------------------------------------------------------------------- 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."
------------------------------------------------------------------- Injured Police Officer Goes Home, May Face Additional Surgery (Broadcast News By KOIN, Portland's CBS Affiliate, Notes Return Home By Portland Police Officer Wounded During Warrantless Break-In By Marijuana Task Force) Found at http://www.koin.com/ Injured Police Officer Goes Home May Face Additional Surgery PORTLAND, Posted 5:52 a.m. March 03, 1998 -- Some good news for Portland Police Officer Kim Keist. The Associated Press reports the officer, who was critically wounded Jan. 27, has gone home. Keist was released from Legacy Emanual Hospital Saturday. KOIN-TV reports her release was kept quiet because Keist is an undercover officer who needs remain anonymous to protect her identity. That is why no pictures are published of Keist. The police bureau says Keist still has a long recovery road ahead that may include additional surgery, according to AP. She was shot along with two other officers when they tried to break in a man's door during a marijuana raid. Officer Colleen Waibel died in that shooting. Steven Dons, the man who was accused of shooting the officers committed suicide in his jail cell last week. Previous Stories: Feb. 25: Accused Cop Killer Kills Self Feb. 09: Kim Keist Continues To Battle Feb. 06: Dons Arraigned In Hospital Room Jan. 29: Shooting Suspect's Condition Downgraded Jan. 28: 'Knock and Talk' Method Raises Concerns Jan. 28: Shooting Sparks Gun Control Issue Jan. 28: City Mourns Officer's Death Jan. 27: Katz and Moose Respond to Tragedy Jan. 27: Police Officer Fatally Shot Compiled by Channel 6000 Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: email@example.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: firstname.lastname@example.org 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: email@example.com Newshawk: Dave Ford Source: Sonoma Index-Tribune Pubdate: Tuesday, 3 March 1998 Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org 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: email@example.com Newshawk: Lynn Carol Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA) Pubdate: Tuesday, March 3, 1998 Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org 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
------------------------------------------------------------------- Weeding Out The Opposition - Chris Boucher, A Co-Owner Of Hempstead Clothing Company, Is Leading A Grass-Roots Campaign To Legalize Industrial Use Of Hemp ('Los Angeles Times' Update On California's Ballot Initiative For Industrial Hemp Quotes Sam Clauder, Executive Director Of The Initiative Campaign, 'If Voters Had The Compassion To Allow AIDS And Cancer Patients To Use Medical Marijuana, We Certainly Feel Like They'll Differentiate Between Marijuana And Industrial Hemp')Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 15:04:05 -0800 To: email@example.com From: Olafur Brentmar
Subject: MN: US CA: Hempstead Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield Source: Los Angeles Times (CA) Contact: email@example.com Pubdate: March 3, 1998 Fax: 213-237-4712 Author: Tim Grenda Weeding out the opposition Chris Boucher, a co-owner of Hempstead clothing company, is leading a grass-roots campaign to legalize industrial use of hemp. COSTA MESA -- Before he can make a simple pair of jeans, Chris Boucher has to buy raw hemp fabric from China and ship it halfway around the world to a West Side warehouse. But if the co-owner of Hempstead -- a small company quickly emerging as a giant in the hemp clothing business -- can legalize the harvesting of industrial-grade hemp in California, the $80 price tag on those light-colored pants would be cut in half. "If we could grow hemp here, these would be $40 jeans," Boucher said. Boucher, 34, is a leader in a grass-roots campaign aimed at placing a statewide initiative on the November ballot to legalize the growing and harvesting of hemp for industrial uses. Hemp, a close cousin of the marijuana plant, has been used for centuries to make clothing, food and textiles. The paper that held the first drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the sails that propelled Christopher Columbus to the New World reportedly were made of hemp fibers, officials said. Californians for Industrial Renewal, a political action group based in Garden Grove, is hoping to collect by May the 700,000 signatures and money required to put the issue on the ballot and get it passed by voters next fall. If successful, California would be the first state in the nation to approve full-scale growing and harvesting of industrial hemp. Packing, shipping and selling hemp products is already legal in California, but small businessmen like Boucher have to pay top dollar to import hemp seeds, oils and other raw materials from one of 30 countries where growing hemp is legal. Harvesting hemp has been officially outlawed in the United States since 1937, except for five years of limited government-approved growing to make ropes and other materials during World War II, officials said. For Boucher, whose 7-year-old business rang up more than $1 million in sales last year, the controversial issue boils down to simple economics. In the last six months, Boucher estimated he has bought 40,000 pounds of hemp seeds and close to 20,000 yards of hemp fabric on the foreign market. "Unfortunately, all the money we pay now goes into the Chinese banks and the Chinese economy," Boucher said. "We could have put that money into the local community." With state government approval, large paper and textile companies that now shy away from using hemp could jump on board, Boucher said. "The initiative