Portland NORML News - Sunday, April 26, 1998
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Doctors Take Neutral Stand On Medical Marijuana, Oppose Abortion Measure
('Associated Press' Omits The Vote Count Sunday
By The Oregon Medical Association's House Of Delegates,
Representing 5,800 Of The State's 8,300 Physicians,
Meeting At Gleneden Beach)

From: "W.H.E.N. - Bob Owen@Olympia" 
To: "Talk" 
Subject: HT: OR Docs neutral on medical marijuana
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 18:49:18 -0700
Sender: owner-hemp-talk@hemp.net

Doctors take neutral stand on medical marijuana, oppose abortion measure
The Associated Press
04/26/98 4:12 PM Eastern

GLENEDEN BEACH, Ore. (AP) -- Oregon doctors voted Sunday to remain neutral
on a ballot measure that would legalize marijuana use for medical purposes
but they were nearly unanimous in their opposition to a measure that would
ban abortions after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Oregon Medical Association members also voted to expand efforts to report
men in their 20s who impregnate young teen-age girls, and to fight any
requirement that assisted suicide be listed on prescription forms for
terminally ill patients requesting a lethal dosage.

The OMA's house of delegates, its governing body, debated those issues over
the weekend at the annual meeting of the group that represents 5,800 of the
state's 8,300 physicians.

Dr. Charles E. Hofmann of Baker, past president of the OMA, had urged the
group to adopt an American Medical Association report recommending a ban on
medical use of marijuana until experiments have proven its usefulness.

But Dr. Richard Bayer, a Portland internist and a chief petitioner for the
marijuana initiative, told the group there's plenty of evidence showing
that marijuana relieves nausea caused by chemotherapy. He also said it is
effective in fighting weight loss in AIDS patients.

Dr. Nancy Crumpacker, a Portland oncologist and Bayer's wife, agreed. "I've
seen medical marijuana work many times," she said, referring to cancer
patients she sees in her practice.

Some physicians oppose legalization of medical marijuana because they say
it could open the door to unscientific medical practices.

"If demand dictates what we use, it will expand into other areas including
alternative medicines," said Dr. Kathleen Weaver, medical director for the
Oregon Health Plan.

She urged OMA members to wait until studies prove that marijuana is safe
and effective.

Some doctors opposed using marijuana because a synthetic drug, Marinol,
which contains one of marijuana's active ingredients, is effective for
reducing nausea in cancer patients.

Dr. Lonnie Bristow, past president of the American Medical Association and
now a consultant for the manufacturer of Marinol, told the group that
Marinol does work for "a substantial number of cases."

But there was virtually no disagreement when it came time to discuss
abortion.

Dr. Leigh Dolin, a Portland internist and a member of the steering
committee of Pro-Choice Oregon, asked the house of delegates to oppose
efforts by Lon Mabon and the Oregon Citizens Alliance to ban abortions
after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Dolin called the proposed measure "an unprecedented attack on the
physician-patient relationship." The choice to terminate a pregnancy should
be made by "the woman herself, possibly in consultation with her physician
-- not by Lon Mabon and the OCA."

Dr. Zena I.P. Monji, a Eugene obstetrician-gynecologist, warned that the
proposed abortion ban would make it virtually impossible to terminate
pregnancies in cases where tests indicated birth defects.

Jim Kronenberg, OMA executive director, said the opposition to the proposed
abortion measure was consistent with past efforts of the association.

Doctors also felt it was time to step up efforts to reduce teen pregnancy
by reporting young men in their 20s who act as "sexual predators,"
Kronenberg said.

The OMA will join the state attorney general's office to seek prosecution
for statutory rape in such cases, he said.

The OMA also will seek to restrict Oregon Lottery advertising after a
number of pediatricians and psychiatrists were angered by television ads
showing children dreaming about future careers supported by education
funding from gambling revenue.

The association also plans to ask the 1999 Legislature to block efforts by
pharmacists to require doctors to note whether a prescription will be used
by a terminally ill patient for assisted suicide. The OMA delegates agreed
such a requirement would violate doctor-patient confidentiality, Kronenberg
said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Doctors Take Neutral Stand On Medical Marijuana (Version From KOIN,
Portland's CBS Affiliate)

KOIN Channel 6000
Portland, Oregon
http://www.koin.com/
letters to editor:
c6knews@koin.com

Doctors Take Neutral Stand On Medical Marijuana

Opposition To Late-Term Abortions Unanimous

GLENEDEN BEACH, Ore., Posted 2:01 p.m. April 26, 1998 -- Oregon doctors
voted Sunday to remain neutral on a ballot measure that would legalize
marijuana use for medical purposes but they were nearly unanimous in their
opposition to a measure that would ban abortions after the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy.

Oregon Medical Association members also voted to expand efforts to report
men in their 20s who impregnate young teen-age girls, and to fight any
requirement that assisted suicide be listed on prescription forms for
terminally ill patients requesting a lethal dosage.

The OMA's house of delegates, its governing body, debated those issues over
the weekend at the annual meeting of the group that represents 5,800 of the
state's 8,300 physicians.

Dr. Charles E. Hofmann of Baker, past president of the OMA, had urged the
group to adopt an American Medical Association report recommending a ban on
medical use of marijuana until experiments have proven its usefulness.

But Dr. Richard Bayer, a Portland internist and a chief petitioner for the
marijuana initiative, told the group there's plenty of evidence showing that
marijuana relieves nausea caused by chemotherapy. He also said it is
effective in fighting weight loss in AIDS patients.

Dr. Nancy Crumpacker, a Portland oncologist and Bayer's wife, agreed. "I've
seen medical marijuana work many times," she said, referring to cancer
patients she sees in her practice.

Some physicians oppose legalization of medical marijuana because they say it
could open the door to unscientific medical practices.

"If demand dictates what we use, it will expand into other areas including
alternative medicines," said Dr. Kathleen Weaver, medical director for the
Oregon Health Plan.

She urged OMA members to wait until studies prove that marijuana is safe and
effective.

Some doctors opposed using marijuana because a synthetic drug, Marinol,
which contains one of marijuana's active ingredients, is effective for
reducing nausea in cancer patients.

More Information:

* The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)
maintains a Web site that tracks legislation and offers facts about
marijuana usage.

* The Lindesmith Center also offers a history of marijuana.

* The Marijuana Magazine is following the Todd McCormick case.

* The anti-narcotics DrugWatch monitors efforts to legalize drugs from an
opposition standpoint.

* The pro-marijuana magazine High Times does the same thing, from a
supporter's viewpoint.

* HempNet is a site devoted to "raising public awareness of the Cannabis
Hemp plant" as a product source.

* The Industrial Hemp Information Network is a global network of
agricultural-fiber experts and communicationprofessionals, working to
reintroduce industrial hemp.

* Ecolution keeps up on the latest news about the hemp legalization
movement. One of the stories on the Ecolution Web Site is a recent
Washington Post article that describes the national debate over hemp.

Copyright 1998 by The Associated Press

***

[Portland NORML notes: Links to all of the above sites are maintained at PDX NORML's
links page.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

State's Physicians Debate Medical Value Of Marijuana ('Oregonian' Version)
Link to earlier story
The Oregonian letters to editor: letters@news.oregonian.com 1320 SW Broadway Portland, OR 97201 Web: http://www.oregonlive.com/ April 26, 1998 State's physicians debate medical value of marijuana * The Oregon Medical Association considers whether to take sides on proposed ballot measures allowing medical use of the drug and restricting abortion By Patrick O'Neill of The Oregonian staff GLENEDEN BEACH -- Oregon physicians are deciding whether to weigh in on two controversial issues headed for voters this fall. One proposed ballot measure would legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes; the other would ban abortions after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. On Saturday, the governing body of the Oregon Medical Association, which represents 5,800 of the state's 8,300 physicians, wrestled with whether to lend the association's weight in political battles on the two issues. The association's governing body, the house of delegates, will vote on those and other issues this morning. On Saturday, in sometimes-heated debate, doctors offered widely differing opinions on the wisdom of legalizing the smoking of marijuana in medical therapies. Dr. Charles E. Hofmann of Baker, past president of the OMA, urged the group to adopt an American Medical Association report recommending a ban on medical use of smoked marijuana until experiments have proved its usefulness. But Dr. Richard Bayer, a Portland internist and a chief petitioner for the marijuana initiative, told the group that plenty of evidence shows that smoking marijuana relieves nausea caused by chemotherapy and some symptoms of pain. He also said it is effective in fighting weight loss in AIDS patients. Bayer said he and other physicians have seen enough patients who have benefited from marijuana that he is convinced of its effectiveness. Bayer agreed that more study should be done. But the measure would "broker a peace of sorts while science continues its investigations," he said. Dr. Nancy Crumpacker, a Portland oncologist and Bayer's wife, echoed his sentiments. "I've seen medical marijuana work many times," she said. Some physicians oppose legalization of medical marijuana because they say it could open the door to unscientific practices in medicine. Dr. Kathleen Weaver, medical director for the Oregon Health Plan, said patients' desire for marijuana shouldn't be a factor in using it for medical purposes. "If demand dictates what we use, it will expand into other areas including alternative medicines," she said. She urged the members to wait until studies prove that marijuana is safe and effective. Dr. Esther M. Gwinnell, a Portland psychiatrist, chided opponents of medical marijuana for maintaining a "superstitious fear" of the drug. She said fears that using marijuana for medical treatments will foster abuse of the drug are wildly exaggerated. The most heavily abused drugs are prescription medications, she said. "Most of my patients will jump over 75 pounds of marijuana to get to four Dilaudid pills," she said. Dilaudid is a prescription pain medication. She reminded the group that the potential for abuse doesn't automatically mean there are no beneficial uses for a drug. Some doctors oppose using marijuana because a synthetic drug, Marinol, which contains one of marijuana's active ingredients, is effective for reducing nausea in cancer patients. Dr. Lonnie Bristow, past president of the American Medical Association and now a consultant for the manufacturer of Marinol, told the group that Marinol does work for "a substantial number of cases." He said smoking marijuana has too many unknowns for it to be considered safe. Bristow said he is donating his consulting fees from Roxane Laboratories, the maker of Marinol, to medical and nursing schools. Doctors also spent time discussing the battle about abortion in the general election. Dr. Leigh Dolin, a Portland internist and a member of the steering committee of Pro-Choice Oregon, asked the group to support a resolution to oppose efforts by Lon Mabon and the Oregon Cititens Alliance to ban abortions after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Dolin called the proposed measure "an unprecedented attack on the physician-patient relationship." The choice to terminate a pregnancy should be made by "the woman herself, possibly in consultation with her physician -- not by Lon Mabon and the OCA." Dr. Zena I.P. Monji, a Eugene obstetrician-gynecologist, warned that the proposed abortion ban would make it virtually impossible to terminate pregnancies in cases where tests indicated birth defects, such as Down syndrome. As older women choose to have children, she said, tests such as amniocentesis become increasingly important. Amniocentesis cannot be performed until after the 12-week cutoff. The risk of having a child with Down syndrome is one in 350 after age 35, she said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Oregon Medical Association Votes To Remain Neutral
On Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (News Release From Oregonians
For Medical Rights, Sponsors Of A Ballot Initiative Expected To Make
The November Ballot, Notes The OMA Also Called For Continued Research
Into Possible Benefits Of Medical Marijuana)

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 18:41:31 EDT
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: Todd Olson (tolson@teleport.com)
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: OR Medical Association Neutral
Organization: CSLE

OREGONIANS FOR MEDICAL RIGHTS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

OREGON MEDICAL ASSOCIATION VOTES TO REMAIN NEUTRAL ON OREGON MEDICAL
MARIJUANA ACT

OMA House of Delegates Refuses to Oppose Measure
And Calls for More Research into the Benefits of Medical Marijuana

Portland, Oregon, April 26, 1998 -- The Oregon Medical Association
rejected a resolution today which called for opposition to a medical
marijuana initiative, voting instead to remain neutral if the Oregon
Medical Marijuana Act qualifies for the November ballot, according to
OMA delegate and chief petitioner, Dr. Rick Bayer. The action came at
the OMA's annual House of Delegates meeting in Salishan, Oregon.

A resolution which asked delegates to "oppose" any efforts to
legalize the medical use of marijuana was amended to read that the OMA
"not support" any initiative allowing the medical use of marijuana. The
resolution also called for continued research into possible benefits of
the medical use of marijuana.

According to OMA past-president Charles Hofmann, the change from the
word "oppose" to "not support" means that the OMA will remain neutral on
the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act if it qualifies for the November
ballot.

"This was a wise and compassionate decision," said Bayer, a chief
petitioner of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act. "It allows the free
exchange of information between doctors and patients. It provides hope
and comfort for those currently using medical marijuana to alleviate
their symptoms. And it allows the voters of Oregon to decide whether
they believe someone using marijuana for medical purposes should be
allowed to do so free from the threat of criminal prosecution."

