cannabis because the comparison
between the drugs was scientifically unsound.

But in criticizing the work of internationally respected
researchers, the WHO has not extinguished allegations that
it had other motives.

Suspicion lingers that the WHO buckled under political
pressure from certain countries that feared the findings
would fuel the growing fight to legalize marijuana.

Much the way the International Olympic Committee was forced
to assess its role in restricting social drugs after
Canadian gold-medal snowboarder Ross Rebagliati tested
positive for marijuana, the WHO is struggling to clarify its
position as a scientific body immune to political interests
in reviewing the illicit narcotic.

"We don't have any stake in the political debate," said
Tokuo Yoshida, head of the WHO's drug management and
policies division. "Our information is based on scientific
and medical judgment, there was no such pressure from any
government."

Mr. Yoshida said the WHO has been bombarded by phone calls
and E-mail messages from all over the world seeking
explanations since Britain's New Scientist magazine said the
work had been suppressed and published excerpts of the
missing information in February. Marijuana research has
expanded dramatically since the WHO's 1982 cannabis report,
as has the international thirst for information
related to it. Its potential medicinal uses, its resurgence
among teen-agers and the campaign to legalize it, prompted
the WHO to commission a third report of the so-called soft
drug in 1994.

Various international experts were asked to write reviews of
the current research.

Dr. Robin Room, the chief scientist and sociologist at
Ontario's Addiction Research Foundation, and Dr. Wayne Hall,
an Australian scientist who has completed extensive
marijuana research, were asked to compare the health and
psychological risks of cannabis, alcohol, nicotine and
opiates.

Dr. Room, who completed the paper in 1995, said he did not
know the WHO had excluded their findings until the cannabis
report was released.

"I do not agree with the decision not to include this," he
said. "It is a relevant thing to put out there for public
consumption -- the relative harm associated with these
things. It is like studying the relative benefits of
margarine or butter."

Their review concluded that certain risks associated with
tobacco and alcohol have no equivalent in marijuana use. For
example, it is possible to die from an alcohol overdose, but
nearly impossible to die from an overdose of marijuana, Dr.
Room said. Alcohol can cause cirrhosis, marijuana cannot.
Marijuana is more likely to cause lung problems than is
alcohol, but less likely than tobacco.

"The health concerns associated with alcohol and tobacco are
more serious than that of marijuana usage," he said. "If
that usage increases, the health risks will increase, but
it's not clear by how much."

Cannabis fared better in five out of seven comparisons of
long-term damage to health, based on current worldwide
levels of usage. But the report also stated that cannabis
"would be unlikely to seriously rival the public health
risks of alcohol and tobacco even if as many people used
cannabis as now drink alcohol or smoke tobacco."

Dr. Billy Martin, a pharmacologist at the Medical College of
Virginia and a member of the WHO's advisory committee, said
officials at the WHO were "very uncomfortable" when they
first saw the findings.

"The WHO felt it could be misinterpreted without a fair
discussion about the risks of all these other drugs," Dr.
Martin said. "It wasn't a conspiracy or suppression. . . . I
think they exercised their selection of what would be left
out."

But the WHO searched out input on the report over the next
21/2 years, which Dr. Martin said did seem like an unusually
long time. Mr. Yoshida said the draft report on cannabis was
sent to more than 80 experts, agencies and institutions
around the world.

"They came under tremendous pressure from some quarters and
there are a lot of problems when politics enters into this,"
said one scientist familiar with the report.

But Mr. Yoshida insists officials at the WHO simply felt the
work was contradictory and "too speculative" because there
is a dearth of epidemiological research comparing the drugs.

"The comparison itself is very difficult to make. Cannabis
is taken by smoking it, alcohol is drunk. At what doses
should we compare alcohol and cannabis?" Mr. Yoshida said.
"Is one joint of a marijuana cigarette equal to one beer?"

Dr. Room said he does not pretend their review is definitive
since research in the area is always growing and evolving.
"But fundamentally you can certainly argue the strength of
the science," he said. "We make a lot of policy judgments on
less-than-perfect information, but we do our best with what
is available. It struck me as rather important information."

Mark Kleiman, a U.S. public-policy analyst at the University
of California who has written on the cannabis debate, said
it is predictable that alcohol has worse public-health risks
than marijuana -- since about eight times as many people
drink.

"I can certainly sympathize with the viewpoint that any
findings favourable to marijuana usage will end up on the
cover of High Times and used not merely to change the laws
but to convince people to light up," Mr. Kleiman said.

But he said the WHO should frame the discussion that way and
not chalk it up to bad science.

"Anyone who says Wayne Hall and Robin Room are capable of
bad science is talking through their hat," Mr. Kleiman said.

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

Re - Marijuana Flap Gets Pot Boiling At WHO (Letter Sent To Editor
Of Toronto's 'Globe And Mail' Points Out Arrogance In Comments
Of University Of California Drug Warrior Mark Kleiman, Who Offered
Not One Shred Of Evidence While Flatly Contradicting The WHO Report)

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 15:45:59 -0800
To: mattalk@islandnet.com
From: Pat Dolan 
Subject: Re: Canada: Marijuana flap gets pot boiling at WHO

Dear Editor,

Your report could serve as text for an examination of logical consistency
in a brief introduction to Logic 1.