would open it up and bring in big industry," he said. "We'd see millions of investment dollars brought into the community." But Boucher and others in the pro-hemp movement admit they have to overcome many public misconceptions about hemp if their bid to legalize the plant is to be successful. First, there's the idea that hemp and marijuana are one in the same, an old connection Boucher concedes is tough to break. The initiative defines industrial hemp as all varieties of the plant genus cannabis containing up to 1% of tetrahydrocannabinol the active ingredient in marijuana. The law also would require growers to register annually with the state Department of Food and Agriculture and give law enforcement authorities the power for random checks of crops for tetrahydrocannabinol content. Sam Clauder, executive director of the initiative campaign, said he is hopeful his group can cash in on the 1996 passage of Proposition 215, which legalized the medical use of marijuana. "If voters had the compassion to allow AIDS and cancer patients to use medical marijuana, we certainly feel like they'll differentiate between marijuana and industrial hemp," Clauder said.
------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.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: email@example.com *** The drugtext press list. News on substance use related issues, drugs and drug policy firstname.lastname@example.org
------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: email@example.com Subject: HT: 1998 Seattle Hempfest Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org 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: email@example.com Newshawk: Frank S World, on the road in CA Source: San Francisco Chronicle Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.sfgate.com/ Pubdate: Tuesday, March 3, 1998 Columnist: CHIP JOHNSON Note: Chip Johnson's email address is: email@example.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
------------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Brewing - All Hemped-Up Over Hempen Ale (PRNewswire Bulletin Says Readers Of Mid-Atlantic Region's Leading Beer Publication, 'Bay Schooner,' Have Voted Frederick Brewing Company's Hempen Ale 1997 New Craft Beer Of The Year) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 17:59:06 -0500 To: DrugSense News Service
From: Richard Lake Subject: MN: US: Wire: Frederick Brewing: All Hemped-Up Over Hempen Ale Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: GDaurer Source: PRNewswire Pubdate: 3 March 1998 Editor's note: We seldom use PRNewswire stories, even though they are sometimes reprinted in business publications. I make an exception for this one because (1) they do not try to downplay fact that they use hemp seed, (2) it is the brew I pass around in the MAP CHAT boardroom, and (3) a sometimes visitor to the boardroom who imports the hemp seeds for the brews supports our issues. Richard - email@example.com FREDERICK BREWING: ALL HEMPED-UP OVER HEMPEN ALE BarleyCorn Readers Choose Hempen Ale(TM) as New Craft Beer of the Year FREDERICK, Md., March 3 /PRNewswire/ -- The public has spoken. Readers of BarleyCorn's regional edition, Bay Schooner, the Mid-Atlantic's leading beer publication, have voted Frederick Brewing Co.'s (Nasdaq: BLUE) Hempen Ale(TM) 1997 New Craft Beer of the Year. Additionally, in a poll of BarleyCorn writers and editors, Frederick Brewing Co.'s fall seasonal, Hopfest(TM) 1997, featuring crystal hops, was chosen as National New Craft Beer of the Year. Although different single-variety hops are used in each year, Hopfest(TM) 1995, featuring Ultra hops, was also named BarleyCorn's 1995 New Craft Beer of the Year. This is not the first time Hempen Ale(TM) has been recognized. As North America's first beer brewed with hemp seeds, Hempen Ale(TM), a brown ale, and its lighter counterpart Hempen Gold(TM) , a cream ale, have garnered international acclaim from beer writers and consumers alike as the year's most innovative new beer products. Both are currently available in 27 states and the District of Columbia. First released in April 1997, Hempen Ale(TM) was awarded a bronze medal for brewing excellence in the herb/spice category at the 16th Great American Beer Festival(TM), the nation's largest and most prestigious beer event. Hempen Ale(TM) was also an award-winner at the recent Hemp Industries Association conference, where it was recognized by HempWorld magazine for product innovation. The hemp seeds used in the brew do not contain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, although hemp and marijuana are botanically related. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has approved both Hempen Ale(TM) and Hempen Gold(TM) for distribution. Frederick Brewing Co. recently merged with two other Maryland microbreweries, Wild Goose Brewery of Cambridge, MD and Brimstone Brewing Company of Baltimore, MD. Both will operate as wholly owned subsidiaries of Frederick Brewing Co., with all brewing operations transferred to Frederick. The three companies have combined 1997 sales of 35,000 barrels. Founded in 1992, Frederick Brewing Co. completed a successful initial public offering (IPO) in 1996. In March 1997, the company moved from a converted warehouse to a purpose-built, 57,000-square-foot facility, which has an annual capacity of 80,000 barrels and is expandable to 300,000. Frederick Brewing Co.'s beers are sold in 31 states and the District of Columbia. Free public tours and tastings are held at FBC's brewery every Saturday and Sunday at 1:30 p.m. Directions are available by calling the brewery at 888-258-7434, visiting the Frederick Brewing Co. Web site at http://www.fredbrew.com, or referring to the map on the bottom of a six-pack. Reservations are not required.