The amendment to Resolution 2 was proposed by the Multnomah County
delegation and seconded by the Lane County delegation. Discussion about
patients currently using marijuana for medical purposes and their
potential criminal liability dominated the discussion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Portland-Eugene Split Ten Thousand Medical Marijuana Petitions
(Update From Bruce House Of The Oregon Cannabis Tax Act
On Progress Of OCTA And OPP Initiative Campaigns)

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 13:16:00 -0700
From: wbruceh@ix.netcom.com ()
Subject: Portland/Eugene split 10k Med-Marijuana Petitions!
To: octa99@crrh.org
Cc: opp@efn.org

Please Distribute Widely

***

Unofficially now, we have over 29,000 signatures for the Oregon
Cannabis Tax Act turned into our Treasurer Paul Loney.

We expect all the paid petitions we've mailed back,
to explode our mailbox, our doors - and our bank account - very soon.

April shower's bring May Flowers \:-))

Please, Donate to OCTA now and strike a blow at senseless government
violence!

We have the donations to get half-way there,
We have the Organization to get all the way there.

Now's the Time!

We need your help to put this important issue on the ballot in
Oregon! November 3, 1998 ballot question on the Oregon Cannabis Tax
Act, certified by the Oregon Supreme Court:

'Yes' vote permits state-licensed cultivation, sale of marijuana for
medical purposes and to adults."

Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp
CRRH
P.O. Box 86741
Portland, OR 97286
Phone:(503) 235-4606
Fax:(503) 235-0120
Web: http://www.crrh.org/

***

Hello All!

I hope the 4/25 event went well in Eugene!

I spent the day printing, beginning with the case of Medical Marijuana
Petitions Paul Stanford brought to Eugene, and on to print a total of
40,000 actual impressions - including the second case of Medical
Marijuana Petitions that I will use to pass out and to include in all
our mailouts, with the OPP cover letter. We (at OCTA) appreciate the
$100 reimbursement for the OPP Medical Petitions.

I still have some more printing to do, another day full, to finish the
printing of a (total) 3,000 piece mailout. And, I'm still busy
consolidating the AAL and OCTA data-base, another day on that will do.

Paul Stanford, one of the chief petitioners for OCTA, and Director of
the Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp (the political
pack that sponsors OCTA), is also running for State Representative in
the Democrat primaries this May 19th. Voter's pamphlets are out, and
the ballots are being mailed April 29th.

We are also planning on putting out Paul Stanford's lawn signs next
week, right before the ballots are mailed out. We have 500 *GREEN*
lawn signs that need to be stapled together and placed out on the
streets. If you want to help, please call us and we can arrange a time.

If you want to pick up a lawn sign, and you live in the 14th State Rep.
District in SE Portland, (From The Willamette River to 50th Avenue/Holgate
Boulevard to Stark Street), you can call us at 235-4606 and arrange a time when
you can come by and pick up a lawn sign!

Paul Stanford stands, among other things, for Ending the War on Drugs
and can help OCTA - and Personal Liberty in General - in the
Legislature if elected.

We have yet begun to phone call.

I started phone calls a couple of weeks ago, that paid off with
donations, but have since been overwhelmed with other things.

We need volunteer signatures and/or donations for us to get OCTA on the
ballot, it's that simple.

Once OCTA is ballot-qualified, it's no secret that our energy will be
on MEDIA=EDUCATION and VOTER-REGISTRATION.

VOTE!

For Peace,

Bruce House
Registered Libertarian
CRRH/OCTA Office Volunteer

Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp!
CRRH
Director D. Paul Stanford
stanford@crrh.org
PO Box 86741
Portland, OR 97286
Sponsors of the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act
http://www.crrh.org
Phone: 503-235-4606
Fax: 503-235-0120

***

Video archive: http://www.crrh.org/video.html
Streaming Video of reform related shows

***

Credit Card web donation site: http://www.crrh.org/credit_cards.html
We need cash to pay petitioners!

***

You can now subscribe or unsubscribe to the octa99 emailing list
automatically by using a web browser. Go to:

***

http://webcom.com/terrakor/octa_email
to subscribe or unsubscribe to the octa99@crrh.org email list.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Child Abuse Rises With Drug Abuse ('The Oregonian'
And The Oregon State Office For Services To Children And Families
Disserve The Public By Pretending Alcohol Is Not A Drug
And That It Is Not Responsible For The Vast Majority
Of Drug-Related Child-Abuse Cases)

The Oregonian
letters to editor:
letters@news.oregonian.com
1320 SW Broadway
Portland, OR 97201
Web: http://www.oregonlive.com/
April 26, 1998

Child abuse rises with drug abuse

* Substance abuse has increased among Oregon parents with children in foster
care, a study says, with methamphetamine one of the biggest problems

By Kate Taylor
of The Oregonian staff

In the months before her death, adults towered around Tesslynn O'Cull doing
things she couldn't understand. Police say the 3-year-old girl's mother and
the mother's new boyfriend smoked white powder or pushed needles into their
arms, drained bottle after bottle of alcohol, then brutally tortured the
Springfield child.

And before she was found burned, sexually abused and battered to death in a
shallow grave near Sweet Home, Tesslynn never learned about the substance
abuse that police say fueled the rage.

Probably the most well-known among 34 children killed by abuse in 1997, the
girl appears in the State Office for Services to Children and Families'
recent poster campaign to fight child abuse. Her mother, Stella Kiser, and
Jesse Caleb Compton are awaiting trial for aggravated murder. They have
pleaded not guilty.

In announcing last week the rise in child abuse deaths, confirmed cases of
child abuse and reported abuse, Kay Toran, director of the child-protection
agency, said the increase largely stems from the spread of drug and alcohol
problems in Oregon families.

"Drug and alcohol problems and violence toward children go together," Toran
said. And every year, more and more parents "are high, are not in their
right minds."

Substance abuse troubles about 62 percent of parents with children in foster
care, and substance abuse prevents about a third of the 6,100 children in
foster care from going home, according to a new report released by Portland
State University's Child Welfare Partnership. Four years ago, 54 percent of
parents with children in foster care had substance abuse problems.

"It has to do with the drugs that are out there now," said Paul Bellaty, an
analyst with the partnership. Especially with meth, parents are often a
criminally involved population. From what I've seen, meth makes them
aggressive and nasty, and it's highly addictive."

During the past four years, the Klamath County branch manager of the State
Office for Services to Children and Families has seen methamphetamine and
other drugs seeping deeper into communities.

In 1994, about 12 percent of mothers and 44 percent of fathers involved in
open cases at the branch used meth, Denise Rhode, the manager, said. By
1997, 53 percent of the mothers and 45 percent of the fathers used meth.

"It was a huge jump for us," Rhode said. "Parents who use other kinds of
drugs are often simply unavailable to children. Those who use meth are very
irritable, very angry, have huge mood swings, and the damage they do to kids
is dramatic."

In an unprecedented effort the child-protection agency started last year to
combat child abuse, parents who are drug-affected and don't undergo
rehabilitation to get their children back will find less patience from the
agency, said Betty Uchytil, field operations manager. In the past, social
workers gave parents chance after chance to solve their problems and get
their children back.

Lawmakers, in their last session, gave the child-protection agency an
unprecedented increase in its budget, agreeing to hire 160 new workers.
Legislators also passed a law, known as the Best Interest of the Child, that
sets a one-year deadline to find a child a permanent home after that child
becomes a ward of the court.

Of the 160 new caseworkers, the state has hired 120, 10 of whom are
protective workers, 30 of whom are adoptive workers, and the remainder of
whom are support staff, supervisors and others. All will be hired by April 1999.

Nearly every county branch in the state is trying to get more resources for
drug and alcohol counseling for parents and is working with partners such as
law enforcement and health agencies to provide more services to
drug-affected families. Alliances between the child-protection agency and
law enforcement can sometimes send a drug-affected parent into treatment
rather than to jail for a drug offense.

Taking children away from parents who can't break their drug habits is a
necessary but heartbreaking job for caseworkers, Rhode said.

A caseworker spoke with Rhode recently after taking away the fourth child of
a woman who couldn't give up her drug habit.

"The caseworker was standing there with the mother in the hospital, and the
mother was asking to kiss the baby one more time, and to name it, before the
caseworker took it away," Rhode said. The caseworker had been dealing with
the mother and her family for years, but still "barely made it out of the
room without breaking down and crying."

Kate Taylor, of The Oregonian's Family & Education Team, writes about
children's and family rights. Contact her by phone at 294-7692, by fax at
294-4039, or by mail at 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland, Ore. 97201.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Can The Los Angeles Criminal Justice System Work Without Trust?
(Op-Ed In 'Los Angeles Times' Discusses The Recent Revelation
That Los Angeles Police And Prosecutors Assigned To Enforcement Of Drug Laws
Have Secretly Relied On Illegal Wiretaps For Years To Gather Evidence -
Never Have So Many Prosecutors Lied For So Long About So Much,
Resulting In The Unconstitutional Convictions Of So Many)
Link to earlier story
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 10:53:45 -0700 To: mapnews@mapinc.org From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson) Subject: MN: US CA: OPED: Can the L.A. Criminal-Justice System Work Without Trust? Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield Source: Los Angeles Times (CA) Contact: letters@latimes.com Fax: 213-237-4712 Website: http://www.latimes.com/ Pubdate: April 26, 1998 Author: Charles L. Lindner CAN THE L.A. CRIMINAL-JUSTICE SYSTEM WORK WITHOUT TRUST? Imagine how you would feel if you discovered that your son incrementally had stolen the family jewels and sold them on the street to support his drug habit. You would be enraged and perplexed. You would try to forgive, but you could not forget. You'd realize that, despite your best intentions, you could never trust your son again. These days, many L.A. County defense lawyers have similar feelings toward the district attorney's office in the wake of the discovery that deputy district attorneys assigned to its narcotics unit have relied on secret wiretaps for years to gather evidence against their clients--and no one, including judges, knew about the practice. Beyond the obvious legal question of whether the district attorney knowingly violated the 4th Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure is one that cannot be resolved in court: Can the county's criminal-justice system carry on in an atmosphere of mistrust? The wiretap discovery came in the 1996 Lauro Gaxiola cocaine possession case. Defense lawyers appearing before Superior Court Judge Gregory Alarcon had spent a year trying to obtain their clients' statements. By law, the prosecution is required to turn over such statements to the defense. The lawyers were stunned to learn that the charges were derived from secret wiretaps. Furthermore, the Los Angeles Police Department and the district attorney's narcotics unit had conspired to carry out hundreds of such wiretaps since 1985, all without informing either defense attorneys or trial judges hearing the cases. The seminal ruling in wiretap law came in 1967, in Katz vs. United States, when the U.S. Supreme Court held that, contrary to the spirit of the 4th Amendment, modern technology afforded the government significant opportunities for invading personal privacy without intruding into physical space. The court rejected the idea that only searches and seizures of tangible property were protected by the amendment and expanded the amendment's protections to invasions of personal privacy even when no physical trespass occurred. Since Katz, the police can only monitor a conversation pursuant to a warrant signed by a judge and based on a showing of "probable cause." LAPD officers have avoided revealing the existence of their electronic intercepts using a police procedure known as "the handoff technique." It works like this: Narcotics officers on "Team A" set up a wiretap to gather information on a suspect. Without identifying the source of their information, the officers turn over the wiretap's "intelligence product" to detectives from "Team B," also members of LAPD's narcotics unit. Using the intelligence product, "Team B" officers set about trying to gather facts independently that would provide "probable cause" for a second judge to sign a search warrant targeting another suspect, without the cops disclosing the existence of the first wiretap to the jurist. It is not hard to imagine the potential harm from this police-prosecution malfeasance. If an investigation focused on a pharmacist, for instance, the police would have a taped record of every prescription for every patient and physician who called the pharmacy. By law, these wiretaps are preserved for 10 years, so the potential damage to an innocent citizen having his or her private calls intercepted is significant. What aggravates the misconduct is the likelihood that neither the police nor the "wiretap judge" followed the legal requirement that the police file written progress reports every 72 hours, and that the judge make a decision every 72 hours on whether a tap can continue. There is strong reason to suspect that neither the judiciary nor the Legislature has been "minding the store." For example, a judge issuing a wiretap order must inform any person whose voice was wiretapped within 90 days and supply the person with an inventory of what was recorded. Similarly, Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren is required to provide a detailed report to the Legislature and state Judicial Council each April regarding the number and duration of all wiretaps conducted by every law-enforcement agency in the state. As of last week, neither the Judicial Council nor Chairman John Vasconcellos' Senate Public Safety Committee could find a copy. Finally, no public defender or private criminal lawyer has been given the legally required inventory since 1985, when the secret wiretaps began. According to Public Defender Michael P. Judge, the public record discloses only three reported wiretaps by local law enforcement during 1997--two by the LAPD and one by the county Sheriff's Department. It is simply mind-boggling that, for the last 13 years, on hundreds of occasions when the court or opposing counsel have asked prosecutors whether they have turned over all defendants' and co-defendants' statements, they have been lied to or misled. The danger from these secret wiretaps is not limited to suspected criminals. According to statistics published by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, which oversees "authorized" federal wiretaps, each wiretap order of roughly 40 days in length results in the interception of an average 2,139 conversations involving 84 separate persons. The statistics also note that the average tap produces incriminating information less than 20% of the time, resulting in the arrest of two suspects and the conviction of a single individual. If, as a police narcotics detective testified in the Gaxiola case, there have been hundreds of secret "handoff" taps and electronic intercepts, by extrapolation, thousands of Los Angeles residents have had their private telephone conversations secretly and illegally monitored by LAPD. The public defender has filed an unprecedented class-action habeas corpus petition with Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert W. Parkin on behalf of all past, present and future public defender clients. It seeks to discover whether the prosecution denied thousands of defendants a fair trial by hiding the true source of its information, i.e., secret wiretaps. If secret wiretaps were used and the evidence was concealed from the defense, then thousands of men and women were illegally convicted and incarcerated. Should this unhappy scenario play out, the criminal justice system could well be irreparably damaged, its credibility in the public mind ruined. Yet, even if events keep the convicted behind bars, the loss of trust between prosecutor and defense lawyer may never be fully recovered. The problem defense lawyers and criminal judges face today is that they have never had so many prosecutors lie for so long about so much, which may have resulted in the unconstitutional convictions of so many. Copyright Los Angeles Times
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Lab Problems Spoil LAPD Drug Arrests ('Associated Press'
Article In 'San Jose Mercury News' Says Staff Shortages
And Procedural Glitches Have Forced The Los Angeles Police Department
To Free Up To 300 Felony Drug Suspects So Far This Year
Because Officials Didn't Receive Drug Analysis Results
In Time For Their Arraignments)

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 01:01:30 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Melodi Cornett 
Subject: MN: US CA: Lab Problems Spoil LAPD Drug Arrests
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Marcus-Mermelstein Family 
Pubdate: Sun, 26 Apr 1998
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/

LAB PROBLEMS SPOIL LAPD DRUG ARRESTS

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Staff shortages and procedural glitches have forced the
Los Angeles Police Department to free up to 300 felony drug suspects so far
this year because officials didn't receive drug analysis results in time for
their arraignments.

