-------------------------------------------------------------------
Get Real - The Steven Dons Case - Police State Assisted Suicide? ('PDXS'
Newsmagazine In Portland Asks Some Important Questions And Gives Some
Important Answers About The Warrantless Break-In By The Marijuana Task Force
That Led To One Cop's Shooting Death - Police Claim, Without Supporting
Evidence, There Were 'A Couple' Plants Found In Dons' Stove, But Dons'
Constitutional Rights Were Probably Grossly Violated Anyway And He May Well
Have Gone Free)
PDXS
PO Box 10046
Portland, OR 97296
Tel. (503) 224-7316
http://www.pdxs.com/
Letters to editor:
pdxs@teleport.com
Get Real - The Steven Dons Case - Police State Assisted Suicide?
March 13-26, 1998
Volume 7, Number 22
pp. 2 & 5
Everything about the Steven Dons case stinks.
Dons is the alleged marijuana grower involved in the controversial January
27 shootout with police. Portland Police Officer Colleen Waibel was killed
during the gun battle. Officer Kim Keist was seriously wounded, and Sergeant
Jim Hudson suffered a hand wound. Dons was shot by police and paralyzed from
the waist down. He committed suicide less than a month later in me medical
unit of the downtown Justice Center Jail.
A surprisingly large number of Portlanders are questioning the official
versions of both the initial raid and the alleged suicide. Even callers to
such mainstream radio stations as KOTK and KXL believe the police screwed up
the raid. On February 25, the day Dons was found dead, over 50 percent of
The callers to KXL accused the police of murdering him. As these callers saw
it, the police were afraid the courts were going to dismiss all charges
against Dons because the raid was illegal Killing him was the only way' to
escape this embarrassment and avenge Waibel's death.
The protests continued On Friday, March 6, when over 60 activists gathered
near Portland City Hall to voice their anger over the botched drug raid and
alleged suicide. "It sure was convenient for Mayor Vera Katz and Portland
Police Chief Charles Moose that Steven Dons didn't have his day In court,"
said one speaker. As another put it, "Marijuana has never killed anybody,
but prohibition has."
As this issue of 'PDXS' goes to press, the shootout Is being Investigated by
the Portland Police Bureau. Dons' death is being investigated by a variety
of local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, including the
Multnomah County Sheriff's Office, the Multnomah County District Attorney's
Office, the Oregon State Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. All
information related to the suicide will reportedly be presented to a
Multnomah County grand jury.
These investigations will probably not answer all of the questions raised by
these incidents, however. It is unrealistic to expect law enforcement
officials to criticize each other, especially when one of their own has been
killed. Even though Multnomah County Sheriff Dan Noelle - who oversees the
jail where Dons died - has promised to release the investigative documents
after the grand jury rules on the alleged suicide, much of the potential
evidence was compromised before the "outside" agencies got involved. And it
would be a miracle if the Portland Police Bureau released everything it
learns about the initial shootout. Under the "leadership" of Mayor Vera
Katz. and Police Chief Charles Moose, the bureau has developed a history of
stonewalling the press and public on controversial issues.
The 'Oregonian' presented one version of the knock-and-talk visit on Sunday,
March 8. The paper reported Multnomah County Senior District Attorney Jim
McIntyre's "re-creation" of the events leading up to the shootout and Dons'
subsequent arrest. The article quoted Dons' former attorneys as denouncing
McIntyre's version, even though they declined to offer any alternative,
citing the Oregon State Bar Association's rules on attorney-client
privilege. Despite that, even McIntyre's version of events showed why the
police did not want this case to go to trial. Here are just a few of the
most obvious questions, gleaned from press coverage of the raid, shootout
and suicide, and from conversations with local defense attorneys.
* What was the evidence inside the house?
Critics claim that the police may have tampered with the evidence uncovered
from Dons' house to justify the initial raid. The Portland police had
complete control of the house, located at 2612 SE 122Avenue, for two days
after the shooting. No one was allowed in without police approval, and no
photographs have been released from inside the house. There are several
contradictions in the news accounts about the evidence, however.
***
[PDXS photo caption:]
Local activists protested the Marijuana Task Force on Friday, March 6, at
the park block across from the Justice Service Center. Demonstrations are
scheduled every Friday from 4 pm to 6 pm until further notice.
***
The police claim they found 51 marijuana plants in the house, including a
couple in the stove. In an 'Oregonian' interview, however, wounded Officer
Keist expressed dismay that Dons was willing to shoot her over "a couple" of
marijuana plants. Dons' roommate, Jeffery Harlan Moore (who was not home at
the time of the raid), is on record as saying he saw no marijuana in the house.
Similar confusion exists over the gun that Dons allegedly used to shoot the
police. The March 8 issue of the 'Oregonian' describes it as an SKS
semi-automatic rifle with a 14-round banana clip. But, in an unchallenged
opinion piece in the next day's paper. Portlander Ralph Thomas said the gun
had a 7-round fixed magazine.
Even if the police release all records from their search of the house, how
will the public ever know the evidence wasn't altered?
* Did the Police know Dons lived in the house - and if not, why not?
It is not clear from published reports whether the police knew Dons lived in
the house. The March 8 story in the 'Oregonian' only says the police knew
Dons "might live there." The article also suggests the police thought the
house was empty when they determined that Moore was at work on the morning
of the raid.
At the same time, the police should have known that Dons lived there. For
starters, they had inside information - an unnamed informant had tipped them
off about the house. The 'Oregonian' also says that the police had the house
under surveillance. And the paper says the police "knew Dons associated with
marijuana growers.
The 'Oregonian' says the police "certainly knew nothing about [Dons']
potential for violence." Why not? He had a police record in Nevada that
included assaulting police officers. After the initial shootout, the
Portland press interviewed several of Dons' associates and neighbors who
knew he was heavily armed and hated the police. The police knew where Dons'
roommate worked - why didn't they know anything about him?
* Did the police allow Dons to grow marijuana?
The police will not say how the Marijuana Task Force - which apparently
conducted the investigation - first learned that Dons was growing marijuana.
But, according to DA McIntyre's statements in the 'Oregonian,' "police saw
people taking marijuana growing equipment into the house at 2612 SE 111th
Ave. before Jan.27." This suggests that the MTF may have allowed Dons to
grow marijuana before raiding the house. MTF members claimed they could
smell marijuana outside the house on January 27. It take six to eight weeks
for marijuana plants to reach the point where they put out a noticeable
odor. Does this mean the MTF waited up to two months to bust Dons? And if
so, why?
One reason could be money. Under this nation's draconian anti-drug laws, the
police can seize any property acquired with drug profits - including cash,
cars, boats and homes. According to the 'Oregonian,' in 1996, the last year
for which such figures are available, the MTF confiscated $2.1 million worth
of cash and property, including 42 houses. Did the police allow Dons to grow
marijuana so they could raid the house and seize it? Only a complete
disclosure of the events leading up to the raid can answer that question.
* Who was in charge?
In the 'Oregonian' story, DA McIntyre offered the first clear explanation of
which officers were at Dons' house at what time. Unfortunately, it suggests
that the officers who originally investigated the alleged marijuana grow
operation - the officers with the most information about the case - were not
present during the raid.
According to McIntyre, three MTF members stopped by Dons' house at
approximately 10:45 am on January 27 - Portland police officers Nathan
Shropshire and Brian Schmautz and Oregon State Police Detective Tom
McCartney. They knocked on the front door but no one answered. As they
started to drive away, however, Shropshire said he thought he smelled
marijuana. The three returned to the house and agreed they smelled
marijuana, and also saw mold and condensation on windows, which they took as
evidence of a grow operation.
They then called Portland General Electric and were told the house had used
an average of 2,622 kilowatt. hours of electricity in the past 13 months,
enough to sustain a grow operation. The three of them then drove away to get
a search warrant.
At approximately the same time, Portland Police Officer Kim Keist and
Portland Police Sergeant Jim Hudson drove up to the house in an unmarked
pickup. It is not clear why Keist and Hudson came to the house at this time,
or what, if anything, they learned from the three MTF members. But after
approximately 15 minutes of waiting, Keist reportedly saw smoke coming from
the chimney. Assuming someone was burning the evidence, the two called for
uniformed officers to back them up. After an unspecified period of time,
four officers arrived - Wayne Gwilliam, Jeffery Parker, Colleen Waibel and
Steve Morrow. It is not clear whether any of these officers had been
involved in the initial surveillance of the house - or what, if anything,
they knew about Dons. But these six officers decided to break down the door
before the search warrant was approved on that fateful day.
* Were Dons' Constitutional rights violated?
We're not bleeding heart liberals who put the rights of criminals above the
lives of police officers. But it is important to know whether Dons' rights
were violated to understand whether the charges against him might have been
thrown out of court on Constitutional grounds.
According to all published accounts, the police did not have enough evidence
for a search warrant when three MTF members visited Dons' home on January
27. No search warrant had been issued by the time the six other officers
decided to break in. Instead, they acted on their own, reportedly to prevent
Dons from burning marijuana plants.