------------------------------------------------------------------- After Raid In Error, Police Pay For Damage ('New York Times' Account Of Bronx Drug Warriors Shooting At Wrong Man Without Identifying Themselves Says According To New York City's Civilian Complaint Review Board, The Number Of Complaints Of Illegal Searches Increased More Than 100 Percent Between 1993 And 1996, From 299 To 655, Though Many Of Those Complaints Involved Searches Of A Car Or An Individual Rather Than Breaking Down A Door And Shooting At Least 24 Rounds Into Someone's Apartment)Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 15:57:19 -0500 To: DrugSense News Service
From: Richard Lake Subject: MN: US NY: NYT: After Raid in Error, Police Pay for Damage Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: "Dick Evans" Source: New York Times (NY) Author: David Kocieniewski Contact: email@example.com Website: http://www.nytimes.com/ Pubdate: Pubdate: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 AFTER RAID IN ERROR, POLICE PAY FOR DAMAGE Acting on a tip from an informer, police narcotics officers last week raided an apartment in the Bronx, sparking a wild shootout with the frightened occupant who apparently thought that the officers were burglars. But the address where the raid took place turned out to be wrong, and Monday, chagrined police officials agreed to pay for the damage. Investigators used a battering ram at 8 A.M. Friday to open the door of a fourth-floor apartment at 930 Sheridan Avenue. Inside the apartment, Ellis Elliott, 44, was roused from his bed by the commotion and, fearing that the detectives behind the door were burglars, drew an unlicensed .25-caliber revolver from his nightstand and fired a shot through the top of the door. The detectives then leveled the door, and fired at least 24 rounds into the apartment before arresting Elliott on charges of reckless endangerment, illegal possession of a firearm and attempted murder of a police officer. No one was injured during the exchange of shots. After an exhaustive search of the apartment turned up no drugs, narcotics officials realized that they had mistakenly raided the wrong fourth floor apartment and that Elliott, who has no criminal record, was not the suspected drug dealer they had sought. In turn, the police dropped the charges, except for illegal possession of a firearm, a count which in most cases does not result in jail time if the weapon was not used while committing another crime. According to a police narcotics report, the raiding officers received a tip from their informant and conducted a pre-raid reconnaissance mission, but they apparently misidentified the door behind which the drugs and guns were reportedly stored. One senior narcotics investigator, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the supervisors saw the door before the raid, but hurried his efforts because he did not want to tip off the suspects. "You can only stand there so long without someone figuring out that there's something going on," said the investigator. "It's easy to criticize after the fact. But when you're scouting out a drug location, or what you believe to be a drug location, you stand in front of a door too long and someone with a gun is going to open it." The mistake, which was first reported in Newsday on Monday, comes at an embarrassing time for police officials, who were criticized last month when they issued new guidelines for fixing doors broken by narcotics investigators who raided the wrong locations. According to the Civilian Complaint Review Board, the number of complaints of illegal searches increased more than 100 percent between 1993 and 1996, from 299 to 655, although many of those complaints involved searches of a car or an individual. Marilyn Mode, a police spokeswoman, said that 45,000 raids were conducted last year, and only 10 resulted in the wrong address being raided because of an error by officers. Ms. Mode said an uniformed patrol officer was posted at the scene of Elliott's home until the door was replaced. "We will also reimburse them for any damage," she said. "It is all being taken care of." Mayor Giuliani said it was a regrettable mistake, but the Mayor praised the Police Department's anti-drug effort. "When the police make a mistake like that, which happens very, very infrequently, then it's their obligation to fix the place," Giuliani said. "I think that will still be the case in this situation."