Mistakes made while handling evidence and compiling arrest reports have
slowed down how quickly investigators can verify whether seized substances
are illegal drugs, officials said.

Prosecutors need this information so they can file charges within 48 hours
after an arrest, said Detective Norm Lee, a supervising narcotics detective
in the San Fernando Valley Bureau.

Otherwise, a suspect goes free.

``Without the lab results, we don't have a case. We're sending people off
that need to be incarcerated,'' he said.

The problem was noted in an internal report by Chief Bernard C. Parks, the
Daily News of Los Angeles reported Saturday.

``The department is currently releasing a significant number of felony
narcotics suspects without an initial filing as a result of difficulties in
obtaining a formal laboratory analysis of evidence by the morning of
arraignment day,'' Parks said in the report.

``There is reason to believe this problem will become even more severe as a
result of a steady increase in narcotic arrests and changes which may be
required in the narcotic analysis process because of Scientific
Investigation Division's accreditation,'' the chief added.

In some cases, prosecutors are still waiting for drug analysis reports on
arrests made five months ago, said Deputy District Attorney John Perlstein,
who supervises the filing of drug cases in the downtown office, which
handles from 50 to as many as 200 felony drug cases per day.

``I have never seen it this bad,'' Perlstein said. ``We're sitting here with
cases that go back to December and January, where they not only haven't been
able to do the dope test, but in some cases they haven't been able to find
the dope.''

The problem has been worst at the downtown courts, where 50 to 200 felony
drug cases are filed per day, 10 times the average of San Fernando Valley.

Seven criminalists and one supervisor analyze drug evidence downtown, with
two vacancies. An LAPD official speaking on condition of anonymity told the
Los Angeles Daily News that the lab needs four more criminalists to handle
the current caseload. Two more lab positions are proposed in the new city
budget.

Improperly filed evidence has also slowed prosecutors down.

``It's usually caused by an officer not filing the evidence report properly
-- putting the wrong number on it,'' Perlstein said.

In the first three months of this year, the LAPD filed 10,906 felony drug
cases, up from the 10,527 filed during the same period in 1996.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Hastert Carries GOP Flag In War On Drugs ('Chicago Tribune' Reprint
From 'DC Journal' Gives A Completely One-Sided Portrait
Of Suburban Chicago US Representative Dennis Hastert,
But Lets It Slip That Republican Leaders Recently Signaled
They Would Use A Hard Stand On 'Drugs' To Fend Off Criticism
They Are Too Soft On Cigarette Makers)

Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:31:50 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Melodi Cornett 
Subject: MN: US IL: Hastert Carries Gop Flag In War On Drugs
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Steve Young
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: tribletter@aol.com
Website: http://www.chicago.tribune.com/
Pubdate: Sun, 26 Apr 1998
Author: Mike Dorning
Note: Reprint from "D.C. Journal"

HASTERT CARRIES GOP FLAG IN WAR ON DRUGS

WASHINGTON - The handiwork of suburban GOP Rep. Dennis Hastert will be on
display this week as the Republican Party begins unveiling a series of
anti-drug measures.

The headlines probably will be grabbed by show "drug-free" initiatives, like
"drug-free Congress" legislation, requiring random drug tests of elected
representatives and their staffs.

But the broader plan will reflect the priorities of Hastert, a
less-than-flamboyant lawmaker who has focused on drug issues for years and
was chosen by Republican leaders to coordinate the campaign.

Look for Hastert's influence particularly in a stepped-up emphasis on drug
interdiction and border controls.

The GOP plan will call for the hiring of thousands of additional border
guards and a major commitment to deploy technologically advanced equipment
that can "sweep" luggage for traces of illegal drugs, a congressional staff
member said.

Hastert also has been musing about triple-fencing parts of the Mexican
border, sure to be diplomatically troublesome but politically popular.

The Republican plan would view drug education and prevention programs more
skeptically, putting them under close scrutiny to show a tight focus on
anti-drug messages or measurable results in lowering narcotics use.

Drug abuse awareness programs, including the politically popular DARE (Drug
Abuse Resistance Education), have come in for criticism for ranging too far
from their purpose in places.

How the program will fare is open to question, with Republican leaders
recently signaling they will use a hard stand on drugs to fend off criticism
they are too soft on cigarette-makers.

Intertwining the plan with the politically charged tobacco settlement can
cause only trouble during an election year. But Hastert, a committed
partisan, argues, "There is a real nexus with tobacco. I think we'll get it
all passed."

INOCULATION: Hastert also inserted himself into the last-minute
behind-the-scenes struggle within the Clinton administration last weekend
over federal funding of needle exchange programs for drug addicts to prevent
the spread of AIDS.

Tipped by staffers of drug czar Barry McCaffrey, who strongly opposes
federal funding for such programs, Hastert warned President Clinton off in a
meeting the two had during the "Summit of the Americas" in Chile which
Hastert was attending as the lead congressional delegate on drug policy.

The lawmakers office also pre-empted a planned administration announcement
Monday with press releases whipping up opposition to needle exchanges. The
administration, in a last minute flip-flop, came out against funding Monday.

"I think I got his attention," Hastert said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Prisoner Benefit Cutoff Expanded ('Washington Post'
Says President Clinton Yesterday Ordered Federal Agencies
To Take New Action To Prevent Prisoners From Receiving
Federal Benefits While They Are Behind Bars)

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 08:48:41 -0700
To: maptest@mapinc.org
Subject: #O# US: WP: Prisoner Benefit Cutoff Expanded
Sender: webmaster@mapinc.org
Newshawk: "William P. Perry" 
Pubdate: Sunday, 26 April 1998
Source: Washington Post
Contact: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Author: Barbara Vobejda Washington Post Staff Writer

PRISONER BENEFIT CUTOFF EXPANDED

Clinton Orders New Action to Prevent Illegal Federal Payments

President Clinton yesterday ordered federal agencies to take new action to
prevent prisoners from receiving federal benefits while they are behind
bars, a problem that costs taxpayers millions of dollars each year.

Citing recent efforts by the Social Security Administration (SSA) to crack
down on illegal payments to inmates, the president directed officials in
the departments of Labor, Veteran Affairs, Justice, Education and
Agriculture to do the same. Clinton instructed the agencies to match their
lists of beneficiaries against a database of prisoners maintained by SSA.
The database is regularly updated and includes 99 percent of all prisoners
in the country.

While inmates have been legally banned from receiving such aid for some
time, agencies often have had poor information about who is incarcerated,
particularly in local jails.

In his weekly radio address, Clinton said he was disturbed when he learned
recently that prisoners were receiving Social Security and disability
payments illegally and decided to take action to extend existing anti-fraud
efforts to other types of federal payments.

"Inmates were in effect under our law getting away with fraud, primarily
because it was so difficult to gather up-to-date information on criminals
in our nation's more than 3,500 jails."

"Now we are going to build on the Social Security Administration's success
in saving taxpayers from inmate fraud," he said. "We will ensure that those
who have committed crimes against society will not have an opportunity to
commit crimes against taxpayers as well."

The issue was raised recently when SSA's Inspector General, David C.
Williams, told a House committee that tens of thousands of prisoners
illegally draw Social Security and disability payments each month. At the
time, Rep. Wally Herger (R-Calif.) said he had become aware of the problem
when a local sheriff in his state reported that his inmates were cashing
Social Security checks at the beginning of each month.

But better computer checks, as well as a new bonus system to encourage
sheriffs and prison officials to report fraud, have begun to make a
difference, federal officials say.

As result of anti-fraud efforts, Clinton said yesterday, the federal
government has suspended benefits to 70,000 prisoners. Those savings,
projected over the next five years, would amount to $2.5 billion.

The president promised that greater savings would be realized by extending
the crackdown to food stamps, veterans benefits, education aid and other
payments. White House aides estimated the additional savings at $180
million to $500 million over five years.

The 1996 welfare legislation authorized bonus payments of up to $400 to
sheriffs and prison officials if they reported to the federal government
inmates who were illegally receiving benefits. Nearly 3,000 fraudulent
payments have been reported as a result.

While the "executive memorandum" signed by the president yesterday names
the Agriculture, Education, Labor and Veterans Affairs departments, it also
directs other executive agencies with benefit programs to determine whether
they could also use the SSA database to eliminate improper payments to
prisoners.

"We owe it to the American people to ensure that their Social Security
contributions and other tax dollars are benefiting only those who work
hard, play by the rules and are by law eligible to receive them," Clinton
said. "That's exactly what we are trying to do."

(c) Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Statistics Distort Drunken-Driving Standards Debate (Syndicated Op-Ed
In 'San Jose Mercury News' By Paul Mulshine Of The Newark, New Jersey
'Star-Ledger' Says The Congressional Debate Over A National Standard
For What Blood-Alcohol Level Constitutes Drunken Driving Is Taking Place
In The Light Of Statistical Definitions Established By The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, In Which Accidents Are Routinely Attributed
To Alcohol Even When Alcohol Had No Discernible Role, Allowing One Politician
To Say 41 Percent Of About 42,000 Traffic Deaths Were Alcohol-Related,
When The Actual Figure For Drunken Drivers Is Less Than Half That,
About 19 Percent According To NHTSA)

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 00:58:30 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Melodi Cornett 
Subject: MN: US: OPED: Statistics Distort Drunken-Driving Standards Debate
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Marcus-Mermelstein Family 
Pubdate: Sun, 26 Apr 1998
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
Author: Paul Mulshine, columnist for the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J.

STATISTICS DISTORT DRUNKEN-DRIVING STANDARDS DEBATE

Imagine you're sitting at a pleasant sidewalk cafe having dinner. After
taking a few sips of wine, you get up to go to the bathroom. Suddenly a car
driven by a man who has had a heart attack jumps the curb, mows you down and
dispatches you to a better world.

When you look down from heaven, you are astonished to find your death listed
as an alcohol-related fatality.

Strange but true. Under the rules established by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, accidents are routinely ruled alcohol-related
even when alcohol had no discernible role in them. This practice has so
distorted the debate about drunken driving that it might be a good idea for
us to simply stop discussing the matter entirely until we start using valid
data.

Instead, we're in the midst of a national effort to use that distorted data
to lower the national blood alcohol content (BAC) standard from 0.10 percent
to 0.08 percent. (California's standard is already 0.08 percent.) Frank
Lautenberg, a U.S. senator from New Jersey, is leading the charge. With bad
information. I quote: ``In 1996, 41 percent of some 42,000 deaths due to
traffic crashes were alcohol-related.''

Sounds horrible. Sounds like 41 percent of the drivers involved in these
crashes were drunk.

They weren't. The actual figure for drunken drivers (those with BAC over
0.10 percent) involved in fatal crashes is less than half that figure, about
19 percent, according to NHTSA.

So where does the 41 percent figure come from? From the very heart of
statistical mendacity. For one thing, it includes any BAC above 0.01, just
one-tenth of the present legal limit in most states. Many of these people
were, for all intents and purposes, sober when they entered the pearly gates.

But that's not the worst part of the distortion. The figure also includes
accidents in which the driver was stone cold sober. The fatality was that of
either a pedestrian or a bicyclist who was drunk. Good and drunk, by the
way. NHTSA's own figures show that about a third of pedestrians killed in
accidents had a BAC over 0.10. The bicyclists tended to have had a few
drinks as well.