Several defense attorneys have told 'PDXS' that this decision was not
legally justified. Although law enforcement officers can break into a house
under emergency circumstances, these lawyers insist that stopping a
suspected marijuana grower from burning his plants isn't one of them. Among
other things. it was unlikely Dons could completely destroy all of his
plants before the police could get a warrant. And even it he did, the house
would still have contained other evidence, such as grow lights and potting soil.
* Did Dons know the police were breaking into his house?
According to the official version of events, the police yelled "Portland
police" before breaking down the front door. According to one court
document, Sergeant Hudson also yelled they had a warrant, even though that
wasn't true. But did Dons know they were police? His roommate, Jeffery
Moore, says no, perhaps because he was partially deaf. "He didn't know who
they were," Moore said. Dons told him before he died, "He really regrets
what he's done."
DA McIntyre suggests Dons must have known the people breaking down his front
door were police. According to McIntyre, a video camera mounted in the front
hallway was connected to a television set in Dons' bedroom. But that assumes
Dons was in his bedroom at the time of the raid. If he was in another room,
he could not have seen the monitors.
As revealed in the March 8 issue of the 'Oregonian,' Dons could not see the
officers when he first opened fire. Dons was standing in a hallway and fired
through a wooden door between him and the officers. Since Dons was alone in
the house at the time of the raid, the police cannot disprove his reported
statement that he did not know who was breaking into his house. In this
case, he could have at least argued "self-defense" when the case went to trial.
A similar incident occurred almost 20 years ago when the Portland police
raided the headquarters of the Outsider motorcycle club. One officer was
killed in the shootout. The man who killed him successfully argued that he
did not know it was the police who were raiding the house. He escaped a
murder conviction.
* Was Dons denied proper medical treatment?
According to the official version of events, the police who broke into the
house immediately returned fire, striking Dons. CA McIntyre says Dons was
immediately paralyzed from the waist down. Despite that, the police waited
over two-and-a-half hours before entering the house to arrest him. In that
time, they subjected him to searing tear gas and reportedly hit him twice
with "non-lethal beanbag" rounds.
Even after the police entered the house and found Dons, they denied him
proper medical treatment. Instead of calling in emergency medical
technicians, they hauled him out, stripped off his clothes, and threw him on
the back of an armored personnel carrier. Many people were shocked by the
television images of Dons' naked body being driven down the street.
"Remember the photo?" one Portlander e-mailed 'PDXS.' "Nobody was kneeling
over him, caring for this wounded man. Why were they carting his naked body
around on the back of a tank. like some goddamned trophy?"
* Was there an initial cover-up?
By the time Dons was finally hauled away from his house, police commanders
had plenty of time to realize they had blown the raid. Is that why Mayor
Katz and Police Chief Moose tried to change the subject? Talking to
reporters at the hospital where the wounded officers had been taken, Katz
called for tougher gun control laws. Moose went even further, launching into
a tirade about how television news helicopters had endangered the officers
during the siege. Both claims were bogus. Officer Waibel was not killed by
"high-powered rounds that went through her bullet proof vest," as originally
reported. And Dons was reportedly out of commission by the time the
helicopters arrived. Nevertheless, Katz and Moose succeeded in shifting
press attention off the details of the raid.
* Did Dons kill himself?
Dons was originally taken to the Oregon Health Sciences University, where he
was arraigned on drug and murder charges. He was reportedly transferred to
the medical unit in the Justice Center Jail on February 10. Who made the
decision to transfer him to the Justice Center, which also houses much of
the Portland Police Bureau? Why did he have to be moved less than two weeks
after being paralyzed? It's not like he was going anywhere.
According to the official version of events, Dons committed suicide sometime
between 1:30 and 4:30 am on the morning of February 25. He reportedly tied a
sheet around his neck and the frame of his bed, then used the remote control
to raise the head of the bed enough to strangle himself Although
theoretically possible, it's hard to know whether such a novel method of
suicide would work in the real world, or whether the paralyzed Dons was
capable of doing it.
Although medical workers did not see Dons between 1:30 am and 4:30 am,
corrections officers reportedly checked him every half hour. According to
the official version of events, they only looked through a window in the
door to his room and did not realize he was dead, perhaps because they could
not see the sheet around his neck. At the same time, Dons' position in the
room did change at some point during those three hours - he allegedly raised
his bed to commit suicide. Was this change noticed? Of course, it's always
possible that the corrections officers realized Dons was killing himself,
and chose not to interfere.
There are many questions which need to be asked and answered about the
circumstances surrounding Dons' death. Who was on the floor that night? Does
everyone log in, or can corrections officers (and others) come and go at
will, if they have the keys? Do video cameras monitor the floor? If so, are
they hooked to tape machines or just video monitors? Who, if anyone, watches
the monitors?
Within 12 hours of Dons' death, the State Medical Examiner declared that he
committed suicide. This was well before all toxicology tests could have been
conducted. Dons was reportedly receiving a mix of antibiotics, pain killers,
and muscle relaxants at the time of his death. Did Dons have the mental and
physical ability to commit suicide with all these drugs in his system? Have
medical tests found any other drugs in his body?
No one seemed to think that Dons was suicidal before his death. One of his
lawyers, Andrew Bates, described him as "upbeat" over his defense. Multnomah
County Sheriff's Lt. Brian Martinek said Dons did not seem depressed and was
not on a suicide watch. "There was no reason to believe, and we had no
information that we should suspect that," he said. "There are usually very
apparent, very red-flag conditions. There was none of that information
available to us."
***
[PDXS photo caption:]
Who can forget the shocking image of Steven Dons' naked, paralyzed body
being hauled off on the bumper of an armored personnel carrier from the
front page of the January 28 issue of the 'Oregonian.' Did the police
jeopardize their case against him by violating his constitutional rights?
***
* Was the investigation compromised?
Unfortunately, the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office did not preserve the
scene of Dons' death before the investigative team was put together. Even
though the staff members who discovered Dons' body were reportedly certain
he was dead, they apparently untied the sheet and tried to revive him. This
means no photos were taken which show the exact details of the "suicide."
More than that, according to a March 3rd story by the Associated Press,
"Investigators said they did not check Dons' cell for finger-prints. 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." In
other words, the room was contaminated before Sheriff Noelle asked the FBI
to get involved in the investigation to assure its "independence."
The day after Dons' death, the editorial board of the 'Oregonian' - of all
people - reported some disturbing news about the condition of the room where
Dons died. According to an editorial titled "Jail death inquest," there was
a glass-enclosed video camera in one corner of the ceiling. But it could not
have captured the scene in the room for two reasons. First, according to the
editorial, it was covered with toothpaste. And, second, law enforcement
officers say it was obsolete and not in use at the time. Why not? The camera
must have been installed for a reason. Why go to the trouble of creating a
system for monitoring inmates, and then allow it to be vandalized and fall
into disrepair? How many other cameras in the Justice Center aren't working,
and why?
* What is Steven Dons' version of events?
We've heard the official version of events from DA McIntyre. But what did
Dons say happened inside his house on January 27? Although his attorneys
refuse to reveal what Dons told them, his former roommate, Jeffery Moore,
has offered a partial explanation. According to Moore, Dons might have been
asleep when the police originally arrived at the house. Awakened by the
sound of the front door being smashed in, Dons might have thought he was
being attacked by as-yet-unnamed enemies, perhaps competing drug dealers.
Under this scenario, Dons could have fired at the officers without knowing
who they were.
Dons' attorneys - Gwenn Butkovsky and Andrew Bates - should reveal what he
told them before he died. Dons deserves to have his side aired, and the
public needs to know what else might have happened during the shootout.
Rumors are already flying that Dons was not shot and paralyzed during the
initial exchange of gunfire. Neighbors have allegedly said that he walked
out onto the front porch naked, where he was shot by police while trying to
surrender. We need to know all possibilities to put such charges to rest.
* Will there be a public review?
An editorial in the February 28 issue of the 'Oregonian' called for a public
inquest into Dons' death. This was a surprising and courageous stand for the
Portland daily, which hardly ever questions the actions of local law
enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, the 'Oregonian' immediately dropped its
demand. It hasn't called for a public inquest since.
Not everyone is convinced the current investigation into Dons' suicide will
be fair, however. "We're not saying that there has been foul play. We're
saying an investigation is needed to rule that out," the AP quoted defense
attorney Butkovsky as saying. "Our problem is that the sheriff's office is
still involved in it, so it's not completely independent."
It's always possible that Dons actually committed suicide. He was not only
paralyzed for life, but facing the death penalty. At the same time, it's
pretty clear that the local law enforcement community wasn't looking forward
to the trial. Sheriff Noelle promises the investigative reports will be
released after the grand jury rules on the suicide. But how will we know if
anything was intentionally left out of them?
Multnomah County Senior District Attorney Jim McIntyre made a bizarre
statement for a law enforcement official in the March 8 issue of the
'Oregonian.' Speaking about the fact that Dons' former lawyers disagree with
his version of events, Mclntrye said, "It's ridiculous in this day and age
that we can only judge his guilt in a courtroom trial."