------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: firstname.lastname@example.org Sender: email@example.com From: AMMO (firstname.lastname@example.org) To: Multiple recipients of list (email@example.com) 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: firstname.lastname@example.org Web: http://www.actupdc.org *** AMERICAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA ORGANIZATION (AMMO) Defending The Rights Of Medical Marijuana Patients Board of Directors: --Steve Kubby (email@example.com), --Ed Rosenthal (firstname.lastname@example.org) --Laura Kriho (email@example.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: firstname.lastname@example.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: email@example.com From: Olafur Brentmar (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: MN: US: Federal Workers Lose Bid to Halt Drug Testing Sender: email@example.com Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield Source: Los Angeles Times (CA) Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org 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: email@example.com Newshawk: "Dick Evans" Source: Boston Globe (MA) Globe's Source: Reuters Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Plan To Combat Drug Trafficking (US Drug Czar General McCaffrey Writes Letter To Editor Of 'Los Angeles Times' Responding To Paper's February 20 Editorial, Noting US Expects Certification Law To Continue) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 00:29:33 -0800 To: email@example.com From: Olafur Brentmar
Subject: MN: US: Plan To Combat Drug Trafficking Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: John W.Black Source: Los Angeles Times (CA) Section: Metro Page: B-6 Contact: email@example.com Pubdate: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 PLAN TO COMBAT DRUG TRAFFICKING Re "A New Attack on Drugs," editorial, Feb. 20: A multilateral approach to reducing drug trafficking and abuse holds tremendous promise. It is important to note, however, that in the short term we do not expect the certification law (which requires the president to certify that individual nations have made progress in meeting the goals of the 1988 U.N. convention on drugs) to be changed. Recent joint evaluations by our international partners have been quite useful. For example, under the Financial Action Task Force system, each participating country conducts an annual self-assessment and undergoes a detailed multinational evaluation. This approach, designed to combat money laundering, works because it uses objective standards and relies on technical experts from partner countries. A similar system must be developed to combat wider issues of drugs and drug abuse. At the Summit of Americas in Santiago, Chile, in April, President Clinton will ask all the leaders in the hemisphere to join the U.S. in a coalition against drugs (no formal treaty, as implied in your editorial, is yet planned). This partnership, to be managed through the Organization of American States, would include a multinational evaluation process. Such an alliance will be an important step toward a unified approach to our common hemispheric drug problem. Barry R. Mccaffrey, Dir. National Drug Control Policy Washington
------------------------------------------------------------------- Drug Policy Foundation Grant Program Guidelines (Who DPF Funds, Who It Doesn't Fund, And How To Apply For A Grant) From: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Tue, 03 Mar 98 09:50:23 EST Subject: DPF grant guidelines Sender: email@example.com 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: firstname.lastname@example.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 (email@example.com) (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: firstname.lastname@example.org Sender: email@example.com From: A.Sas@frw.uva.nl (Arjan Sas) To: Multiple recipients of list (firstname.lastname@example.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 (email@example.com) 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/
------------------------------------------------------------------- Re - Marijuana - Keep It Illegal (Letter To Editor Of 'Lethbridge Herald' In Alberta Responds To Columnist Tom Yeoman's Prohibitionist Arguments That Cannabis Isn't Worth Looking At As A Potential Medicine To Save Glaucoma Patients' Eyesight) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 12:03:26 To: Mattalk@islandnet.com From: Kathy galbraith