Which brings us to the central question that is not being asked in this
math-phobic nation: Why are we setting drunken-driving standards using a
database of drunken bicyclists and walkers? This is a question we should
answer before we start targeting moderate drinkers.

No one on either side of the current debate opposes targeting the
hard-drinking drivers, those above 0.10 percent. But the problem with the
proposed change is that it would, if strictly enforced, put a large number
of harmless drivers in jail in an attempt to scare these truly dangerous
drivers.

The bill's proponents claim that the drivers in the range between 0.08 and
0.10 percent are a significant hazard. But the statistics don't show it once
you factor out the walkers and bicyclists.

Lautenberg's office, for example, has claimed that 9 percent of highway
fatalities involved drivers whose BAC was less than 0.10 percent. This is
not true. The actual figure, when pedestrians and bicyclists are excluded,
is 6.2 percent.

That's still a significant number. And that figure could be used to make a
good argument for cracking down on even moderate drinking before driving.

Except for two things: One is that the fatalities are spread fairly evenly
through this range. Those at the top don't appear to be driving much
differently from those at the bottom.

The other flaw is that statistics are meaningless in a vacuum. You need to
put them in context. In other words, if redheaded drivers make up 5 percent
of the population but are involved in 50 percent of the accidents, you'll
want to steer clear of redheads. However, if redheads make up 5 percent of
the population but are involved in just 1 percent of the accidents, you'll
want to compliment them on their driving skills.

To evaluate the effect of moderate drinking, you need to know how many
people are driving around with alcohol in their systems. The 1996 National
Roadside Survey, for example, found that about 13 percent of drivers tested
were in the BAC range between zero and 0.099 percent.

Put those two studies together. You find that 13 percent of people are
driving around with moderate amounts of alcohol in their systems but they
are involved in just 6.2 percent of fatal accidents. Statistically, these
drivers are actually safer, not more dangerous, than the average driver.

They aren't, of course. I'm playing with statistics. But so are the
proponents of this bill, in more ways than I can list in this short space.
Until they stop using bad numbers, they should be ignored.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Darwinian Thought (Letter To Editor Of 'Chicago Sun-Times'
Notes The Newspaper Reached The Same Position As The Clinton Administration
On Needle Exchange More Than Two Years Ago - And Asks It
To Editorialize Again To Save Lives And Taxpayer Dollars)

Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:32:47 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Melodi Cornett 
Subject: MN: US IL: PUB LTE: Darwinian thought
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Steve Young
Pubdate: Sun, 26 Apr 1998
Source: Chicago Sun-Times (IL)
Contact: letters@suntimes.com
Website: http://www.suntime.com

DARWINIAN THOUGHT

Two and one-half years ago, the Sun-Times editorialized (Sept. 21, 1995) in
favor of the distribution of clean needles to prevent the spread of AIDS but
opposed the expenditure of public funds for such programs.

Now, after cutting through Washington red tape and carefully studying the
data for years, the federal government has sided with the Sun-Times -
needles, yes, but no money.

The next step in the evolutionary progression of enlightened thought is to
call for the public funding of "potentially lifesaving" Needle Exchange
Programs benefiting addicts and taxpayers alike. With any luck at all in
another few years, the federal government will act responsibly and fund such
programs, thereby saving many lives and taxpayer dollars.

James E. Gierach, executive director, Drug Corner, Oak Lawn
-------------------------------------------------------------------

'Jailing The Healers And The Sick,' By Rufus King (Cliff Schaffer,
Creator Of The Largest And Best Online Library Of Drug Policy Information,
Posts The URL For The 1953 Article From The 'Yale Law Journal,'
Noting The Rufus King Collection Of Documents
Will Soon Join The Schaffer Library)

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 22:43:00 EDT
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: "Cliff Schaffer" 
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: Jailing the Healers and the Sick, by Rufus King

Coming soon to the Schaffer Library will be the Rufus King collection of
documents -- a lot of the most interesting stuff on the history of our drug
policy. This particular piece, from the Yale Law Journal of 1953, is a good
example. It tells the story of how the narcotics agents gained control
over the prescription of narcotics by the medical profession. It should be
read by everyone as a lesson for the future. Please feel free to distribute
it everywhere.

***

THE NARCOTICS BUREAU AND THE HARRISON ACT:
JAILING THE HEALERS AND THE SICK

RUFUS B. KING*

*Special Counsel, Subcommittee of House Committee on the Judiciary to
Investigate the Department of Justice; Special Counsel, Investigations
Subcommittee of Senate Interstate Commerce Committee.

[This issue of the JOURNAL contains two studies of the narcotics problem. A
Comment, beginning on page 751, presents a general survey of narcotics
regulation. Mr. King's Article focuses ox the interpretation and
enforcement of the Harrison Act, and the resulting impact upon addicts and
physicians.]

AT last there are faint stirrings to suggest that this nation's policies
toward its narcotic drug traffic may soon be exposed to a full critical
re-examination and review.1 Nearly forty years have gone by since Congress
passed the Harrison Act,2 intended partly to carry out a treaty obligation,3
but mainly to aid the states in combatting a local police problem which had
gotten somewhat out of hand.4 In other areas of law enforcement, when
Congress has thrown federal power into the balance, these local problems
have usually diminished or disappeared.5 In the case of narcotics control,
however, the indications are all quite to the contrary.

It must be conceded that there are large gaps in what we know about
narcotics addiction and the illicit traffic. The Comment elsewhere in the
JOURNAL6 presents a dispassionate collection of information and authorities.
Yet there is simply not much to go by. When the federal authorities took
over, we entered a forty-year eclipse; for years on end there has been
nothing but the "official line" for those who wished to inquire into the
subject. But enough information is available to convince this writer, along
with a handful of other Protestants,7 that the United States-alone among
civilized nations-has driven relentlessly down the wrong road ever since the
end of World War I. This article (which is not dispassionate) will relate
the episode in our legal history which propelled our enforcement agencies
along this road. But first it may be helpful to set forth a brief history
of the relationship between the addict and his Government.

Our grievous error was in allowing the narcotics addict to be pushed out of
society and relegated to the criminal community. He isn't a criminal. He
never has been. And nobody looked on him as such until the furious
blitzkrieg launched around 1918 in connection with the enforcement of the
Harrison Act.

That Act was a tax measure, designed and intended to bring the domestic
traffic in narcotics into the open under a licensing system, so that the
sloppy dispensing practices of the day could be checked. It said nothing
about "addicts" (partly because the word had not achieved its wide current
usage), and specifically exempted the "patient" in bona fide doctor-patient
relationships.8 Narcotics-users were "sufferers" or "patients" in those
days; they could and did get relief from any reputable medical practitioner,
and there is not the slightest suggestion that Congress intended to change
this-beyond cutting off the disreputable "pushers" who were thriving outside
the medical profession and along its peripheries.

Two things, very likely related, distorted this intent. The Act was
assigned, for enforcement, to the same righteous zealots who were
undertaking another national mistake -enforcement of our then new
Prohibition laws;9 and, secondly, a great public hullabaloo about the "dope
menace" swept the country.10 The narcotics-user suddenly became a "dope
fiend." Official estimates of the addict-population leapt to the fantastic
figure of one million - mostly young folk, many "under the age of 20."1l
The good people of our land were terrified. The Narcotics Division of the
Treasury Department came charging to the rescue; our prisons began to fill,
not with illicit peddlers only, but with addicts--and reputable medical men
who had tried to help them.12 And there has been no surcease from that day
to this.

In sum, the Narcotics Division succeeded in creating a very large criminal
class for itself to police (i.e., the whole doctor-patient-addict-peddler
cornmunity), instead of the very small one that Congress had intended (the
smuggler and the peddler). Subsequent Division officials have sustained the
enforcement-oriented propaganda barrage: the addict is a criminal, a
criminal type, or laden with criminal tendencies.13 addicts can only be
dealt with by being tracked down and isolated from society in total
confinement;14 the cureall is more arrests and stiffer criminal penalties
for all narcotics offenders;15 and anyone who raises a dissenting voice is
most likely a bungling "dogooder"16 or one who wants to undermine the
foundations of our society.17 The states have been pushed and swept along
this same vindictive line of approach,18 with very few dissents.19 And the
present campaign is as vigorous and formidable as ever.20 To this campaign,
the judiciary made its own contribution in a series of decisions rendered in
the 1920's and to which we now turn.

THE NARCOTIZATION OF THE HIGH COURT
Dr. Behrman and His Predecessors

Before the Narcotics Division could really turn the nation into a happy
hunting ground, stocked with addicts as fair game, it had to drive the
medical profession out of the way. As has been noted, Section 2 of the
Harrison Act exempted the prescription of drugs "to a patient by a physician
. . in the course of his professional practice only"21 This was
unrevealing draftsmanship,22 and many doctors felt that the agonies of
unrelieved addiction were as much encompassed in their Hippocratic Oath as
any other human suffering.

The Division's assault on this expression of the physic ian's conscience
started in the courts. The Government aimed for a construction which would
exclude from the Harrison Act exemption a doctor's dispensation of narcotics
to ease all addict's cravings The attack had two objectives: to end all
so-called ambulatory treatment 23 (including the clinic system for
controlled distribution of drugs to addicts24); and then, if possible, to
drive the profession away from the addict altogether. It succeeded in both
goals-for a brief period. But its short-lived success was enough, as we
shall see. Government victories in the Supreme Court, culminating in United
States v. Behrman,25
pose two problems that are broader than the subject matter of this
discussion. To what extent is it morally justified for an administrative
agency to select the cases it feeds our appeals courts in order to gain some
desired interpretation or result? And how far ought the rule of stare
decisis be extended into successive administrative actions and
interpretations-particularly when the court decision underlying the original
action has meanwhile been effectively overruled ?
The Harrison Act came through its first constitutional test by a
five-to-four margin.26 On the same day the Court decided Webb v. United
States,21 a physician case under the exemption in Section 2. The facts
showed flagrant abuse; the doctor had sold prescriptions-4,000 of them in
eleven months --indiscriminately to anyone for 50 cents apiece. The issue
was presented in a certified question:

"If a practicing and registered physician issues an order for morphine to an
habitual user thereof, the order not being issued by him in the course of
professional treatment in the attempted cure of the habit, but being issued
for the purpose of providing the user with morphine sufficient to keep him
comfortable by maintaining his customary use, is such order a physician's
prescription under exception (b) of s. 2 ?"28

The Court replied:

"[T]o call such order for the use of morphine a physician's prescription
would be so plain a perversion of meaning that no discussion of the subject
is required."29

Note how the question was loaded: "sufficient to keep him comfortable by
maintaining his customary use" is not a description of the facts of the
case; it not only blankets the outright peddling involved in the case before
the Court, but it also reaches toward the bona fide administration of drugs
for the relief of a patient-addict.
The next case, Jin Fuey Moy v. United States,30 was likewise flagrant on its
facts. The doctor had prescribed morphine to strangers indiscriminately, in
bulk, 8 to 10 grams at a time for $1.00per gram. The Court, this time
apparently choosing its own wording, said:

"Manifestly the phrases 'to a patient' and 'in the course of his
professional practice only' are intended to confine the immunity of a
registered physician, in dispensing the narcotic drugs mentioned in the act,
strictly within the appropriate bounds of a physi6an's professional
practice, and-not to extend it to include a sale to a dealer or a
distribution intended to cater to the appetite or satisfy. the craving of
one addicted to the use of the drug."31

Again, the language goes beyond the facts of the case. It separates
"professional practice" from any administration whatsoever "intended to
cater to the appetite or satisfy the craving" of an addict.
Now the stage was set for Dr. Behrman. For purposes of finding the doctor a
peddler for profit, the case presented an ideal set of facts. He was
arrested in New York for giving one addict, at one time, for use as the
addict saw fit, prescriptions for 150 grains of heroin, 360 grains of
morphine, and 210 grains of cocaine. Again the question posed was whether
this was "in the course of his professional practice only." The Government,
however, drew up a trick indictment, alleging not that the prescriptions
were incompatible with approved and proper therapeutic treatment, but
instead alleging that, in effect, the drugs were given in a good faith
attempt to cure the addict.33

Behrman demurred. The district judge delivered a brief tirade against
"ambulatory treatment," but reluctantly sustained the demurrer, referring to
a decision in another trick-indictment case,34 and closing with an inviting
conclusion: "For the sake of uniformity in this district, however. I am
disposed to follow precedent until the question is concluded by a decision
of the Supreme Court."35
The Government appealed the case directly to the Supreme Court 36 and
promptly moved to advance it, stating in support of its motion:

"[The case involves] a matter of general public interest. viz.. what is the
meaning of the words 'in the course of his professional practice only' in
that portion of the Act which exempts from its provisions the dispensing or
distribution of the dnigs to a patient by a physician 'in. the course of his
professional practice only.'