We don't know what McIntyre means by "this day and age." Maybe he's talking
about the recent Anti-Terrorism Act which undermines freedoms of speech and
association. Perhaps he's referring to recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings
limiting Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Whatever the case, we at 'PDXS' think that courtroom trials are where this
society ultimately judges guilt - and the extent of guilt. Dons may well
have killed Portland Police Officer Colleen Waibel, and wounded Officer
Keist and Sergeant Jim Hudson. But he may not have known who he was shooting
at. Dons may have sincerely believed he was defending himself from a home
invasion.
Even if McIntyre is only talking about the court of public opinion, it is
unreasonable for him to expect people to accept his version of events
without knowing all the facts. The Portland Police Bureau and the Multnomah
County District Attorney's Office should immediately release all their
records on the Steven Dons case. Otherwise, this stinks.
- Jim Redden
[publisher]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Cultivation Of Industrial Hemp Approved In Canada
('Hemp Magazine' Says Health Minister Allan Rock Confirmed Today
That The Regulations Are In Place To Permit The Commercial Cultivation
Of Industrial Hemp For The 1998 Growing Season)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 07:09:14 -0800
From: "John E. Dvorak" (boston.hemp@pobox.com)
To: octa99@crrh.org
Subject: CANNABIS CANADA
jd's note:
Friday the 13th:
CANNABIS CULTIVATION IN CANADA IS KOSHER!
nightmare or nirvana?
consider the ramifications. ram the considerations.
visit http://www.marijuananews.com/hemp.htm for your hemp needs.
***
Commercial Cultivation of Industrial Hemp Approved in Canada
TILLSONBURG - Health Minister Allan Rock confirmed today that the
Regulations are in place to permit the commercial cultivation of
industrial hemp for the 1998 growing season.
The Minister said, "For the first time in 60 years, Canadian farmers who
meet the required provisions can now plan to grow hemp this spring. Because
of the efforts of the Liberal rural caucus and members of the agricultural
community, the development of regulations was given top priority by Health
Canada. This new crop has a tremendous potential for creating new jobs in
agriculture, industry, research and retail."
Industrial hemp can be used to make many products such as paper, textiles,
construction materials, food, rope, twine, plastics and fuel.
Industrial hemp had been banned in Canada since 1938 because, like
marijuana, it is a member of the Cannabis family and contains small
quantities of the same psychoactive ingredient, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol
or THC. Industrial hemp must have not more than 0.3 per cent THC, which
means the active ingredient will be below the level expected to have a
psychoactive effect.
Health Canada will use licences, permits and authorizations to control
activities under the Industrial Hemp Regulations. Importers, exporters,
distributors, growers and processors will be required to apply for and
maintain a licence or permit to carry out any of the activities authorized
under the Regulations. This level of control is necessary to prevent
diversion of Cannabis to the illicit drug market.
More information about the new regulations is available on the Therapeutic
Products Programme web site www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb-dgps/therapeut.
***
Attached: Information Sheet on Regulations for the Cultivation of
Industrial Hemp
Également disponible en français
Media Inquiries:
Derek Kent
Minister's Office
(613) 957-0200
Public Inquiries: (613) 957-2991
INFORMATION March 1998
COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP
Effective March 12 , 1998, the commercial production (including cultivation)
of industrial hemp is now permitted in Canada, under licences and
authorizations, issued by Health Canada.
Industrial Hemp usually refers to varieties of the Cannabis plant that have
a low content of THC (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol) and that are generally
cultivated for fibre. Industrial hemp should not be confused with varieties
of Cannabis with a high content of THC which are referred to as marijuana.
The psychoactive ingredient in marijuana is THC.
Internationally, Cannabis is regulated by the United Nation's Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Canada has signed and ratified this
Convention. The Controlled Drug and Substance Act (CDSA) came into force
effective May 14, 1997. The Industrial Hemp Regulations to the CDSA will
permit the commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in Canada.
The Regulations control the activities relating to importation, exportation,
possession, production, sale, provision, transport, sending, delivering and
offering for sale of industrial hemp.
The Regulations define industrial hemp as the plants and plant parts of the
Cannabis plant, whose leaves and flowering heads do not contain more than
0.3 percent THC. It includes derivatives of the seeds such as oil and
seedcake. It does not include non-viable Cannabis seed, but it includes its
derivatives.
It also does not include the mature stalks or the fibres derived from those
stalks. This means that such fibres or the products made from the mature
cannabis stalk may be imported, treated and sold in Canada.
The Regulations consist of the following components:
* Importers and exporters of industrial hemp, in the form of seed or viable
grain, will be licensed. In addition to holding a licence they will also be
required to obtain a permit for each shipment.
* The importer must ensure that shipments of viable grain are accompanied by
foreign certification. A list will be published by Health Canada indicating
which countries are designated as having equivalent controls on the
production of viable grain. Viable grain may only be imported from listed
countries. This will ensure that viable grain imported will not produce a
plant containing more than 0.3% THC.
* Seed growers will be restricted to a 0.4 hectare minimum plot size and
will be required to demonstrate current membership in the Canadian Seed
Growers Association as part of their licence application. Seed growers will
be required to provide the number of hectares grown in the previous two
years as part of their licence application.
* Plant breeders will not be restricted to minimum plot sizes. Persons
applying for a licence as a plant breeder must be registered with the
Canadian Seed Growers Association and may only cultivate industrial hemp
under this regulatory framework. The pedigreed seed restriction which
applies to growers in the year 2000 does not apply to plant breeders nor
does the limitation to the List of Approved Cultivars.
* Growers for fibre or viable grain will require a licence before they can
purchase seeds from a distributor or cultivate industrial hemp. Growers will
be required to provide the number of hectares grown in the previous two
years as part of their licence application.
* Only approved varieties of industrial hemp seeds, as listed on Health
Canada's List of Approved Cultivars may be planted. Commencing January 1,
2000, only pedigreed seeds of approved varieties may be planted. Growers
will be required to identify their fields, and maintain records of
production and distribution.
* Licences and audit trails will also be required for processing activities
such as pressing seeds into oil. All parties licensed or authorized will be
required to identify a person resident in Canada who will be responsible for
the licensed activities.
* To obtain a licence for the importation, exportation, production or sale
of industrial hemp, applicants will be required to produce a police security
check.
* Derivatives of seed or viable grain, such as oil and seed cake, will be
exempted from the Regulations if there is evidence that the derivatives
contain no more than 10 micrograms of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol per gram
and carry appropriate labelling statements. Products made from derivatives
of seed or viable grain will be exempted if there is evidence that each lot
or batch contains no more than 10 micrograms of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol
per gram.
* Importers and exporters of derivatives will be required to provide proof
with each shipment that the shipment contains no more than 10 micrograms of
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol per gram for each lot to ensure that the
product is within the limit. Similarly products made from the derivatives of
seed or viable grain must be accompanied with evidence that each shipment
contains no more than 10 micrograms of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol per gram.
* No person will be permitted to import or export a derivative or a product
produced from a derivative that contains more than 10 micrograms of
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol per gram.
* No person will be permitted to import or sell whole plants, including
sprouts or the leaves, flowers or bracts of industrial hemp; or import,
sell, or produce any derivative or any product made from a derivative of
the above.
* Authorizations will be required for transportation, when products are
transported outside the direction or control of a licence holder, or for
possession for the purpose of testing for viability.
* No person shall advertise to imply that a derivative or product is
psychoactive.
* Testing for the level of THC in leaves or in derivatives must be done by a
competent laboratory according to standards defined by Health Canada.
Health Canada will continue to issue licenses for approved research studies
related to the cultivation of hemp for industrial purposes.
Application Forms and relevant Guidance Documents, aimed at expediting the
review of licences and authorizations for the commercial cultivation of
industrial hemp and also for research licences, are available.
The documents are available from:
Internet: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb-dgps/therapeut
Section: Hemp
or Jean Peart, Manager, Hemp Project
Bureau of Drug Surveillance
Therapeutic Products Directorate
Address Locator 4103A, 122 Bank Street, 3rd Floor
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 1B9
Phone: (613) 954-6524 FAX: (613) 952-7738
Internet: jean_peart@hc-sc.gc.ca
Copies of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are available from:
Internet: canada.justice.gc.ca/FTP/EN/Laws/
or Canada Communications Group
Ottawa, Ontario
KlA 0S9
Telephone - (613) 956-4802
For more information about upcoming Wiseman Noble events and Commercial Hemp
magazine, check out our Webpage at http://www.wisenoble.com
***
Hemp Magazine
***
Advertising & subscription info:
Richard Tomcala, Publisher
hempmag@lconn.com
713-523-3199
Hemp news & writers wanted!