For example, Mark Kleiman, a public policy analyst, offered a flat
contradiction of the WHO report saying it was predictable that alcohol has
worse public health risks than marijuana -- "since about eight times as
many people drink." Yet he offered not one shred of evidence to support his
opinion. The report was very specific about the health risks of marihuana
being less than those of alcohol and tobacco irrespective of the number who
drank. To quote: "(they) would be unlikely to seriously rival the public
health risks of alcohol and tobacco even if as many people used cannabis as
now drink alcohol or smoke tobacco."

He goes on to play God, divining people's evil motives for telling the truth
when, presumably, the truth is too difficult for him to deal with. "I can
certainly sympathize with the viewpoint that any findings favourable to
marijuana usage will end up on the cover of High Times and used not merely
to change the laws but to convince people to light up," Mr. Kleiman said.

He seems unable to grasp that some people cleave to the truth because
it is the truth. And in a subject area as controversial as psychoactive drugs,
it is of crucial importance that the truth be told. We should remember that
had it not been for the demonization of marihuana by the first "drug czar",
Harry Anslinger, and by a succession of ideological bureaucrats since then,
members of the general public might be less confused.

Mr. Anslinger, referring to it as this "lethal" drug, was the prime mover
in having marihuana outlawed by congress in 1937, placed in the same
category and having users subjected to the same criminal sanctions as those
imposed on users of heroin and cocaine.

At this stage, some millions of deaths later, I think few of us watching
the reports of the criminal machinations of the tobacco industry will have
much trouble deciding which of the three is least harmful: mortality rates
per annum for tobacco, 350,000; for alcohol, 125,000; for marihuana, zero!

Mr. Kleiman is motivated, it seems, not by humility in the search for truth, for
a theory which fits the observed facts, but rather by the need to substantiate
his own or his masters' biases. His opinions might be more deserving of
respect were he to cultivate the attitude of the scientists whose work WHO
denigrates - and he, in the last sentence, lauds.

Pat Dolan

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

Thirty-Five Man Squad Executes Vietnam Drugs Gang ('Reuters' Story Suggests
Execution Of Former Interior Ministry Official And Six Accomplices Tuesday
Outside Hanoi May Have Been Intended More To Send A Message
About Abuse Of Power Than About 'Drugs')

Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 14:20:02 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service 
From: Richard Lake 
Subject: MN: Vietnam: Wire: Thirty-Five Man Squad Executes Vietnam Drugs
Gang
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: shug@shug.co.uk http://www.shug.co.uk/
Source: Reuters
Author: Adrian Edwards
Pubdate: 3 Mar 1998

THIRTY-FIVE MAN SQUAD EXECUTES VIETNAM DRUGS GANG

By HANOI, March 3 (Reuters) - Vietnam carried out its second major
execution of the year on Tuesday before hundreds of people, in a grim
demonstration of state resolve to punish abuses of power and drugs
trafficking.

Vu Xuan Truong, a former police captain with the country's powerful
Interior Ministry, and six accomplices -- including a woman -- were shot
dead shortly before daybreak at an execution site on the outskirts of the
capital Hanoi.

In a rare concession the authorities had bowed to a request by Truong on
Monday that the killings be carried out before first light. Prison sources
and other witnesses said the seven were woken in their cells at around 2:30
a.m. local time.

As they were taken to be formally notified that they were to be executed,
Truong shouted to his wife, held in a neighbouring prison compound: ``My
love. I am going there.'' They were offered noodle soup, coffee and
cigarettes. All but one person was said to have refused.

After writing final letters to their families they were taken to the
execution field where a large crowd had gathered to witness their deaths.

Two of them -- a woman, Lai Thi Ngan and Dao Xuan Xe, the gang's driver --
were reported to be highly distressed. Xe, who had left his cell without
socks, was castigated by his colleagues for failing to consider his family.

Under Vietnamese tradition bodies are re-buried after about three years and
clothing helps to hold together the skeletal remains. They were then lined
up, blind-folded, tied tightly to wooden stakes, and shot dead by a 35-man
firing squad -- five men for each of the condemned.

Tuesday's executions bring a close to the latest chapter in a drugs-scandal
which has exposed the involvement of senior police officers and border
officials in a crime syndicate said to have flooded Vietnam with hundreds
of kilos of heroin.

The affair came to light after a convicted Laotian trafficker broke down
shortly before he was to be executed in 1996 and offered to exchange
information in return for his life being spared.

Over the months that followed Vietnam's state press reported lurid detail
including evidence hinting at official involvement.

Hundreds of people gathered outside the court in May last year to hear
sentencing. Eight people were condemned to death and fourteen others given
a range of jail terms. A further man was sentenced to death at a subsequent
trial in August. One of the nine had her sentence commuted to life last
month.

Analysts say the case, and an execution in January of lead culprits in a
separate scandal involving Communist Party-affiliated firm Tamexco, have
political overtones. Both cases have been used to demonstrate Hanoi's
public resolve to tackle abuses in a system which party officials openly
concede is afflicted by problems of influence peddling and corruption.

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

[End]