"The practical administration of the Harrison Narcotic Act is dependent, to
a very large extent, upon the decision which this court may render in [this
case]."37

In the Behrman brief, Solicitor General Beck made no attempt to gloss over
what was being sought, apparently relying-rightly, as the outcome proved, on
the flagrancy of the case and the prevailing temper of the times:38

"The purpose of this indictment and of the present writ of error is to raise
for the determination of this court the following questions, viz.. whether
the so-called 'ambulatory treatment' of drug addicts by a physician is or is
not, as a matter of law, prohibited by section 2 of the Harrison Narcotic
Act. . . . By the term 'ambulatory treatment' is meant the treatment by a
physician of a drug addict. for the alleged cure of his drug addiction, by
giving to him a prescription for the amount of the drugs which the
physician, in good faith, believes to be necessary in the condition of the
drug addict at the time the prescription is given, for his use as one dose
or over a period of time, and allowing the addict to take the prescription
and to use it in any manner he may see fit, without any supervision or
control of the doctor over him in any manner or form whatsoever .39

"The theory of the indictment is that this action upon the part of the
defendant was, not a question for the jury. either on the defendant's
intent. or as to what constituted the legitimate practice of his profession,
but a violation of the Harrison Narcotic Act as a matter of law...
"In order that the matter may be made perfectly clear, it should be again
insisted that, according to the indictment, the so-called 'patient' in this
case was suffering from no disease whatever except drug addiction. It must
be admitted, for the purpose of the case at bar, that drug addiction is a
disease, and that the defendant intended by his method of treatment to cure
the same, and honestly believed that he could cure the disease by this
method. Nevertheless, it is a well known fact, of which this court has
taken notice, that drug addicts as a class are persons weakened materially
in their sense of moral responsibility and in their power of will. and this
court also knows, as a matter of common knowledge, that, in any community
where drugs are prescribed, there will be a large number of physicians to
whom any construction of section 2 of the Harrison Narcotic Act will be
applicable. The question therefore, is whether every physician licensed and
registered under the Harrison Narcotic Act, is at liberty, if he honestly
believes such a course to be proper, to furnish to persons of the character
o drug addicts the means to obain drugs without any supervision upon the
part of the various doctors involved of the manner or time of taking the
drugs or whether, indeed, the drugs are ever taken by the addict at all.
" . . .
"It is true that in the Doremus, Webb, and Jin Fuey Moy cases it was assumed
that the physician . . . did not honestly intend to effect the cure of the
drug addiction and did not honestly believe that his method would effect a
cure, but was merely administering the drug to satisfy the cravings of the
addict; and that this court is asked in the case at bar to go beyond these
decisions, and to hold that. irrespective of the physician's intent or
belief, the act is violated where the drugs are placed by him in the sole
control and subject to the unrestricted disposal of the drug addict."

Justice Day and five of his associates sustained the Government's position,
reversing the district court and thus putting the stamp of approval on the
Behrman indictment. That the majority of the Court did not see clearly what
they were doing-notwithstanding the Government's candid brief-is apparent
from the fact that they relied heavily on the mere amount of the
prescriptions,40 apparently without realizing that the doctrine they were
setting would make volume and good faith, as well, -irrelevant. The other
three justices, Holmes, Brandeis, and McReynolds were more clairvoyant.
Justice Holmes wrote for them:

"It seems to me wrong to construe the statute as creating a crime in this
way without a word of warning. Of course the facts alleged suggest an
indictment in a different form, but the Government preferred to trust to a
strained interpretation of the law rathr than to a finding of a jury upon
the facts. I think that the judgment should be affirmed."41

After Behrman

If some members of the Court were not fully aware of what they were giving
in the Behrman holding, the Narcotics Division nonetheless saw perfectly
clearly what it had received. Manifestly, if a Behrinitan indictment was
unassailable when it charged the dispensing of shocking amounts of drugs, it
was no less unassailable when it charged a minute quantity only. The
Division had what it wanted. Any doctor who prescribed any narcotic drug to
any addict could be threatened with prosecution or packed off to prisonand
good faith was no defense. Immediately there commenced a reign of terror.
The medical profession was shamelessly bullied and threatened, until it
withdrew, totally and irrevocably, as the addict's last point of contact
with society.42 The narcotics clinics, which had been established in a
number of states to alleviate the situation, were closed-in some instances
as a direct result of threats by Division agents.43 In 1924 a special
committee of the American Medical Association docilely reported its "firm
conviction" that ambulatory treatment of narcotics addicts "begets
deception, extends the abuse of habit-forming narcotic drugs, and causes an
increase in crime."44 An earlier version of this report (prior to its
adoption by the A.M.A.) had been reprinted by the Division (a practice, as
to "approved" materials, that continues to this day) and had been widely
circulated as an officially endorsed pronouncements.45
Doctors went to prison .46 The hunt for addicts was pressed relentlessly.47
Prices rose, prisons filled, "dope rings" throve. The United States
acquired the renown of being the world's best market for illicit narcotics-a
reputation which stands unchallenged to this day.
When the Supreme Court was jolted into further action, it was too late for
the justices to after the situation. They spoke firmly, but to no avail.

Dr. Linder's Case: A Theoretical Reversal
The jolt took the form of the next Behrman indictment case to reach the
Supreme Court.48 The facts in this case were fully as outrageous as in Dr.
Behrman's case, but invoked the opposite alignment of sympathy. Dr. Charles
0. Linder was a long-established practitioner in Spokane, Washington, with.
a large practice. At four o'clock one Saturday. while he was examining a
female patient, with other patients waiting for him, four Narcotics Division
agents burst in upon him, and "boisterously and in an ungentlemanly and
forcible manner, took charge" of his office. When he protested, the agents
showed their Treasury Department badges and told him, "This is sufficient."
After a rowdy search they took him off to jail.49
Dr. Linder was indicted in a word-for-word repetition of the Behrman
indictment, only this time the amount was three small tablets of cocaine and
one of morphine. These had been given to an "addict-stool pigeon," who was
working for the agents. She claimed she had told him she was an addict; in
his version she had represented that she had a painful stomach ailment and
that the doctor who regularly treated her was out of the city.50
Linder was convicted.51 the Ninth Circuit affirmed,52 and he petitioned for
certiorari, arguing:

"The [Harrison) act ... was not intended to trench on the policepower of the
states, and ought not to be given an interpretation which would bring within
its purview an act the cognizance of which properly belongs to the states. .
. [T]he lower courts almost uniformly try these narcotic cases on the
theory that the purpose of the statute was to punish physicians and others
dispensing morphine or other narcotics to satisfy the cravings of drug
addicts, even where all the revenue features of the act have been complied
with, as registration. payment of the tax, and the making and keeping of the
records required by the act. We submit that the United States has nothing
to do with such acts. Whether the health and morals of their people require
that such practices be repressed by penal sanction is for the states alone
to determine."
" . . .
Now what is the nature of the act charged in the indictment, giving the
indictment the widest scope claimed for it? Simply that the defendant,
being a registered physician, dispensed a small quantity of narcotic drugs
to gratify the appetite of an addict."53 .

When the petition was granted, Solicitor General Beck disposed of the
merits, in the Government's brief, in a pithy five-page statement that
attempted merely to pin the Court to its earlier declared position:

"Petitioner contends in substance that if the indictment and the statute
upon which it is founded, be construed as charging the administration of
drugs merely to gratify the appetite of an addict, such an offense is beyond
the power of Congress to create. . . .

"This is precisely what the indictment and the statute cover, and what the
court intended to uphold in U.S. v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280, 287, 288. . . .

"The indictment in the case at bar is framed in the same language as the
indictment in the above-mentioned Behrman case, except for the amount of the
drug alleged to have been sold or distributed otherwise than in the course
of professional practice. No distinction, however, can be made between the
two cases on the ground merely of the difference between the amounts of
drugs which are charged in the two indictments. In the Behrman case, supra,
this court had before it only the strict allegations of the indictment, and
for that purpose the amount of the drug becomes immaterial in determining
whether the indictment actually and sufficiently charges it to have been
unlawfully sold or distributed.
" . . .
"Petitioner also contends that the indictment is capable of the
construction, in substance, of cha:ging that the drug was given in the
professional treatment of the addict. The Behrman case, supra, must be held
to dispose adversely of such claim, for if the indictment there, of which
the indictment at bar is a duplicate in allegation, had been capable of such
construction, this court would have said so."54

The Court's opinion, handed down in 1925, was written by justice McReynolds,
and was unanimous. Dr. Linder's Conviction was reversed, and the opinion is
as emphatic in tone as circumstances could permit:

"The enactment under consideration levies a tax, upheld by this court, upon
every person who imports, manufactures, produces, compounds, sells, deals
in, dispenses or gives away opium or coca leaves or derivatives therefrom,
and may regulate medical practice in the States only so far as reasonably
appropriate for or merely incidental to its enforcement. It says nothing of
'addicts' and does not undertake to prescribe methods for their medical
treatment. They are diseased and proper subjects for such treatment, and we
cannot possibly conclude that a physician acted improperly or unwisely or
for other than medical purpose solely because he has dispensed to one of
them, in the ordinary course and in good faith, four small tablets of
morphine or cocaine for relief of conditions incident to addiction."55

Of the Webb case,56 the Court said:

"The answers thus given must not be construed as forbidding every
prescription for drugs, irrespective of quantity, when designed temporarily
to alleviate an addict's pains, although it may have been issued in good
faith and without design to defeat the revenues."57
Of the Jin Fuey Moy case: 58

"The quoted language must be confined to circumstances like those presented
by the cause."59

And of the Behrman case 60 itself:

"This opinion related to definitely alleged facts and must be so
understood......... The opinion cannot be accepted as authority for holding
that a physician who acts bona fide and according to fair medical standards,
may never give an addict moderate amounts of drugs for self-administration
in order to relieve conditions incident to addiction.

Enforcement of the tax demands no such drastic rule, and if he Act had such
scope it would certainly encounter grave constitutional difficulties." 61

The lower federal courts have since been fairly true to this corrected
interpretation of the Harrison Act, when they have had opportunities to
express themselves.62 But there have been few significant cases. The
doctors are still in retreat. And the Federal Narcotics Bureau has been
undeterred in its own lusty applications of the Act. It's regulations under
Section 263, still provide (paraphrasing the loaded question in the
discredited Webb case 64 ) :

"An order purporting to be a prescription issued to an addict or habitual
user of narcotics, not in the course of professional treatment but for the
purpose of providing the user with narcotics sufficient to keep him
comfortable by maintaining his custornary use, is not a prescription within
the meaning or intent of the Act: and the person filling such an order, as
well as the person issuing it, may be charged with violation of the law."65

CONCLUSION
It wasn't many decades ago that sufferers from tuberculosis. sub nomine
"consumption," were regarded as unclean, and shunned by society. We have
stopped treating our insane population as felons, raised the ancient stigma
from leprosy and epilepsy, and transformed our penal philosophy from one of
vengeance to one of rehabilitation. We have shown growing interest in large
scale attempts to salvage the victims of alcoholism; we caught up with most
of our error vis-a-vis the liquor drinker fifteen years ago.66 And we have
made venereal afflictions the subject of wholesome programs and campaigns.
But we have not shown comparable understanding of the addict's problems.
The true addict, by universally accepted definitions, is totally enslaved to
his habit. He will do anything to fend off the illness, marked by physical
and emotional agony, that results from abstinence. So long as society will
not traffic with him on any terms, he must remain the abject servitor of his
vicious nemesis, the peddler. The addict willcommit crimes-mostly petty
offenses like shoplifting 67 and prostitution--to get the price the peddler
asks. He will peddle dope and make new addicts if those are his master's
terms. Drugs are a commodity of trifling intrinsic value. All the billions
our society has spent enforcing criminal measures against the addict have
had the sole practical result of protecting the peddler's market,
artificially inflating his prices, and keeping his profits fantastically
high.68 No other nation hounds its addicts as we do, and no other nation
faces anything remotely resembling our problem.
Where does the solution lie? Out of reach, for the moment, because we shall
not undo forty years of carefully wrought error overnight. Out of sight,
also, at least in precise detail, because we have little reliable data to
guide us. But-at least until they are fully explored-the road would seem to
lead towards the following areas: (1) relief from persecution for the
addict; (2) therapy programs through institutions69 clinics,70 and
after-cure followups;71 (3) provisions for incurables, through clinics or
the individual practitioner or both;72 (4) a forthright out-of-the-dark
educational program on narcotics; and (5) a vigorous assault, with all the
enforcement resources we can muster, on whatever is left of the peddlers'
empire after we have freed the addict from his present bondage to it.
Sooner or later some responsible appraiser, probably Congress, will have to
take a clear look at our narcotics problem and the plight of the addict. It
is to be hoped that re-telling this tale, of Dr. Behrman, who was rightly
punished for the wrong reasons, and Dr. Linder, who was vindicated in vain,
may hasten the advent of that happy day.

1. See note 70 infra. See also SEN. REP. No. 725, 82d Cong., 1st Sess.
(1951) ; Hearings before Special Committee to Investigate Organised Crime in
Interstate Commerce, 82d Cong,, 1st Sess, pt. 14 (1951); Goldstein,
NARCOTICS, A Report by the Attorney General to the Legislature of the State
of New York, (Legis. Doc. No, 27, 1952)

2. 38 STAT. 785 (1914), 26 U.S.C. s. 2550 (1946).