Contact John E. Dvorak, Managing Editor
boston.hemp@pobox.com
http://www.marijuananews.com/hemp.htm
617-254-HEMP
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The War On Drugs - New Approaches Based On Education,
Especially Reaching Kids With The Facts On Marijuana Use
('Comox Valley Echo' In British Columbia Prints A Sample
Of The Junk Science About Marijuana Being Distributed
In The Name Of Education By Barry Schneider,
Recently Appointed Drug Awareness Coordinator
For Northern Vancouver Island - Newspaper Fails To Note
That People's Willingness To Believe This Sort Of Crap
Decreases With Age And Education)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 06:45:23 -0800 (PST)
To: mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com
From: arandell@islandnet.com (Alan Randell)
Subject: The war on drugs
Newshawk: Alan Randell
Pubdate: March 10, 1998
Source: Comox Valley Echo (B.C.)
Contact: echo@mars.ark.com
The war on drugs
New approaches based on education, especially reaching kids with
the facts on marijuana use
By Ian Lidster, Echo Staff
(BOX)
Straight facts on marijuana
The following items were released in a paper entitled 'Straight
Facts about Marijuana that every Parent Should Know'.
- THC LEVELS in recent marijuana seizures have been analyzed as
high as 30 per cent, and averages around 15 per cent, compared to
1-2 per cent THC levels in the 1970s.
- The TAR in marijuana cigarettes is 50-100 percent greater than
that of tobacco.
- In marijuana smokers the depth of inhalation is 33 per cent
greater than tobacco smokers and the breath-holding time is four
times greater than tobacco smokers.
- Marijuana contains two powerful CARCINOGENS
(dimethylethylnitrosamine and methylethylnitrosamine): smoking
three to five marijuana cigarettes a week has the same amount
cancer-causing effect as smoking 16 tobacco cigarettes a day for
a week.
- Children exposed to marijuana prenatally have INCREASED
BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS along with decreased visual perception,
language comprehension, attention span and memory.
- Marijuana users are six times more likely to develop
schizophrenia or other MENTAL ILLNESSES than are non-users.
- Among students who use marijuana before age 18, 43 per cent do
on to use COCAINE; under one per cent of non-smokers ever use
cocaine.
- Epidemiological studies suggest marijuana is three to seven
times MORE ADDICTIVE than alcohol.
- The effects of marijuana PERSIST MUCH LONGER than the effects
of alcohol. Using a computerized flight simulator, an experiment
on 10 pilots showed that their ability to land a plane was still
impaired 24 hours after smoking one marijuana cigarette; not one
of them landed it correctly.
- In Canada in 1995, a study of blood samples taken from 1,141
dead or impaired drivers found that marijuana present in 38 per
cent of the persons studied.
(END OF BOX)
"Right now, our focus is presenting kids and their parents and
teachers with the straight facts about marijuana."
So says Barry Schneider, recently appointed Drug Awareness
Coordinator for northern Vancouver Island.
>From his office in the Courtenay Courthouse, Schneider oversees a
territory that stretches from Parkesville to the northern tip of
the Island, and Powell River as well. In other words, the area
covered by E Division of the RCMP.
While Schneider is a 20 year veteran of the RCMP and has for 11
years worked in drug enforcement, he takes his new position very
seriously and confesses to have put a lot of heart into it.
"The problem is, if we took at drugs just from the point of
enforcement, then we fail," he says.
"When we were concentrating just on enforcement, the drug problem
got worse, rather than better. We're hoping that education will
be the way to make it better. Because it is such a scourge in
society."
Schneider says he actively lobbied for the position, feeling he
could bring some positive attitudes and genuine care to the
problem.
In that, he said, all those involved in Drug Awareness endeavor
to thoroughly follow the mission statement which is as follows;
"The mission of the E Division Drug Awareness Unit is to prevent
substance abuse and related crime by developing police and
community partnerships to plan and implement proactive strategies
and effective initiatives in our schools, our communities and the
workplace."
In following that mission statement, Schneider says, Drug
Awareness is working in conjunction with such groups as
Aboriginal Shield, Drugs & Sports, Drugs & the Workplace and PACE
(Police Assisting Community Education).
The concept of Drug Awareness Coordinators, Schneider says, grew
out of the 1987 federal National Drug Strategy. Phase II of the
strategy focuses on both demand and supply reduction as being
critical to success, and the role of the coordinators is to deal
with "demand reduction through education."
One of the biggest problems we face, Schneider says, "Especially
in dealing with young people, is who are they to believe? There
are so many mixed messages out there, and there is also a great
deal of irresponsibility by adults who should know better."
He cites the recent Rebagliati incident as a prime example of,
where a great many untruths were unleashed in the name of
marijuana legalization.
"Rebagliati lost his medal because of pot, it's as simple as
that," Schneider says. "But, then all the legalization advocates
who come forth tend to forget children, and what sort of
information they're leaving them with."
Most frustrating, Schneider says, is the "sheer ignorance" people
have about marijuana.
"People are woefully ignorant of the THC levels of today's
marijuana," he says. "Pot today is so strong it doesn't really
relate to the substance people were familiar with in the 1960s
and '70s. The comparison between new pot and the old stuff, is
like comparing the pain-killing properties of heroin and aspirin.
In essence, we are now dealing with a totally different drug."
Much street pot today, as opposed to the old home-grown stuff,
comes from "grow shows", the inside grown, so-called hydroponic
marijuana, he says.
Equally distressing, Schneider says, is the advocacy of marijuana
to relieve certain medical conditions, such as glaucoma.
"The truth is there is a gamut of medicines to relieve glaucoma
that are infinitely preferable to suggestive involvement with a
highly addictive substance," he says. "Advocating marijuana to
relieve glaucoma as akin to a doctor prescribing smoking as a
means to weight loss."
The most satisfying aspect of his job, Schneider says, is working
with kids in school; some as young as 10 or 11. There he feels
they can make the most effective inroads in changing attitudes.
He notes that most children are pretty antagonistic towards
tobacco smoking. Bearing that in mind, he brings out posters from
old magazine advertisements of the 1940s and '50s. One shows
Santa Claus with a cigarette in his mouth.
"Of course, the kids thank that's just a hoot, for Santa to be
smoking," Schneider says. "But I point out to them, that ad came
from before we knew what we now know about the health hazards of
smoking cigarettes, so it was perfectly acceptable for Santa to
smoke. Then I point out what we know about marijuana from what we
know before. Our main message to them about drugs, including
alcohol and tobacco, is if you don't start, you don't have to
quit."
In dealing with the young, Schneider says they give major concern
to up to the minute research on 'gateway drugs.'
"We consider alcohol and tobacco to be gateway drugs - that is,
substances that, by loosening the resolve of young people, point
the way towards more serious drugs. Marijuana is, of course, a
huge gateway drug. We no longer say that marijuana use
automatically leads to harder drugs, but what we do point out is
that if you smoke pot there is an 85 per cent chance you will try
cocaine. remember, no addict went directly from clean to heroin.
There were steps along the way, steps that involved using other
drugs."
One argument mounted is that marijuana is a relatively safe drug,
especially considering the fact that it is impossible to OD on
pot.
That, says Schneider, is quite true. But, because nobody can OD
on pot, does not mean that people don't die from its abuse all
the time, either through accidents while impaired, being involved
in crime to pay for the habit, or moving on to harder drugs.
"That argument has about as validity as saying nobody dies from
tobacco," says Schneider. "True, nobody dies from tobacco, but
they die from cancer, heart disease and many other health
problems that relate directly to tobacco use."
Another area of concern, Schneider says, is the area of drugs in
the workplace; much more common than many might think.
"If you employ people, you employ drug users, Schneider says. "We
push for employee assistance programs and employers should have a
black and white drug policy."
Drugs and sports, including the use of steroids is also one of
great concern, and there education must be involved in pulling no
punches with the susceptible young about what steroids can do.
In the end, Schneider says, it comes down to the maxim: drugs
aren't dangerous because they are illegal. They're illegal
because they're dangerous.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaping The Drug Policies Of A Country Known For Its Liberal Approach
(The American 'Chronicle Of Higher Education' Examines Dutch Drug Policies
And The Strategy Of Harm Reduction)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:54:46 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US: Shaping the Drug Policies
of a Country Known for Its Liberal Approach
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Marcus/Mermelstein Family (mmfamily@ix.netcom.com)
Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education
Website: http://www.chronicle.com/
Pubdate: 13 Mar 1998
Section: International
Author: Burton Bollag
SHAPING THE DRUG POLICIES OF A COUNTRY KNOWN FOR ITS LIBERAL APPROACH
ROTTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS
At the Green House coffee shop, you can buy marijuana and hashish in little
plastic bags for $12 at the bar. Or you can get a joint from the
wall-mounted "Reefer" dispensing machine. Across the street, the Laughing
Pope shop sells "organic drugs" -- psychedelic mushrooms and two dozen
varieties of cannabis. It's all legal.
With his shoulder-length hair and baggy cotton pants, Peter Blanken looks
at home in this Haight-Ashbury-ish neighborhood in the Netherlands'
second-biggest city. In fact, he runs an unusual research project, which
gathers data on the city's hard-drug subculture in its native setting. He
works for the Addiction Research Institute of Rotterdam, a cooperative
effort of Erasmus University, the city health service, and two foundations.