Subject: Medical use important:LethHerald Tues.Mar.3 The Lethbridge Herald Contact:firstname.lastname@example.org Editor: I would like to comment on Tom Yeoman's column Marijuana: Keep it illegal, Feb.26. Mr.Yeoman states: "Some glaucoma patients smoke marijuana because they say it can reduce pressure in the eyes. For this effect to be consistent, they must be constantly smoking. But smoking up also constricts the blood supply to the optic nerve and reduces the blood's oxygen... a once a day eye-drop called xalatan produces relief without such complications." First of all, it isn't glaucoma patients who say marijuana can reduce pressure in the eyes. There is a considerable amount of scientific evidence that this drug is helpful to glaucoma patients. Second, the drug does not need to be smoked but can be consumed in other forms. Third, the array of drugs available to treat glaucoma is effective for most patients. There are some cases of the disease, however, which do not respond to drugs available. There are also patients who are allergic to these drugs. I know, because I suffered terribly from side effects connected with glaucoma drugs and was left with no option but dangerous and traumatic surgery. For this reason, I believe it is wrong to obstruct research into the medical uses of marijuana. Marlene Dean Fort Macleod
------------------------------------------------------------------- Burden Of Proof On LSD Inmates - Government Won't Compensate Women Without More Proof That Tests Caused Harm ('Ottawa Citizen' Follow-Up To Story About LSD Being Tested On 23 Female Canadian Inmates In 1960s) From: email@example.com (Matt Elrod) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Burden of proof on LSD inmates Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 08:37:02 -0800 Source: Ottawa Citizen Contact: email@example.com Tue 03 Mar 1998 News A1 / Front Burden of proof on LSD inmates: Government won't compensate women without more proof that tests caused harm By: Mike Blanchfield The head of Correctional Services Canada says he has yet to be convinced that inmates used in an LSD experiment at Kingston's Prison for Women in the 1960s deserve financial compensation. ``We don't have any plans until we have the facts straight,'' Ole Ingstrup, Commissioner of Corrections, said last night in an interview. ``At the end of the day, if it's reasonable that we settle in the form of cash or whatnot, then obviously we're going to do it. But I don't have sufficient facts to say one way or another.'' Mr. Ingstrup was responding to a series of articles in the Citizen revealing that 23 inmates at the Prison for Women were given LSD as part of a government-sanctioned study of the drug in the early 1960s. A recent report on the incident has concluded that researchers did not obtain valid consent from some of the women, and that they should receive an apology and a ``settlement package.'' The report was completed several months ago. It is currently being studied by a team of lawyers from Corrections and the Justice department. Mr. Ingstrup said he can't say how long that process will take. ``It would be unreasonable to give you an answer. What I have asked people to do is be thorough and be focused,'' he said. ``This is not a thing that should drag on further than absolutely necessary.'' In the meantime, he said, his department has a ``caring attitude towards these people.'' If any former study subjects need short-term counselling, he said, his staff will look into providing it. But the women won't get any financial compensation unless a direct link can be established between the treatment in the early '60s and any current difficulties in their lives, Mr. Ingstrup said. The report says that at least two of the women still suffer from flashbacks. ``This is a matter we take very seriously. We feel we have come part of the way, but not the whole way yet,'' said Mr. Ingstrup Solicitor General Andy Scott wants a quick resolution to the controversy, Dan Brien, a spokesman for the minister, said yesterday. ``He (Mr. Scott) has asked CSC to provide a response and action plan as soon as possible,'' said Mr. Brien. ``He has a lot of questions we don't have answers to yet.'' Mr. Scott has been aware of the report's contents for some time, and ``he sees the seriousness of the situation,'' said Mr. Brien. One of the report's authors, University of Ottawa criminologist Ross Hastings, said Corrections should do something ``to help these women deal with these consequences.'' ``What we're trying to get across was the idea that some harm was done to these women and that what we need to do is repair that harm,'' he said. ``We didn't approach this as a civil lawsuit.'' Mr. Hastings said he doesn't think the LSD researchers abused their power, or intended to abuse inmates in any way. The powerful drug was legal at the time, and researchers did their best to explain the situation to the inmates. However, they came up short a number of times, including when the gave the drug to a 17-year-old girl who was locked in solitary confinement. ``People don't have to have bad intentions for bad consequences to emerge,'' he said.
------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: firstname.lastname@example.org Priority: Normal Newshawk: email@example.com Pubdate: Tuesday, March 03, 1998 Source: Globe and Mail, Page A1 Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org 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: email@example.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: firstname.lastname@example.org Newshawk: email@example.com 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------
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/980303.html