3. The United States adhered to the Hague Opium Convention on January 23,
1912 (38 STAT. 1912 (1912)) ; this obliged adherents to control the
manufacter, sale, use, and transfer of "morphine, cocaine and their
respective salts."
4. See, H.R. REP. No. 23, 63rd Cong., Ist Sess. 2 (1913).

S. See. e.g.. 31 STAT. 188 (1900), 18 U.S.C. s. 43 (1946) (poaching); 41
STAT. 324
(1919), 18 U.S.C. ss. 2312-13 (1946) (transportation of stolen vehicles);
47 STAT. 326 (1932), 18 U.S.C. s. 1201 (1946) (kidnapping).

6. Comment, Narcotics Regulation, 62 YALE L.J., 751 (1953).

7. See, e.g., Remarks of Hon. John M. Coffee, 83 Cong. Rec. 2607 (1938) ;
Stevens, Make Dope Legal, Harpers Magazine, November, 1952, p. 40; Statement
of Rep. Cleveland M. Bailey, member of House Interstate and Foreign Commerce
Committee, March 23, 1953.

8. The exempting language, relieving from the duty to use
Treasury-prescribed order forms, 38 STAT. 786 (1914), 26 U.S.C. s. 2554 (c)
(1) (1946), is:

"Nothing contained in the section . . . shall apply . . . [t]o the
dispensing or distribution of any of the drugs mentioned ... to a patient by
a physician, dentist, or veterinary surgeon registered under section 3221 in
the course of his professional practice only. (Emphasis supplied.)

Those who avail themselves of this exemption must keep records of each
transaction for a prescribed period.

9. Schmeckebier, The Bureau of Prohibition in Service Monograph 57, INST.
FOR Gov'T RESEARCH, BROOKINGS INST. 3 (1929). The Narcotics Division was
merged into the Prohibition Unit of the Treasury Department in 1920, and
carried into the Prohibition Bureau when the latter was created in 1927.
Since 1930 it has been a separate entity entitled the Federal Narcotics
Bureau.

10. See, New York Times, April 10, 1919, p. 1; U.S. TREASURY DEPT. REPORT OF
SPECIAL COMMITTFE TO INVESTIGATE THE TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS (April 15,
1919)
(quoted in U.S. TREAS. DEPT, THE TRAFFFIC IN HABIT-FORMING NARCOTIC DRUGS
(1923) ).

11. U.S. TREAS. DEPT, THE TRAFFIC IN HABIT-FORMING NARCOTIC DRUGS (1923).
It is noteworthy that as Soon as the Narcotics Division turnd to reporting
its enforcement achievements, this estimate dropped to 100,000 and remained
at that figure until World War II.
I2. As of June 30, 1928, of the 7738 prisoners in federal penitentiaries,
2529 were sentenced for narcotics offenses, 1156 for prohibition law
violations, and 1148 for stolen vehicles transactions. Data are not
available for approximately the same number in state institutions at this
time. Schmeckehier, supra note 9, at 143.
13. See, e.g., FEDERAL NARCOTICS BUREAU, MEMORANDUM REGARDING NARCOTIC
CLINICS, THEIR HISTORY AND HAZARDS 6 (1938):
"With regard to the plan which is in effect in Formosa, we have a valuable
and informing contribution to our knowledge on the subject by Dr. Somei To
of the Health Commission of Formosa. After classifying 57,073 crimes
committed during seven years by natives of Formosa, his records show that
based upon the relative proportion of opium users to non-users we find
70.83% criminality among opium users as against 29.17% criminality among
non-users. In Formosa, opium smoking is licensed and the cost of opium is
very small. UNDER THESE CONDITIONS THE ONLY ATTRIBUTABLE CAUSE FOR GREATER
CRIMINALITY AMONG NARCOTIC ADDICTS THAN NON-ADDICTS IS THE DIRECT EFFECT OF
THE USE OF NARCOTICS UPON THE CHARACTER OF THE USER. Dr. To gives us the
answer. It is because drug addiction causes a relentless destruction of
character and releases criminal tendencies." (Emphasis as in original).
14. Id. at 4:

"Medical authorities agree that the treatment of addiction with the view
toward effecting a cure, which makes no provision for confinement while the
drug is being withdrawn, is a failure, except in a relatively small number
of cases where the addict is possessed of a much greater degree of will
power than the average addict."

15. See testimony of Commissioner Harry J. Anslinger, Fed. Bur. of
Narcotics, in Hearings before Special Committee to Investigate Crime in
Interstate Commerce, 82d Cong., Ist Sess. pt. 14, pp. 426-32 (1951).
16. See, e.g., McCarthy, A Prosecutor's Viewpoint on Narcotic Addiction in
Fed. Prohib. Q., October, 1943 reprinted and distributed by the Federal
Bureau of Narcotics in 1945).
17. In the Chicago Daily News, December 15, 1952, the last argument in
extremis was set forth by local public officials of that city: proponents of
clinic treatment for narcotic addicts are obviously communists or
communist-inspired, seeking to destroy the integrity of the American people.
18. ILLINOIS LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, DISPOSITION OF NARCOTIC LAW OFFENDERS AND
ADDICTS 12-19 (1951). A careful distinction must be made between
incarceration per se, and programs which place true emphasis on treatment
and rehabilitation. The federal hospitals at Lexington, Ky., and Fort
Worth, Texas, are admirable examples of the latter.
19. Governors Green and Stevenson both vetoed incarceration laws for the
state of Illinois because no provisions for adequate treatment had been
made. Veto messages. July 24, 1947, and August 9, 1949, respectively. In
the words of Governor Stevenson:
"It appears that the provision in this Bill authorizing imprisonment may
have been intended only as a threat to compel the addict to undergo
treatment, but whatever may have been the intention in this regard, the Bill
does authorize imprisonment for a condition which it is admitted does not
constitute a criminal act."
20. The Narcotics Bureau is pressing a bill, H.R. 3307, 93d Cong., 1st Sess.
(1953)0 which would provide incarceration for all addicts in the District of
Columbia. The worst feature of this bill-in the light of the full
problem.-is a "sneaker" in the recitation of its purpose, which reads:
"The Congress intends that Federal criminal laws shall be enforced against
drug users as well as other persons . . ."
This may prove as effective, and as tricky, as the "rigged" indictment to
which this article is principally addressed.
21. See note 8 supra.
22. The legislative history of the provision sheds little light. The
original draft required that the physician "shall personally attend upon
such patient." H.R. Rep. No. 23. 63d Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (1913). The Senate
proposed changing this to: "shall have been specially employed to prescribe
for the particular patient receiving such drug: And provided further, That
such drug shall be dispensed in good faith and not for the purpose of
avoiding the provisions of this act." Sen. Rep. No. 258, 63d Cong., 2d
Sess. 4 (1914). The ensuing conference adopted the present language without
edifying comment, merely noting that the requirement of personal attendance
had been dropped and that the dispensing physician, etc., would be required
to keep records. H.R. Rep. No. 1196, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. (1914).
23. There is a much-neglected distinction between prescription of narcotics
to an addict for self-administration, and direct administration by the
physician. The former is the subject of valid criticism, i.e., it does
remove all restraints on consumption by the addict, and the drugs prescribed
may be resold in the illicit traffic. There is merit in the suggestion,
made from time to time, that all self-administration of narcotics should be
made illegal. The "official line" has always ignored this distinction,
equating prescription for self-administration with direct or supervised
administration, and attacking both as "ambulatory treatment."
24. See notes 70, 72 infra; Comment, Narcotics Regulation, 62 YALE LJ. 751
(1952).
25. 258 U.S. 280 (1922). See pages 741-4 infra.
26. United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 (1919).
27. 249 U.S. 96 (1919).
28. Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96, 99 (1919).
29. Id. at 99-100.
30. 254 U.S. 189 (1920).
31. Id. at 194.
32. Enough, as the Supreme Court noted, for over 3,000 standard injections.
United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280, 299 (1922).
33. After reciting the delivery to the addict, one Willie King, the
indictment alkeged: "that on said date the said Willie King was a person
addicted to the habitual use of morphine, heroin and cocaine ;and known by
the defendant to be so addicted; that on said date the said Willie King did
not require the administration of either morphine, heroin, or cocaine by
reason of any disease or condition other than such addiction. and the
defendant did not dispense said drugs or any of them to said Willie King for
the purpose of treating any disease or condition other than such addiction;
that none of the said drugs so dispensed by the defendant was administered
or intended by the defendant to be administered to the said Willie King by
the defendant or by any nurse or person, other than the said Willie King,
acting under the direction of the defendant, nor were any of said drugs
consumed or intended by the defendant to be consumed by the said Willie King
in the presence of the defendant, but all of said drugs were put in the
physical possession and control of the said Willie King with the intention
on the part of the defendant that the said Willie King would use same by
self-administration in divided doses over a period of several days, the
amount of each of each of said drugs dispensed as aforesaid being more than
sufficient or necessary to satisfy the craving of the said Willie King
therefor if consumed by him all at one time; that said Willie King was not
at the time and place aforesaid, nor was he intended to be, during the
period in which the drugs dispensed as aforesaid were to be used, by him,
under the observation and physical control of the defendant or of any nurse
or other person acting under the direction of the defendant, nor was said
Willie King in any way restrained or prevented from disposing of said drugs
in any manner he might see fit; that said drugs dispensed by the defendant
to the said Willie King as aforesaid were not mixed with any other
substance, medicinal or otherwise, but were in the form in which said drugs
are usually consumed by persons addicted to the habitual use thereof to
satisfy their craving therefor and were adapted for such consumption;
against the peace . . . etc." Transcript of Record, pp. 2-3, United States
v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280 (1922).
For a rather complete paraphrase of the indictment, see United States v.
Behrman, 258 U.S. 280, 286-7 (1922).
34. United States v. Balint, C. 28/136, S.D.N.Y., June 28, 1921, in
Transcript of Record, pp. 4-5, United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250 (1922),
in which the indictment alleged violation of s. 2 of the Harrison Act
without including the word "willfully." Defendant's demurrer to the
indictment was sustained, and the indictment dismissed. ibid. The dismissal
was ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court, United States v. Balint,
supra, which ruled that it was not necessary that defendant have knowledge
of the fact that the product sold was a drug whose sale was regulated by the
Act.
35. United States v. Behrman, C. 28/425, S.D.N.Y., Sept. 21, 1921, in
Transcript of Record, pp. 5-6, United States v. Behrman, 259 U.S. 290
(1922).
36. Under the Criminal Appeals Act. 34 STAT. 1246 (1907), now as amended, 18
U.S.C. s. 3731 (Sapp. 1951).
37. Motion to Advance, p. 2. United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250 (1922),
United States v. Behrman, 258 US 280 (1922)
38. Brief for the United States, pp. 7-8, 12-13, 18, United States v.
Behrman, 258 US 280 (1922)
39. This description was far from precise. See note 23 supra.
40. United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280, 288-9 (1922).
41. Id. at 290 (dissent).
42. It is noteworthy, for its bearing on the addicts-are-criniinals
argument, inter alia, that addiction among doctors themselves has always
been a problem, alluded to by the narcotics authorities year after year in
their annual reports. See, e.g., U.S. TREAS. DEP'T, TRAFFIC IN OPIUM AND
0THER DANGERGOUS DRUGS, 3 (1926); id. at 3 (1927); id. at 4 (1928).
43. See, New York Times, June 23, 1920. p. 8; Stevens, supra note 7, at 43.
44. REP. REF. Comm. ON LEGIS. & PUB. RELATIONS (1924), reprinted in 82
AMA.J. 1967 (1924).
45. Stevens, supra note 7, at 43.
46. See Simmons v. United States, 300 Fed. 321 (6th Cir. 1924) ; Hobart v.
United States, 299 Fed. 784 (6th Cir. 1924) ; Manning v. United States, 287
Fed. 800 (8th Cir. 1923).
47. For many years the Division reported its "score" (in a column with other
statistics) by the number of years in sentences imposed: e.g., (1926) 10,342
violations, 5,120 convictions, 6,797 years, 11 months, 10 days; (1928) 8,653
violations. 4,738 convictions, 8,786 years, 4 months, 28 days; (1933) 3,468
violations, 1,694 convictions, 3,248 years, 10 months, 18 days. See U.S.
TREAS. DEP'T., THE TRAFFIC IN OPIUM AND OTHER DANGEROUS DRUGS (1926) and
subsequent yearly reports.
48. Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5 (1924).
49. Motion to Quash Search Warrant, Transcript of Record, Linder v. UnIted
States, 268 U.S. 5 (1924).
50. Transcript of Trial, Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. S (1924),
51. His sentence: $1000 and two months in jail. Transcript of Record, pp.
25-6, Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5 (1924).
52. Linder v. United States, 290 red. 173 (9th Cir. 1923).
53. Brief in Aid of Petition for Writ of Certiorari, pp. 9-11, Linder v.
United States, 268 U.S. 5 (1924).
54. Brief of United States, pp. 3-5. Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5
(1924).
55. Under v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18 (1925) (emphasis added).
50. Webb v. United States. 249 U.S. 96 (1919).
57. Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 20 (1925).
58. Jin Fuey Moy v. United States. 254 U.S. 189 (1920).
59. Linder v. Unitcd States, ,2688 U.S. 5, 20 (1925).
60. United States v. Behrman, 238 U.S. 280 (1921).
61. Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 22 (1925) (emphasis added).
62. See United States v. Brandenberg, 155 F.2d 110 (3d Cie. 1946).
63. See note 8 jupra.
64. Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96 (1919).
63. U.S. Treas. Dep't, Narcotics Bureau Reg. No. 5, art. 167 (1949), 26
Code Fed. Regs. S. 151.167 (1949).
66. This analogy goes further. It was in the heyday of the bootlegger that
organized crime, as we know it today, got its start. Revenues from the
illicit narcotic trade are next to gambling, the largest current source of
underworld wealth. Quite apart from humanitarian considerations, we should
end this billion-dollar-a-year subsidy to the
nation's real criminals.
67. See Comment, Shoplifting and the Law of Arrest: the Merchant's Dilemma.
62 YALE L.J. 788, 791 n.36 (1953).