A tall man with tousled black hair rides by on an old bicycle. His name is
Sjaak, pronounced like "Jacques." He sees Mr. Blanken and stops. Is there
any work for him?
"Not yet," Mr. Blanken answers.
Sjaak, who has been using heroin and amphetamines for years, performs paid
fieldwork for Mr. Blanken. "He's a really good fieldworker," the researcher
says. "He picks up on all the methodological things that are important to
us, like the random choice of subjects, and why we pose questions in a
certain way."
Through its research and advocacy, the Addiction Research Institute plays
an important role in shaping drug policies in a nation known -- and often
criticized -- for its liberal drug laws. In 1976, the parliament authorized
coffee shops like the Green House to sell marijuana as a way to separate
that market from the one for hard drugs, such as heroin and amphetamines,
which cannot be legally sold here. Dutch researchers say the policy has
worked: Hard-drug use in the Netherlands is one of the lowest in Europe;
marijuana use is average.
The Dutch are stubbornly proud of their unique, pragmatic approach. But for
researchers like Mr. Blanken, convincing other nations of the wisdom of
that approach is a constant battle. Other European countries are angry with
the Netherlands. France in particular has pressured Dutch officials to
conform to the more hard-line approach toward drugs that is common
elsewhere in Europe. Paris wants the Hague to close the drug-selling coffee
shops, as well as drop-in centers where addicts can bring their heroin and
shoot up with clean needles under the watchful eye of a doctor or nurse.
Dutch policy also stresses prevention and the reduction of harm.
Information on the dangers of drugs is provided at schools, discotheques,
and at "rave" dances, where the drug Ecstasy is part of the culture. After
several European rave-dancers took a fatal combination of drugs and
alcohol, some of the events here have included mini-laboratories, where
dancers can find out whether their drugs have been adulterated with
dangerous substances.
Rotterdam has been a leader among Dutch cities in experimenting with
unconventional remedies to drug abuse. The research project directed by Mr.
Blanken, which began in 1994, gathers data on drug use and addicts. It
tracks their health problems and determines whether they hold jobs or
support their habits by stealing. Among other things, information collected
by fieldworkers like Sjaak has helped to show that treatment programs
offering one-on-one counseling are the most successful.
Rotterdam also tolerates so-called "house dealers" -- heroin sellers who
operate out of their homes. In exchange, they must make sure their clients
use clean hypodermic needles to prevent the spread of AIDS, and don't cause
a nuisance in the neighborhood.
With a growing number of foreign addicts passing through, however, the
police in recent years have shut down some house dealers and drop-in
centers. One unintended side effect of the closures, Mr. Blanken says, has
been an increase in infections among addicts.
The Addiction Research Institute and its staff of 15 occupy a white-brick
townhouse across the street from a small canal bordered by birches and
weeping willows. Mr. Blanken joined the institute, as an alternative to
military service, more than a decade ago. He has also worked for the
University of Amsterdam's drug-abuse center, which emphasizes clinical
research. One of his current duties is lecturing medical students on drug
abuse. "They're not very interested," he concedes. "Most dream of becoming
famous heart surgeons or brain surgeons."
The institute's director, Henk F.L. Garretsen, is a professor of addiction
on the Erasmus medical faculty, as well as head of health promotion for the
city health service. He argues that the research shows that Dutch hard-drug
users face far fewer health problems and are less likely to become involved
in drug-related crime than are users elsewhere.
"Our prime minister put the research results on the table of the French
president," he says, barely concealing his outrage. "You can show all the
research you want. They don't want to listen."
What most worries France, says Paul Lafargue, a toxicologist who serves as
the French government's national drug expert, is "drug tourism" -- young
French people visit several Dutch coffee shops, buy a small quantity of
marijuana in each one, and then resell it in France. "We demand that
Holland follow a policy that doesn't cause problems in neighboring states,"
he says.
Yet he applauds the Netherlands for its extensive efforts to counsel users
and educate young people about the risks of drugs. "We haven't been very
good at that in France," where police interceptions have been the thrust of
national policy, he says. "But we're moving toward a middle way."
At the same time, the constant criticism from France and other European
countries is having some effect here. The Netherlands recently reduced the
quantity of marijuana and hashish that can be sold in coffee shops from 30
grams to 5 grams per customer. It is also considering reducing the number
of coffee shops allowed to sell marijuana.
The "drug tourism" that the French complain about irritates the Dutch, too.
In some drug-selling neighborhoods here, local residents have overturned
parked cars with foreign license plates.
Outside the Green House coffee shop, night has fallen, and it's getting
cold. At the nearby St. Paul's Church, drug addicts with time on their
hands congregate in a warm lounge, waiting for the evening's free meal.
A visitor who sees their drawn faces can't help but wonder whether Mr.
Blanken's opinions about drug policy would change if his own daughter, who
is 5 years old, one day wanted to use drugs.
He answers without hesitating. "I'd talk to her about the good and bad
effects of different drugs, about the risks of compulsive behavior, about
the importance of the circumstances in which you consume the drug."
And if she were underage? "I'd discourage her very strongly from using any
drugs. But if she insisted, I'd encourage her to do it in a relaxed, normal
setting -- at home, with friends, not at a bar.
"It's better finding a constructive way to cope," he says. "Simply
prohibiting often doesn't work."
Copyright (c) 1998 by The Chronicle of Higher Education
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Week Online With DRCNet, Issue Number 33 (News Summary For Activists,
From The Drug Reform Coordination Network - Original Articles Include -
President's Advisory Commission On AIDS To Meet Next Week -
Action On Needle Exchange To Be Debated; A Conversation With Robert Fogel,
Member Of The President's Advisory Council On AIDS;
And Editorial By Adam J. Smith, 'Americans, The Drug War,
And The Concept Of Rights')
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 13:20:55 EST
Originator: drc-natl@drcnet.org
Sender: drc-natl@drcnet.org
From: DRCNet (manager@drcnet.org)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drc-natl@drcnet.org)
Subject: The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue #33
THE WEEK ONLINE WITH DRCNet, ISSUE #33 -- MARCH 13, 1998
--- PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE --
(To sign off this list, mailto:listproc@drcnet.org with the
line "signoff drc-natl" in the body of the message, or
mailto:drcnet@drcnet.org for assistance. To subscribe to
this list, visit http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html.)
To our subscribers: DRCNet is still trying to meet our
goals for paid membership by the end of March. While new
subscriptions are pouring in at a record pace, the service
is free, and we depend upon those of you who are reading and
enjoying The Week Online, and receiving Alerts, to support
this important work. We are looking for 90 new paying
members by the end of the month, to reach our goal. If you
have not yet sent in your $25 annual membership, please do
so this week. You can send checks to: DRCNet, 2000 P St.,
NW, Washington, DC 20036. You can also make a credit card
donation via our secure membership form at
http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html, or call your it in to
(202) 293-8340 or fax to (202) 293-8344.
Copies of Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts are still
available free to anyone who donates $30 or more to DRCNet.
Please note that contributions to DRCNet are not tax-
deductible. If you wish to make a tax deductible donation,
please contact us at drcnet@drcnet.org, or call us and we
will tell you how to do so.
***
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. COLORADO: NEEDLE EXCHANGE KILLED IN COMMITTEE --
ACTIVISTS VOW CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IF NECESSARY
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-13.html#coloradonep
2. PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMISSION ON AIDS TO MEET NEXT
WEEK -- ACTION ON NEEDLE EXCHANGE TO BE DEBATED: In the
wake of last year's talk of resignations, the call goes
up for a strong stance by commissioners.
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-13.html#aidscommission
3. A CONVERSATION WITH ROBERT FOGEL, MEMBER OF PRESIDENT'S
ADVISORY COMMISSION ON AIDS: What actions will the
commission take in the face of the administration's
inaction on the federal ban?
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-13.html#robertfogel
4. MEDICAL MARIJUANA RALLY IN SAN FRANCISCO: The Feds are
doing all they can to thwart the implementation of Prop.
215... On Tuesday, March 24, the opening day of the
federal lawsuit against the buyers' clubs, Californians
will march in protest.
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-13.html#medmjrally
5. CNN ONLINE POLL -- 96% FAVOR LEGALIZING MEDICAL
MARIJUANA: The people send a message to the
politicians.
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-13.html#cnnpoll
6. SPECIAL LEGISATIVE ALERT -- CONTACT CONGRESS TODAY!
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO DEBATE THE MEDICAL USE OF
MARIJUANA: A "Sense of the House" resolution opposing
medical mj, and efforts to legalize it, heads to the
floor -- here's a chance to tell them what you think!
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-13.html#housebill
7. BILL IN OKLAHOMA WOULD ALLOW THE GOVERNOR TO CALL OUT
THE NATIONAL GUARD IN DRUG CASES: A step toward the
further militarization of the Drug War.