69. At frequent intervals the federal narcotics authorities publish tables
of the going rates for illicit drugs. See, e.g., U.S. TREAS. DEP'T.
TRAFFIC IN OPIUM AND OTHER DANGEROUS DRUGS 26 (1930). In this issue the
Narcotics Division notes a "marked general increase in the prices of
narcotic drugs. . . . This is a fair indication of the relative scarcity of
narcotic drugs in the illicit market, due to increased efficiency of
narcotic-law enforcement."

69. Such as the federal hospitals administered by the U.S. Public Health
Service, 58 STAT. 698 (1944), 42 U.S.C. 1257 (1946), the North Brother
island Hospital experiment in New York, and the proposed Seabrook Farm Unit
in New Jersey.

70. A bill to create a Federal Bureau of Clinics. to develop this approach
to the problem. is now pending in Congress: H.R. 2449, 83d Cong., lst Sess.
(1953). The bill also includes alcoholics, as beneficiaries of the same
program. For discussion of clinic system merits. see Comment, Narcotics
Regulation, 62 YALE L.J. 751. 784-7 (1953).

71. This would perhaps be another function of narcotic clinics; it is
contemplated, in connection with H.R. 2449, supwa note 70, that other
federal agencies, such as the U. S. Employment Service, would be called upon
to cooperate in placing and rehabilitating addicts.

72. See Stevens. Make Dope Legal, Harpers Magazine, November, 1952. p. 40.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

DrugSense Focus Alert Number 61 (DrugSense Asks You To Write A Letter
In Support Of Police Officers In Vancouver, British Columbia,
Who Spoke Out For Drug Policy Reform)

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 08:22:12 -0700
To: mgreer@mapinc.org
From: Mark Greer (MGreer@mapinc.org)
Subject: Focus Alert # 61

PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #61

WRITE A LETTER - HELP CHANGE THE WORLD

Canada is making big headway in reform issues and has been very effective
in directing letters towards the US as well.

Time to return the favor (with apologies to those of you already in Canada)
and get some good numbers in support of these courageous officers Gil
Pruder and Ken Higgins who have come out in favour of reform.

It's not what others do. It's what YOU do!

***

CONTACT INFO

Source: Calgary Herald
Contact: letters@theherald.southam.ca
Source: Vancouver Sun
Contact: sunletters@pacpress.southam.ca

***

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, fax etc.)

Please post your letters or report your action to the MAPTalk list if you
are subscribed, or return a copy to this address by simply hitting
REPLY to this FOCUS Alert or emailing to MGreer@mapinc.org

***

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Source: Calgary Herald
Contact: letters@theherald.southam.ca
Source: Vancouver Sun
Contact: sunletters@pacpress.southam.ca
Pubdate: Wed, 22 Apr 1998

Decriminalize street drugs, speakers urge

VANCOUVER (CP) - Decriminalizing street drugs is the only way to address
drug epidemics, a city police officer and many other speakers told a
conference Tuesday.

Present drug laws are making drug dealers rich and leaving addicts to die
on the streets, speakers told the Fraser Institute forum, Sensible
Solutions to the Urban Drug Problem.

Decriminalizing some or all drugs for medicinal or recreational use would
help addicts and free up police to chase dealers, who are the real
criminals, said speakers at the one-day meeting.

Const. Gil Puder, a 16-year member of the Vancouver police force, felt so
strongly about the topic he ignored a written order from police chief Bruce
Chambers that he not to appear unless he changed the material in his
presentation.

Puder said decided to go ahead with the speech because he didn't want to
compromise his beliefs, but erased "Vancouver police department" from his
name tag to emphasize his views were his own and not those of his employer.

Chambers said he was disappointed with Puder but refused to discuss
publicly any disciplinary actions the constable could be facing.

"I am concerned about the accuracy and appropriateness of the speech, that
it didn't meet the standards of the police department," Chambers said,
declining to elaborate.

Former deputy police chief Ken Higgins, when he was still with Vancouver
police last year, also called for decriminalization of narcotics possession.

Some police drug experts use "smear tactics and conjecture" in anti-drug
speeches to school children, Puder said.

Police are supporting "the black market cash cow for criminals" by not
endorsing a lawful drug supply, he said.

The first change in the system should be the legalization of marijuana and
the decriminalization of heroin and opiates for medicinal purposes, Puder
said.

"Cocaine and chemical drugs might then be critically studied on their own
merits," he said.

Puder called for a controlled drug supply accompanied by health, education
and economic programs.

A lawyer with the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy said his Ottawa-based
group supports making it legal for adults to use and share small quantities
of any drug, to cultivate marijuana, and to use heroin for medicinal
purposes.

Prohibition has not stopped the use of drugs in modern societies such as
Vancouver, which has the highest rate of HIV-infection among intravenous
drug users in the Western world, said Eugene Oscapella.

(Vancouver Sun)

***

Source: Vancouver Province
Contact: provedpg@pacpress.southam.ca
Pubdate: Wed, 22 Apr 1998

Defiant cop says call off war on drugs

Constable speaks out despite risk of disciplinary action

Holly Horwood, Staff Reporter The Province

An outspoken Vancouver police constable has defied efforts by police Chief
Bruce Chambers to muzzle him on drug decriminalization.

Const. Gil Puder, a 16-year police veteran who fatally shot a drug-addicted
bank robber in 1984, risks disciplinary action after he presented a paper
on drug-policy reform at a Vancouver conference yesterday.

"He was told verbally and in writing not to present the paper," Chambers
told The Province.

"He doesn't represent the police department, and his paper, in my opinion,
doesn't represent the views of the police department."

Puder, an instructor at the B.C. Police Academy and Justice Institute of
B.C., has spoken out before. But his speech to 140 delegates at the forum,
organized by the Fraser Institute think-tank, was the hardest-hitting yet.

Called Recovering Our Honor: Why Policing Must Reject the "War on Drugs,"
the paper is critical of what Puder calls "warrior-savior" officers and an
"entrenched police culture."

"Research long ago identified aggressive enforcement and a game-like
atmosphere as features of drug policing, which make it an attractive field
of endeavor," said Puder, who told reporters he spoke as an individual.

"What better way to build your image than with a 'bad guy' in jail and drug
exhibits or some recovered property as your visible evidence of success?

"Although we relish the prestige of this role, deified police officers
confronting demonized drug users is a recipe for abuse."

In his speech -- which was taped by a Vancouver police inspector -- Puder
called drug-prohibition laws "history's most expensive failed social
experiment."

It's time to legalize marijuana and replicate Switzerland's
decriminalization trials for heroin and other opiates, he said, echoing
other speakers at the conference.

"Which control methodology would prove least harmful to society is, of
course, open to informed speculation. What we've spent billions of dollars
and countless lives proving, however, is that criminal prohibition isn't it."

***

Source: Globe and Mail
Contact: letters@globeandmail.ca
Pubdate: April 22, 1998
Author: Robert Matas

POLICE OFFICER SLAMS THE WAR ON DRUGS

Vancouver Constable Delivers Scathing Attack on Enforcement Operations

An experienced Vancouver policeman has defied the city s police chief and
publicly delivered a scathing attack on police efforts to respond to
widespread drug use in Canada.

Offering a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the force, Constable Gil
Puder criticized officers who make drug arrests to further their own
careers, and senior managers who publicize gang crime and drug money to
push for bigger budgets.

Constable Puder accused police representatives of misinforming the public
about the dangers associated with drug use. Some officers have
unnecessarily shot and killed unarmed people while making drug arrests, he
said, adding that until police accept that they cannot win the war on
drugs, this unnecessary killing will continue.

Constable Puder, who has been a member of the Vancouver police force for at
least 15 years, has previously spoken out in favour of decriminalizing
heroin and cocaine. But he has never been so outspoken about the operations
of police involved in drug enforcement.

Earlier this week, Vancouver Police Chief Bruce Chambers could participate
in a public conference held yesterday on the problems caused by illegal
drugs in cities. Sponsored by the Vancouver-based Fraser institute, the
day-long session included speakers from Liverpool, London, Switzerland, San
Francisco and Toronto.

In an internal memo, Chief Chambers told Constable Puder not to give the
speech he had prepared ? titled Recovering Our Honour: Why Policing Must
Reject the War on Drugs ? or speak about his paper at the conference. I
wish to make it quite clear, this order prohibits any verbal or written
presentation, in whole or in part, of the material prior to, during or
subsequent to the conference, Chief Chambers stated.

Constable Puder could make a presentation at the conference if and only
if, after my review, I am satisfied that the material is appropriate,
factual and meets the high standards expected of a member of the Vancouver
police department, the chief added.

the order was necessary, Chief Chambers stated, to prevent you from
bringing discredit upon the reputation of the Vancouver police department.
The chief warned that failure to comply with the order could result in
disciplinary action.

Nevertheless, Constable Puder rose from his seat late yesterday afternoon
and walked to the front to make his comments. While strongly believing in
devotion to duty, he told the group of about 75 participants, I
subordinate the unique requirements of my profession to my responsibilities
as a human being, a parent and Canadian citizen who has no desire to raise
his children in a country torn by needless criminality.

Outlawing narcotics and trying to enforce the law is history s most
expensive failed social experiment, said Constable Puder, who is also a
part-time instructor at the BC Police Academy. Billions of dollars and
countless lives have been spent to prove that criminal prohibition does not
protect society, he added.

His criticisms of police enforcement include:

-Drug-related arrests can be extremely easy and officers who make arrests
are rewarded with promotions and large amounts of overtime pay to cover
time in court. But police rarely catch the wealthy drug lords. Arrests
usually involve poor, hungry people on street corners or in rooming-houses
and filth-strewn alleyways.

- Self-proclaimed police drug experts readily contradict scholarly
analyses and medical research with smear tactics and conjecture.
Las-enforcement spin-doctoring reinforces the theory that truth is war s
first casualty.

-When applying to the police force, many people confess to having used
marijuana as teen-agers. We can be painfully sensitive to appearances of
institutionalized hypocrisy.

As an alternative to the war on drugs, Constable Puder advocated
fundamental changes in police strategies as well as a government-regulated
distribution system for marijuana and research projects on the
decriminalization of narcotics.

Chief Chambers was not available yesterday for an interview.

Mark Greer
Media Awareness Project (MAP) inc.
d/b/a DrugSense
MGreer@mapinc.org
http://www.DrugSense.org/
http://www.mapinc.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Legalize Drugs, All Of Them - It's The Only Way We're Going To Win The War
(Op-Ed In 'Halifax Daily News' Says Regulating Currently Illegal Drugs
Would Be Rather Unpleasant, With A Mountain Of Logistical Problems,
But It Would Be A Far Sight Cheaper Than The Current Band Aid Solution -
Policing, Prosecuting And Imprisoning)

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 13:49:12 -0300 (ADT)
Sender: Chris Donald 
From: Chris Donald 
To: mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com
Subject: Great Oped in Daily News: Legalize Drugs, All Of Them
From: Halifax Daily News
Email: letterstoeditor@hfxnews.southam.ca
Date: Sunday, April 26, 1998

Opinion

Legalize drugs, all of them
It's the only way we're going to win the war

By Nancy Radcliffe

Pic of Radcliffe As I listened to the witness describe how the
stabbing victim staggered from the store, I glanced down at the
sidewalk and discovered I was standing on droplets of his blood.
When I looked up again, my eyes met the pained expression of the
victim's teenage son. His father - Dartmouth shopkeeper Albert
Nasrallah - was murdered just minutes before.

It was shortly after 3 p.m. on June 9, 1997. Myles Layton Smith,
26, was arrested the next day, shortly after police discovered the
body of his girlfriend, 27-year-old Deanna Clayton. The
self-described "chronic crack-cocaine user," will face two
second-degree murder and two robbery charges this fall.

Nasrallah's murder was my first up-close look at violent,
drug-related crime. The memory was prompted by a recent letter to
The Daily News from Layton Dean, who wants to see marijuana
legalized.

I've never attended the Canada Day cannabis rally Dean has
organized the past two years. Being surrounded by a large group of
pot smokers isn't my scene. Nor do their arguments about culture
and freedom attract my support. But I absolutely detest hypocrisy
and I find there's a sizable chunk of it in this issue.

Imagine a set of scales. On one side is marijuana, on the other is
a mood-altering substance called alcohol. Every ill of the first
can be equalled by the second, with more harmful results. Throw
tobacco into the picture and Mary Jane comes out looking
relatively harmless.

Those who say alcohol is OK, but marijuana is not, haven't had the
privilege of knowing an alcoholic. And if you argue two wrongs
don't make a right, then you're saying alcohol is wrong. Why then
isn't it outlawed? Because prohibition creates uncontrollable
criminal activity. It's better to control the substance, and put
the money in the public coffers, than to fight an unwinnable
battle.

Applying the same philosophy to cannabis may be logical and less
hypocritical, but it won't do much to eliminate violent
drug-related crimes, because these come from more addictive
substances like crack cocaine.

Although Dean's letter planted the seed for this column, I'd like
to take his concept one huge leap forward - let's legalize all
drugs. Marijuana could be available in liquor stores, while hard
drugs could be obtained through clinics.

The former becomes a money-maker like beer, wine and liquor, while
the latter would require some public funding.

Would we resent handing over money to the dregs of society so they
can feed their repugnant habit? Darned right we would. But let's
not be naive: we're already paying with our lives, our belongings
and our taxes.

Taking control of drugs would be a rather unpleasant task, with a
mountain of logistical problems, but it would be a far sight
cheaper than the current Band Aid solution - policing, prosecuting
and imprisoning.

It would also strike a lethal blow to the drug industry's most
vital organ - money. And more importantly, fewer reporters and
police would have to look into the grief-stricken eyes of the
wives and children of the victims.

I don't have an ounce of compassion for drug addicts. I'm just
tired of watching innocent people pay for their problem. Let's
stop trying to save addicts from themselves and start thinking
about how we can save ourselves from them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

US Drug Accord With Panama Hits Snag ('New York Times'
Suggests Panamanians Have Figured Out How To Keep The United States
From Maintaining A Military Presence There After The Panama Canal Treaty
Expires In 1999 - Plans For A US-Led International Anti-Drug Center Are Off)
Link to earlier story
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 20:47:19 -0400 To: mapnews@mapinc.org From: Mike Gogulski Subject: MN: Panama: U.S. Drug Accord With Panama Hits Snag Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org Newshawk: emr@javanet.com (Dick Evans) Source: New York Times (NY) Contact: letters@nytimes.com Website: http://www.nytimes.com/ Pubdate: April 26, 1998 Author: Larry Rohter U.S. DRUG ACCORD WITH PANAMA HITS SNAG PANAMA -- Late last year, the president of Panama announced that his government had "reached an agreement" with Washington on a drug interdiction center that would permit American troops to stay here after the United States gives up control of the Panama Canal and the last of the military bases around it on Dec. 31, 1999. Only "some details" needed to be worked out, a State Department spokesman said. But four months later, the accord has clearly unraveled. President Ernesto Perez Balladares has denounced the document as "an ill-conceived pile of paper," a referendum on it scheduled for July has been indefinitely postponed, and at a news conference here this month, the chief American and Panamanian negotiators said they did not know if they would be able to produce a replacement. Neither government has made public the text of the accord to set up a "Multinational Counter-Narcotics Center" at what is today Howard Air Force Base, on the west bank of the Panama Canal. At a news briefing in Washington on April 16, State Department spokesman James Rubin said that "for internal reasons the government of Panama has demanded extensive textual changes" and that "we have agreed to some restructuring and clarifications." A draft of the document recently published in the Mexican newspaper Excelsior drew intense criticism here, making clear at least some of the objections that have forced Perez Balladares to reverse himself. The chief sore point is a provision that would permit the 2,000 or so American soldiers expected to be stationed here as part of the center to engage in "other missions." To some within the governing party, and elsewhere in Latin America, that would give the United States a legal basis to intervene militarily in the region at its discretion. Language that allows, but does not require, countries taking part in the center -- the United States obviously most of all -- to share the intelligence they gather with other members has been criticized equally. "The text had in it things that have nothing to do with the drug war, but which are functions typical of a military base of a great power," complained Ricardo Arias Calderon, a former vice president. Perez Balladares has been out of the country and unavailable for comment, but in remarks to the Reuters news agency before his departure he said the center "has to be exclusively for the fight on drugs and cannot be a base with a fig leaf." Diplomats here said reservations about the accord had been expressed by several countries that Panama has sounded out about joining in the center, which include Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela. "What they wanted was for all the rest of us simply to sign on to an agreement that the two of them have negotiated, which doesn't exactly coincide with our notion of multilateral," one Latin American envoy said. In an interview here, Jorge Ritter, minister of canal affairs and Panama's chief negotiator in the talks with the United States, said the two governments were now "defining the text" of an agreement. He declined to discuss what details remained to be worked out and said he could not predict if the differences could be overcome. "We agree on concepts, and now are working on the text," Ritter said. "It has taken longer than we anticipated, but that's where we are." Asked if the Panamanian government, which initially said it would not negotiate past 1997, was committed to a final deadline, he replied, "We have no date." For its part, the United States, clearly impatient, now suggests that Panama may not be the only acceptable site for the proposed drug interdiction center, saying that Honduras or American military bases in Florida are alternatives. "We prefer to have it in Panama, but if we can't nail this down soon, we may have to locate it elsewhere," Rubin said. What has been largely overlooked in the dispute is that the United States and six South American countries are already cooperating in a drug detection and interdiction program operated out of Howard Air Force Base. Since June, the program has been monitoring air and sea shipments of cocaine out of South America, using the radar and aircraft of the United States and the other participating countries. "We are the pointed end of the spear" in the war against drugs in what is known as "the source zone," said Brig. Gen. Howard DeWolf, director of the task force. Operating from Panama, he added, offers practical advantages that none of the other suggested locations can match. "Panama provides us a presence and a platform in the region, a steppingstone to forward deploy down range" in South America, he said. "We can be located in Miami, but that would not be the same as being truly engaged with our partners in the region."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Cannabis Campaign - Prepare To Quiz The Drugs Tsar (Britain's
'Independent On Sunday' Continues Its Weekly Appeal For Reforming
The Marijuana Laws By Noting Keith Hellawell, The Government's
Anti-Drug Co-Ordinator, Is To Unveil New Proposals Tomorrow
For Controlling Cannabis Use - But The Public Can Protest And Pose Questions
To Hellawell During Upcoming BBC Programs)

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 10:50:01 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US: OPED: Cannabis Campaign - Prepare to Quiz the Drugs Tsar
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: mjc1947@cyberclub.iol.ie ((Zosimos) Martin Cooke)
Source: Independent on Sunday
Contact: sundayletters@independent.co.uk
Website: http://www.independent.co.uk/
Pubdate: Sun, 26 Apr 1998
Author: Graham Ball

CANNABIS CAMPAIGN - PREPARE TO QUIZ THE DRUGS TSAR

New government proposals are about to be unveiled

Keith Hellawell, the Government's national anti-drug co-ordinator, is to
unveil his new proposals for controlling cannabis use tomorrow.

Mr Hellawell, the former chief constable of West Yorkshire Police, has
spent six months compiling his guidelines, which have already been
presented to Home Office minister George Howarth and a special cabinet
subcommittee.

His proposals are expected to form the basis of the Government's approach
to the drugs issue for the next three to four years. However, most
observers are expecting little fundamental change from current policy and
there is certain to be no move towards decriminalising cannabis.

Before his appointment as "Drugs Tsar", Mr Hellawell had a reputation for
being a progressive thinker in terms of policing, and liberal in his
approach to the drugs issue in general.

At a special conference of police chiefs he helped organise in 1994, Mr
Hellawell backed a move calling for the legalisation of some drugs,
including cannabis. But when he took up his new appointment he took a hard
line on drug law reform.

"I have a firm view that I could not support the legalisation of cannabis
for recreational use," he said.

"I have given it long, hard thought. I have looked at those places where
they have tried it as a possible solution and do believe it is not the
answer."

Mr Hellawell also believes cannabis use leads to harder drug habits, but
claims to be "open-minded" on whether or not cannabis should be allowed for
the treatment of various medical conditions.

Supporters of the Independent on Sunday's campaign to decriminalise
cannabis will have the chance to question the Drugs Tsar on the new
government strategy by taking part in The Drugs Debate on BBC television
and radio tomorrow.

A day-long series of programmes culminates in a studio discussion on BBC1
at 10 pm with Newsnight presenter Kirsty Wark putting viewers' questions to
Keith Hellawell. The debate continues on Radio 5 Live at 11.30pm with
listeners able to phone in with their questions on a special free phone
number.

"When the Government reports that heroin can cost as little as #2 a time,
it is a source of concern to every family in the country," said Kirsty
Wark.

One of the questions the Government's top drugs adviser may well face is
why he has not advocated the setting up of a Royal Commission of Inquiry to
examine all aspects of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. Another could be why
that law fails adequately to distinguish between users and suppliers and
continues to bracket cannabis - a non-addictive "soft" drug - along with
heroin and crack-cocaine, which are clearly far more dangerous.

- The BBC has created a special e-mail hotline: drugs@bbc.co.uk, which will
be open all day for viewers and listeners to send in their questions and
opinions. There is also a telephone hotline (0181-752 7750) for those
wishing to take part in the television debate. Anyone wanting to
participate in the radio discussion should dial freephone 0500 909693.

e-mail your comments to cannabis@independent.co.uk
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Labour Puts Schools In Front Line Of War On Drugs
(Britain's 'Independent On Sunday' Discusses A New Package Of Proposed Laws
Designed To 'Choke Off Demand' Among Young People,
To Be Unveiled By The Government Tomorrow)

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 10:39:53 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: UK: Labour Puts Schools in Front Line of War on Drugs
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: mjc1947@cyberclub.iol.ie ((Zosimos) Martin Cooke)
Source: Independent on Sunday
Contact: sundayletters@independent.co.uk
Website: http://www.independent.co.uk/
Pubdate: Sun, 26 Apr 1998
Author: Paul Routledge, Political Correspondent

LABOUR PUTS SCHOOLS IN FRONT LINE OF WAR ON DRUGS

A NEW crackdown on drugs, linked to measures to "choke off demand" among
young people, will be unveiled by the Government tomorrow.

The package of measures to be announced in a White Paper will include more
intensive efforts in the classroom to prevent children getting hooked, plus
an international drive to attack the drug barons.

Ann Taylor, Leader of the Commons, is to disclose details of the crackdown
to MPs in a White Paper that Downing Street sources yesterday described as
"ground breaking". But it is not expected to pave the way to the eventual
decriminalisation of cannabis.

The illegal drug business is now valued at around 250bn a year, or eight
per cent of total world trade, making it more lucrative than tourism or the
oil industry.

Britain is to sound the alarm at the G8 summit in Birmingham next month and
at a special session of the United Nations assembly in June, warning that
closer international co-operation is required to counter the menace of
drugs.

The White Paper, which will be jointly launched with Keith Hellawell, the
Government's "drugs czar", will outline a 10-year strategy against drug
misuse, starting in primary schools, combining a mixture of tough and
preventive measures.

It reveals that almost half of under-25s have used illegal drugs, and at
least half of all recorded crime has a drug-related element. There are
between 100,000 and 200,000 drug addicts in the UK, and the cost of coping
with drugs - including policing - runs at more than 4bn a year.

The strategy will target young people, aiming to reduce the number of under
25s using illegal drugs, and getting into treatment those who need it on
the basis that "treatment works". But ministers promise to continue to be
tough on those who deserve to be punished.

For the first time, the Government will acknowledge the link between drugs
and other social problems, arguing that drugs do not occur in isolation,
but are linked to crime, housing, employment and education issues. The
White Paper will link drugs policy to these other areas.

Tony Blair said yesterday: "The fight against the evil of drugs is part of
a wider range of policies to renew our communities and ensure decent
opportunities are available to everyone.

"They are policies for the long-term. I hope that this tough new package of
measures will mean the end of a life of misery for many young people and
will improve the quality of life for all those who currently suffer as a
result of drugs."

New Home Office statistics show that one in five of those arrested for a
random sample of offences had taken heroin or other opiates in the previous
few days, and one in 10 had taken cocaine or crack. Illegal income was also
much higher for drug-takers. A typical offender spends between 6,000 and
16,000 a year on heroin or crack, funded in most cases by property crime.

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

[End]

Top
The articles posted here are generally copyrighted by the source publications. They are reproduced here for educational purposes under the Fair Use Doctrine (17 U.S.C., section 107). NORML is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit educational organization. The views of the authors and/or source publications are not necessarily those of NORML. The articles and information included here are not for sale or resale.

Comments, questions and suggestions. E-mail

Reporters and researchers are welcome at the world's largest online library of drug-policy information, sponsored by the Drug Reform Coordination Network at: http://www.druglibrary.org/

Next day's news
Previous day's news

Back to 1998 Daily News index for April 23-29

Back to Portland NORML news archive directory

Back to 1998 Daily News index (long)

This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/980426.html

Home