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-13.html#oklahomaguard
8. NEW DRUG TESTING BILL APPROVED IN IOWA LEGISLATURE
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-13.html#iowadrugtest
SPECIAL: CANNABIS LEGALIZATION DEBATE IN BRITAIN COMES TO A
BOIL -- THREE STORIES
9. IN RADIO CALL-IN POLL, 84% OF YOUNG BRITS CLAIM A
"RIGHT" TO USE DRUGS: Also... see this week's editorial.
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-13.html#ukpoll
10. HOUSE OF LORDS TO STUDY CANNABIS: The debate is taken
up at the highest levels of the British government.
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-13.html#houseoflords
11. MASSIVE CANNABIS LEGALIZATION MARCH TO BE HELD IN
LONDON: Brits to take to the streets to call for reform.
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-13.html#ukmarch
12. EDITORIAL: Americans, the Drug War, and the concept of
rights.
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-13.html#editorial
***
1. COLORADO: NEEDLE EXCHANGE KILLED IN COMMITTEE --
ACTIVISTS VOW CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IF NECESSARY
A bill which would have changed Colorado state law to allow
legal syringe exchange has been killed in committee in the
House on Monday (3/9). SB 99, which passed the through the
Senate last week, was rejected by the House Education,
Welfare and Institutions committee 7-4 in a vote which went
straight party line with all 7 committee Republicans voting
against. More than 50 witnesses offered more than 4 hours
of testimony in what was described as a very emotional and
combative hearing.
Stu Van Maveren, Larimer County District Attorney testified
against the bill saying "One of the deterrents (to IV drug
use) is the fear of spread of disease. If you have clean
needles, that fear is gone." Those testifying in favor
included Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter, who told the
committee that he had observed such programs elsewhere and
"there is no downside here... You have the opportunity to
save lives."
(Van Maveren's comment is revealing about the prohibitionist
mindset. He is in effect saying that drug users should gets
AIDS and die -- and that the government should facilitate
this by banning syringe exchange -- in order to discourage
the use of drugs. - DB)
The desire of Denver city officials to institute an exchange
program was a catalyst for the inception of the bill.
Several months ago, Denver's city council voted in favor of
needle exchange, with the caveat that they would not
institute a program until and unless the state law
prohibiting them was changed. The city of Boulder has had
needle exchange for ten years -- it is believed to have been
the third such program in the nation at the time of its
founding -- albeit the program still technically runs
illegally. Boulder county officials have long allowed the
program to operate.
Monday's hearing came in the wake of threats made by State
GOP Chairman Steve Curtis that any House Republican who
voted in favor of the "un-Republican" bill would face party-
funded opposition in their next primary. Curtis was roundly
criticized for those comments by some GOPers, including
State Senator Dave Wattenberg, a rancher, who called Curtis
a "silly son-of-a-bitch". Whether or not the threat had any
bearing on the vote is impossible to determine.
In the wake of the defeat of SB 99, AIDS-prevention
professionals in Denver have vowed to do whatever is
necessary to make clean syringes available to IV drug users
in that city. Paul Simons, Executive Director of People
Engaged in Education and Reduction Strategies (PEERS) told
The Week Online: "We have spoken with Bill Ritter (Denver's
DA) who testified in favor of the bill, and, while he
supports exchange, he has indicated that he will uphold the
law as it stands. We intend, in the very near future, to
sit down with the Mayor's staff to try and work out a
compromise similar to what they have done in Boulder. If
those talks are not fruitful, we'll have no choice but to
expand syringe exchange in Denver this spring in an act of
civil disobedience."
Simons continued: "We have a statute on the books in
Colorado which allows for a "lesser of evils" defense.
There are people in Denver -- thousands of people -- who
will be at serious risk of contracting AIDS, hepatitis and
other blood-borne diseases unless they have access to
sterile syringes. We're confident that with all of the
scientific evidence that is on our side, we would prevail in
such a situation. The problem in this state is that there
are a bunch of ideologues in the legislature who would be
quite content to pay the bills for those dying of AIDS,
whether that be for drug users, their partners, or their
children, and to watch them die, rather than acknowledge
that the facts don't jibe with their politics. It is
horrifying, it is pathetic, and we are not going to stand
for it."
Articles in Colorado's largest newspapers covering the
needle exchange defeat can be read online at
http://www.denverpost.com/news/leg173.htm and
http://InsideDenver.com/extra/legislature/0310need2.html.
Letters to the editors can be submitted to
letters@denverpost.com (Denver Post) and letters@denver-
rmn.com (Rocky Mountain News). Be sure to and include your
full name, home town and daytime phone number. Listings for
many other Colorado newspapers online can be found by doing
a Yahoo search on "Colorado media" and following the links.
Important stats on drug-related AIDS in Colorado can be
found online at http://www.drcnet.org/AIDS/co_ban.html.
***
2. PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMISSION ON AIDS TO MEET NEXT WEEK
-- ACTION ON NEEDLE EXCHANGE TO BE DEBATED
For four days beginning on Sunday (3/15), the President's
Commission on AIDS will meet at the Madison Hotel in
ashington DC. The meeting is expected to focus heavily on
the continued federal ban on the use of AIDS-prevention
funding for syringe exchange. Last year it was revealed
that members of the commission had introduced -- and
subsequently withdrawn -- a resolution threatening the
resignation of commission members if no action was taken to
lift the ban. At their last meeting in December, the
council passed a resolution calling on Secretary of Health
and Human Services Donna Shalala to formulate a plan for the
lifting of the ban. That plan was to have been ready by
this past January 27, the date of the President's State of
the Union Address. As of this time, no such plan has been
presented.
The National Coalition to Save Lives Now (NCSLN) is pressing
the council to take strong action at their meeting this
week. Among their demands are that the Council either pass
a resolution stating that they will resign, or else publicly
call for Shalala's resignation. Chris Lanier, NCSLN's
national coordinator, told The week Online, "We are aware
that some members of the Council are angry with us for
publicly demanding that they act. But the reality is that
from our perspective they should have walked two years ago.
Even taking the step of calling for Secretary Shalala's
resignation deflects from the main issue. That is, the
Council is in essence part of the administration, and the
administration, by its inaction on this issue, has allowed
people to become infected with a deadly but preventable
virus. Hopefully, the Council will use the opportunity of
this meeting to take action which is both public and
severe."
***
3. A CONVERSATION WITH ROBERT FOGEL, MEMBER OF THE
PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AIDS
The Week Online spoke with Robert Fogel, partner in the law
firm of Hilfman and Fogel, and a member of the President's
Advisory Council on AIDS, about the upcoming meeting in
Washington, and the possibility that the Council will take
action to put pressure on the administration to lift the ban
on the use of federal AIDS dollars for syringe exchange
programs.
WOL: In the wake of the Council's demand last year that
Secretary Shalala make the required determination that
Needle Exchange Programs (NEP's) prevent AIDS transmission
without increasing drug use, and that she produce a plan for
the funding of such programs -- neither of which she has
done -- there seems to be some pressure for the Council to
take action. What do you see as the potential outcome of
this upcoming meeting in Washington?
RF: Well, all of us who are fighting to have the federal
ban lifted have been frustrated. And while I understand and
feel the frustrations of those who are calling for us to
resign immediately, it is unlikely that that will happen at
this time. At our meeting last July, Ben Schatz (Executive
Director of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, and
member of the Council) brought up the fact that on the issue
of discrimination against people with HIV and AIDS in
certain areas, he was being stonewalled by the
administration. Now, this was an issue that the President
had told us that he would address. At that point, I
considered the position that we had been facing regarding
the needle exchange ban, and I said, "Well, if we're going
to come together and sit in Atlanta, or in Washington, and
do this work and make our recommendations, just to be
ignored, then I move that we resign en masse. And somebody
seconded it. And that was a watershed, I think, in the
Council's work. Ultimately someone else asked that we
withdraw the resolution, and we did. Ultimately, the story
got out and it was picked up by the AP, and it did become an
issue of concern within the administration. Since that
time, we have seen a lot of progress on the discrimination
issues, but none, of course, on needle exchange.
Once you resolve to resign over an issue, it is truly an
end-game strategy. There are steps, short of resigning
ourselves, that might better be taken at this time. This is
a life and death issue, and I, for one, am certainly aware
of that. But there is a question of how to convey to the
administration that this shouldn't be a political issue, and
when and how we can best get that across. We are pretty
determined, as a group, to see action taken by the
administration, but there is, I think, a logical and
strategic process to be followed.
WOL: And what would those intermediate steps entail?
RF: I think that it is quite possible, after meeting with
the Council and speaking to administration representatives,
that we would determine that it is time to call for the
resignation of Secretary Shalala. It would have to be a
resolution that was short and direct, to the effect that as
the Secretary has failed to follow through on the stated
intent of the President to do all that he can to reduce the
transmission of HIV down to zero, that it is our
recommendation that she step down. I'm not saying that this
will necessarily happen, mind you, but proposing such a
resolution is something that I'm sure will be brought up.
WOL: Do you feel that the President has played politics
with this issue?
RF: I do feel that the issue is politically charged, no
doubt, but I also see this President as someone who has not
been afraid to anger people who disagree with him. I have a
lot of respect for him in that to me, it seems as if he has
done what he feels is right for the country. Of course,
he's also a political creature, so that does have some
bearing on his actions. But I think that he simply needs to
be told that this is the right thing to do, why it is the
right thing to do, and how to make it politically palatable.
Allowing federal AIDS dollars to be used to fund NEP's does
not make one "soft on drugs". In the end, I have confidence
that he'll do the right thing.
WOL: So then what is your assessment of why it hasn't been
done to this point?
RF: There are certainly people within the administration
who have taken the position that it's politically
unnecessary to lift the ban... that it will be used as a
political issue and that if local governments want to do
this then they can find the funding to do it. There are
also those who are totally opposed to the idea
ideologically, regardless of the politics. The other side
is that there are people in the White House, including
Sandra Thurman, the national AIDS Director, who are pushing
very hard for the ban to be lifted. As I said, I think it's
going to be a matter of presenting the what's and why's to
this President.
WOL: So is there a line in the sand that the council will
draw?
RF: Certainly. I don't want to give the impression that
the Council is not committed to getting the ban lifted,
because we are. My sense is that this issue is very much on
the President's front burner right now. We will meet in
Washington this week, and if it sounds like things are
coming to a head, if we're satisfied that the question is
not if but only when, then I think that we'll look at that.
But that doesn't mean that we're willing to wait forever.
Even now there is the possibility that a decision will be
made to call for the secretary's resignation this week.
Look, what we want is an answer. If the President says "no"
than it's no longer the secretary's fault, right? So why
call for her resignation? But the President hasn't said
anything, so as of now it's still the Secretary's
responsibility. At this point, she could get up on a soap
box and support needle exchange, and then let the White
House say no if they choose. We could go from there. Right
now we are simply being put off and ignored, and that is not
going to be acceptable.
The Council is very serious about this issue. I think that
there was a window of opportunity to get this done right
after the '96 election, and that the opportunity was wasted.
And if we move forward strongly this week, and come June at
our next meeting nothing's been done, and we get the
response that "well the congressional races are coming up --
there are political concerns," that certainly won't be
acceptable. We've heard that too many times before. That
kind of response will only serve to temper our willingness
to accept rhetoric as fact, and I think that at that point
there would be a real possibility of resignations by Council
members.
WOL: So you would, ultimately, resign over this issue?
RF: You know, several people on the Council have said that
they're not sure that needle exchange, or at least the
federal ban, is an issue that they are willing to resign
over. To them, I've said that it's not just a matter of
needle exchange, it's about the development of a strategy, a
cohesive plan on prevention. And at this point, at the
federal level, that plan still doesn't exist. Needle
exchange, we know, is an effective part of such a plan, and
one which reaches a very vulnerable and very hard to get at
population. So needle exchange has become a litmus test for
something much larger. It comes down to creating a
strategy, to heeding the advice of the experts you have
brought in.
At the White House Conference on AIDS, the president stood
there and pledged to do "whatever is necessary" to get HIV
transmissions to zero. We all walked out of that conference
extremely happy, he said he'd do whatever it took. Well,
this president has been criticized in the past for taking a
"one speech" approach to problems. In other words, he gives
one great speech but there's no follow through. This time,
there was terrific follow through. Shalala attended a bunch
of regional AIDS conferences, they seemed really engaged.
But now, looking back, the follow-up was just rhetorical.
Sure, there's more money now, but prevention got the
smallest increase. Well, if you're not going to spend on
prevention, of course your costs and spending will increase
for drugs and treatment. But that doesn't constitute a
substantive commitment to deal with a preventable,
contagious disease like AIDS.
WOL: Have you spoken, recently, to other Council members
about resigning?
RF: Absolutely. I think that the most persuasive
perspective that I've heard from a fellow Council member
about resigning at this time is that given the choice
between tendering our own resignations or calling for
Shalala's resignation, why should we be the ones? I mean,
we're actually doing our job. At the same time, I have
heard people say that it is better to remain on the inside,
almost at all costs. But to me, there comes a point where
having people on the inside, complaining but not acting,
gives an excuse to stick with the status quo, as if there's
some process that is taking place. And in the end, I'm not
willing to play that part for anybody.
(DRCNet's interview last October with AIDS Council member
Alexander Robinson can be read online at
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1997/10-11-1.html#interview.)
***
4. MEDICAL MARIJUANA RALLY IN SAN FRANCISCO
(bulletin from California NORML)
Rally to Stop the Federal Veto of Prop 215!
Defend Safe Access to Medical Marijuana.
Tuesday March 24 -- 11 AM March from Harvey Milk Memorial
Rainbow Flag Pole (Castro and Market) to Federal Building.
12 Noon Rally at Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate (at Polk)
Background:
In November 1996, Californians elected to give seriously ill
patients the right to use marijuana as medicine by approving
Prop. 215. Now, the federal government -- and posturing
politicians -- are trying to take that right away.
On March 24th, the U.S. District Court in San Francisco will
hear a federal lawsuit aimed at closing six medical
marijuana cooperatives or "clubs" in San Francisco, Oakland,
Santa Cruz, Marin and Mendocino. Most patients have had to
rely on the growing network of medicinal cannabis
cooperatives, some of which predate passage of Prop. 215.
But this is just the latest step in the Federal war against
215. The time has come for the federal government to
declare a legal truce, halt its mindless war on California's
medical marijuana patients and providers, and attend to
building the safe and affordable distribution system called
for in Prop. 215.
The defense brief in the federal case to shut down
California's medical marijuana dispensaries is posted at the
California NORML web site: http://www.norml.org/canorml.
(See our current California legislative action alert at
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-4-2.html.)
***
5. CNN ONLINE POLL -- 96% FAVOR LEGALIZING MEDICAL MARIJUANA
Results of an online poll released this week (3/12) show
that of 25,000 respondents, over 96% favored the
legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Fewer
than 1,000 respondents voted no. Keith Stroup, Executive
Director of the National Organization for Reform of
Marijuana Laws said that "Every poll that has been taken on
this issue shows that a solid majority of Americans do not
want sick and dying people to risk arrest for choosing to
treat their symptoms or their pain with marijuana. Medical
marijuana is a primary example of an issue where the people
are way out in front of the politicians."
***
6. SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE ALERT -- CONTACT CONGRESS TODAY!
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO DEBATE THE MEDICAL USE OF
MARIJUANA
(Excerpted with permission of the National Organization for
Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), http://www.norml.org)
March 10, 1998, Washington, DC: The House of
Representatives will likely vote Tuesday, March 17, on a
"Sense of the House Resolution" stating that "marijuana is a
dangerous and addictive drug and should not be legalized for
medical use." House Resolution 372 -- spearheaded by Rep.
Bill McCollum (R-FL), chair of the Crime Subcommittee of the
House Judiciary Committee -- further declares that "the
United States House of Representatives is unequivocally
opposed to legalizing marijuana for medicinal use, and urges
the defeat of state initiatives which would seek to legalize
marijuana [as a medicine.]". The Crime Subcommittee and
full Judiciary Committee previously voted to adopt the
resolution on February 24 and March 2.
VOTE ON THE HOUSE FLOOR
The full House will likely take this resolution up for
consideration next Tuesday, March 17. Please contact your
members of Congress today and urge them to oppose House
Resolution 372, and to support H.R. 1782, a bill introduced
by Rep. Frank to reschedule marijuana to under federal law
to allow the legal use of marijuana as a medicine. House
Bill 1782 is currently pending in the House Commerce
Committee, Subcommittee on Health and Environment.
For help in identifying the name of your member of Congress,
please visit the NORML web site at: http://www.norml.org/.
Interested parties may send a free fax to Congress from the
NORML site. To call the House of Representatives directly,
please contact the Congressional switchboard operator at:
(202) 224-3121 or address mail to: Rep. _______, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
For more information, please contact either NORML Executive
Director R. Keith Stroup, Esq. or Paul Armentano @ (202)
483-5500.
***
7. BILL IN OKLAHOMA WOULD ALLOW THE GOVERNOR TO CALL OUT THE
GUARD IN DRUG CASES
HB 2596 in Oklahoma would allow the governor to order the
Oklahoma National Guard to assist law enforcement officers
in drug matters. National guard members would have to
volunteer for the duty, which could take them beyond
Oklahoma's boundaries. Once assigned to duty under the
bill, National Guard members would be on federally funded
status and could be helping federal, state or local law
enforcement agencies. The bill has passed the House and is
awaiting committee assignment in the state Senate.
***
8. NEW DRUG TESTING BILL APPROVED IN IOWA LEGISLATURE
- Marc Brandl for DRCNet
Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad is expected to sign legislation
into law that would allow unlimited and unannounced drug
testing of all employees and ease restrictions on pre-
employment testing. The bill introduced by state senator
Steve King (R-Kiron) passed Wednesday March 4th in a
partisan vote.
Opponents of the measure were organized labor and civil
libertarians, who fear unlimited and unannounced drug
testing is an invasion of privacy that is ripe for abuse.
Supporters say the bill, once it becomes law, will be a step
forward in creating a safer workplace. They also contend
existing laws will protect anyone who is legitimately being
harassed by drug tests. James Aipperspach, President of the
Iowa Association of Business and Industry, a vocal supporter
of new drug testing laws, told the Des Moines Register, "I
hope this bill will encourage people to step forward and ask
their employers, 'Would you help me with my problem?'"
Some language of the bill involving a reporting requirement
is causing concerns for local drug reform advocates. The
bill calls for the laboratory doing the drug testing for
firms to report annually to state authorities on the results
of the tests. Carl E. Olsen of Iowa NORML told The Week
Online, "Iowa NORML is still developing its position. The
reporting requirement needs to be looked at, it may be a
fourth amendment violation. If it were not for that factor,
we wouldn't have any grounds to oppose the bill."
Drug testing bills such as this one land in the gray area
for many drug reformers of the libertarian persuasion, who
believe that while such testing may be repulsive to some, as
long as the testing occurs between two private parties,
government has no right to get involved. Many then have to
look at the fine print to see what role government oversight
and law enforcement will have. (Most reformers would
consider drug testing a poor choice, apart from the legal
issues.)
Other provisions of the bill allows for employers with under
fifty workers to not pay for drug rehabilitation. All
businesses may require workers who test positive for drugs
to enter a drug treatment program or fire them.
***
9. POLL: 84% OF YOUNG BRITS CLAIM A "RIGHT" TO USE DRUGS
In a call-in poll conducted by BBC Radio 1, which caters to
a young listening audience, the question was asked, "should
people have the right to take drugs?" responses were taken
over 5 days (3/2 - 3/6), and over 20,000 people cast their
votes. Before each call-in prompt aired by the station, the
announcer advised, "If you think you should be allowed to do
whatever you like with your mind or body providing it hurts
no one else, you should vote Yes. If you believe we need to
keep the current laws in place in order to protect us, vote
No." In the end, 84% were in favor of the rights of
individuals to dictate what does and what does not enter
their bodies.
***
10. BRITISH HOUSE OF LORDS TO STUDY CANNABIS
Last week (3/4) Britain's House of Lords announced that the
Lords Committee on Science will conduct a study on the risks
involved in the use of cannabis, both medically and
recreationally. Issues to be addressed will include the
physiological and psychological effects of cannabis use,
variance among these effects with different methods of
administration, whether or not cannabis is addictive, and
the extent of tolerance that develops among users.
Lord Perry, former Professor of pharmacology and founding
vice-chancellor of the Open University told the Independent
on Sunday "The recreational use of alcohol and tobacco are
attached by risks. There is no ban on either at the moment.
The question then arises, at what level of risk should
people be allowed to make their own judgment about whether
they're prepared to take that risk? It's a question of
whether the risks that are obtained in evidence are regarded
as sufficient to warrant a government ban, or whether they
are risks that individuals might be expected to take for
themselves -- like tobacco, like alcohol... like coffee,
like tea. They're all drugs that have risks."
***
11. MASSIVE CANNABIS LEGALIZATION MARCH TO BE HELD IN
LONDON
The raging debate over cannabis policy in the UK will take
to the streets on March 28th when a crowd expected to be in
the hundreds of thousands -- at least -- marches through the
heart of London to protest the continued Prohibitionist
policies of the British government. The Campaign to
Legalize Cannabis, begun just six months ago by The
Independent on Sunday newspaper, has taken the UK by storm,
with prominent citizens and business leaders publicly
voicing support.
This week (3/8) the Independent called its growing
constituency to the streets in an editorial beginning:
"It is time to stand up and be counted. For the past six
months the Independent on Sunday has led the debate on
decriminalizing cannabis. Now it is time to turn words into
people power. We want the thousands who have already signed
our petition to join countless others who believe the
Government's war against cannabis is harming our society, to
join us in London."
Dr. John P. Morgan of the New York Medical School and co-
author of the new book, "Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts"
told the Independent, "This is marvelous news. I cannot
conceive of a demonstration like this in America just now.
I wish you success. The eyes of the western democracies are
upon you."
Visit the Independent on Sunday's Cannabis Campaign web site
at: http://www.independent.co.uk/sindypot/index.htm.
***
12. EDITORIAL: Americans, the Drug War, and the concept of
rights.
Should people have the right to take drugs? This was the
question asked last week in a call-in poll conducted by
BBC-1 radio in England, a station which caters to young
people. In other words, does an individual have the right
to decide what does or does not enter his or her body, or
does the government have the right to institute laws which
prohibit the ingestion of certain substances? Certainly, a
call-in poll is something less than scientific. Despite
that, with over 20,000 respondents, the results were
astounding. In the end, 84% of mostly young Britons claimed
that the right to determine what they did or did not ingest
was their own and not the government's.
Flash back 200 years or so. Wasn't it Britain, and the
British conception of the reach and the role of government
which led to that little backlash called the Constitution?
Interesting how times have changed. Ask your average
American, young or old, if he or she has a "right" to ingest
drugs, and you will likely get a blank stare. The thought
would never have occurred to them. The Drug War, amidst all
of its other harms, has turned the concept of rights on its
head in America.
It wasn't always this way. In the early part of this
century, when the temperance movement was gaining political
ground, it was widely understood that the Constitution, as
written, would not support an exercise of governmental power
over the production or sale of alcoholic beverages. To
achieve a legal Prohibition of alcohol therefore required
the most drastic of legislative acts: the amendment of the
Constitution. Even at that, it was never imagined that the
government had the power to prohibit the consumption of
alcohol, or of anything else, by its citizens, and so such
consumption was never outlawed.
The Drug War does not rest on a constitutional amendment.
And yet over the years, little by little, the laws which
governed the production, importation and distribution of
certain substances grew to include their possession and even
ingestion. Until now, if you ask the average American
whether or not he or she has the "right" to take drugs, they
will likely think that you've taken a few too many yourself.
But is it so crazy? Is it unreasonable to think that there
exists such a right? The calculus changes if one begins to
look at rights as they were intended. Your rights as an
American -- as a human being -- are not limited to those
enumerated in the Constitution. No, the Constitution is a
document which was written for the purpose of spelling out
the rights, or more accurately the limits, of government.
So the question is really somewhat different.
The question that needs to be asked is: "Does the government
-- any government -- have the legitimate power to determine
for an individual what that person may consensually ingest?"
How far, exactly, does the power of government extend?
Alexander Shulgin, renowned chemist, author and researcher
into the nature and effects of psychedelic substances,
argued that it extends only so far as the tip of his nose
and no further when he said, "from the skin in, I am the
sovereign. I am the customs agent, the police and the
border patrol, and I will defend these borders with more
passion and more fury than I will the politically-drawn
borders of any nation-state."
Is that radical? Does the belief that one's own body -- and
that which would be knowingly put into it -- is the province
of the individual rather than the state mark one as some
kind of militant anti-societalist? Does such individualism
make one a danger, a renegade, a thought-criminal? Or is it
possible that the government, our government, the leadership
of the land of the free, has so encroached on our personal
sovereignty through the medium of the Drug War as to have
incrementally but significantly changed the boundaries of
the acceptable perception of freedom itself? Do I have a
right to do that which the state has determined is not in my
best interest? To smoke tobacco? To overeat? To skydive?
To handle poisonous snakes? To ingest psychotropic
substances?
In the eighteenth century, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander
Hamilton, John Adams, these were radical men. They believed
in the rights of individuals and the strictly limited powers
of legitimate government. Further, they knew that
maintaining those rights and those limits would be a never-
ending process, with government always seeking -- whether
beneficently or malevolently -- to increase its reach into
the lives of its citizens. But radical as they were, those
men were right.
Today, 84% of the young Brits who call in to a radio station
believe that they have the right to determine for themselves
what they will or will not ingest. Or, rather, that the
government has no legitimate power to dictate such personal
decisions by the use of force. They have taken the radical
view that from the skin in, they are the sovereign. And
they seem ready and determined to protect their borders.
200-and-some years after a group of revolutionaries
denounced the Crown and drew up a blueprint for the freedom
and liberty of a nation, the progeny of the colonialists
have found that their former subjects were right all along.
Ask almost any British teenager and you'll apparently find
that they have a very good conception of the self evident
rights of individuals. But ask an American, any American,
whether or not they are sovereign over themselves, and
you'll likely find that in the land of the free, the
citizens are subjects once again.
Adam J. Smith
Associate Director
***
DRCNet
***
JOIN/MAKE A DONATION
http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html
DRUG POLICY LIBRARY
http://www.druglibrary.org/
REFORMER'S CALENDAR
http://www.drcnet.org/calendar.html
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST
http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html
DRCNet HOME PAGE
http://www.drcnet.org/
STOP THE DRUG WAR SITE
http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[End]
to 1998 Daily News index for March 12-18