-------------------------------------------------------------------
CRRH Web Site Wins Awards And Accolades (Paul Stanford Of The Campaign
For The Restoration And Regulation Of Hemp Says The Redesigned Web Site
For The Oregon Cannabis Tax Act Has Received Web Design Awards
From Project Cool Sighting And Four Other Groups)
Sender: crrh@crrh.org
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 03:05:27 -0700
To: restore@crrh.org
From: "D. Paul Stanford" (stanford@crrh.org)
Subject: CRRH web site wins awards and accolades
I am pleased to announce that our Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation
of Hemp web site http://www.crrh.org has just received one of the
most influential web awards, the "Project Cool Sighting." Project
Cool is recognized and linked to prominently by many of the key "portals" on
the Internet's world wide web, such as Yahoo, Netscape, Microsoft and others.
To see the Project Cool listing of http://www.crrh.org as "Today's Sighting,
July 27th", point your web browser to: http://www.projectcool.com/sightings/.
Project Cool is an international web design standard that other key volume web
sites watch and follow, and "project cool sightings" regularly receive several
tens of thousands of new hits in a day. This will help our cause gain further
notice, recognition and credibility, and deliver our message to an
ever-widening audience.
We have also just, over the past two days, won 4 other awards and recognition
for our ground breaking web site design and content. "The Webmasters Award"
was also just bestowed upon CRRH's web site
(http://www.marketme.com/awards/archive/recent.html) as has the "1998
Superior Site Award" from the "Fortress of Solitude" web site
(http://www.jacksonville.net/~tomspeer/superior.html) and the "CP Award"
(http://members.viperlink.net/cas/winners.asp).
One of the ones that I am happiest about is the "Good People's Choice Award"
from http://youonline.net/. This award notice arrived Sunday night with this
introduction, "Congratulations! We have visited your web site and find it to
be of good, moral and ethical content." Since a small yet influential group
of drug warriors so often tends to attempt to castigate our movement with
unsubstantiated misrepresentations of lack of morals and ethics, I was glad
to see this one and will display it on our web site's credits page.
All of these awards are made based solely upon merit. We are proud to share
these positive developments with you. If you haven't taken a look at our award
winning web site redesign, please do so. We expect that our web site will
continue to garner further awards and recognition. CRRH will strive to live up
to this world class standard in all of our endeavors.
If you can, please make a donation on our web site or through the mail to help
further our work. Our innovative work, though well represented by our web
site's design and content, extends to political legislation and action too. As
many of you know, CRRH has developed a legislative model to legally regulate
the sale of cannabis to adults that can be upheld in federal court and meet
international treaty mandates, and we are trying to implement this through the
initiative petition process. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thank
you!
Yours truly,
D. Paul Stanford
***
We are working to regulate and tax adult marijuana sales, allow doctors to
prescribe cannabis and allow the unregulated production of industrial hemp!
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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Money For Medical Marijuana Measure Comes From Outside Oregon
(Rather Than Focus On The Seriously Ill Patients Throughout Oregon
Who Need Measure 67, The Medical Marijuana Initiative Sponsored By
Oregonians For Medical Rights, 'The Associated Press' Reflects Characteristic
Oregonian Xenophobia In Focusing On Where The Campaign's Money
Is Coming From, Ignoring The Oregon Roots Of One Major Donor)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 20:06:29 -0700
To: dpfor@drugsense.org
From: "D. Paul Stanford" (stanford@crrh.org)
Subject: DPFOR: AP Wire: Money for medical marijuana measure
comes from outside Oregon
Sender: owner-dpfor@drugsense.org
Reply-To: dpfor@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/
Money for medical marijuana measure comes from outside Oregon
The Associated Press
07/27/98 5:35 AM Eastern
SALEM, Ore. (AP) -- The campaign behind a ballot measure that would legalize
the use of marijuana for medical purposes was funded entirely by sources
outside Oregon, according to state finance reports.
Measure 67 is the first initiative to qualify for the ballot without
in-state funding since 1984, when a Georgia lottery ticket-making company
funded the measure that authorized the Oregon Lottery, the Statesman Journal
reported.
"We can deplore it. But it doesn't seem to make a difference," said David
Buchanan, executive director of the political watchdog group Oregon Common
Cause.
The Oregon Supreme Court has overturned most attempts to limit campaign
financing, Buchanan said.
Common Cause has not taken a stand on the marijuana measure, but Buchanan
had this advice for anyone who wants to drum up opposition: "They should say
that this is an outsider initiative. This isn't an Oregon initiative."
The group Americans for Medical Rights, based in Santa Monica, Calif.,
doesn't deny that it is trying to intervene in Oregon's initiative process.
"We are involved in a national effort. There's no question about that,"
spokesman Dave Fratello said.
Because of the group's financing, Oregon and Alaska are certain to vote on
the issue in November. Colorado and Washington state also are expected to
vote on similar measures this fall, but elections officials have not
certified the measures in those states.
Legal wrangling is stalling the initiative from appearing before Nevada and
Maine voters. The group's goal, Fratello said, is to benefit society.
"This is an effort to help patients in several individual states and to
pressure the federal government," he said.
Fratello's group is largely funded by three men who persuaded Californians
to approve marijuana for medical purposes two years ago.
The three are billionaire philanthropist George Soros of New York, insurance
mogul Peter Lewis of Cleveland, and John Sperling, founder and president of
the University of Phoenix, who lives in Arizona.
Dr. Rick Bayer, a Lake Oswego physician and the chief signature-gatherer of
Oregon's initiative, said none of the three has anything to gain
financially.
"It's different from a corporation trying to garner profit," he said. "You
know what matters to me is whether the contributors believe in the cause or
whether they are trying to achieve financial gain."
The medical rights group donated $140,000 to Oregon's cause and $1 million
combined for its efforts nationwide. About $90,000 in debt is outstanding to
pay for signature gatherers in Oregon.
Bayer and others pointed out that an in-state fund-raising drive has begun
and a local group, Oregonians for Medical Rights, has been formed.
But no major public figures in Oregon have rallied behind the cause.
"From the law enforcement perspective, I believe marijuana is a gateway
drug," said Walt Myers, Salem's police chief. "I believe legalizing
marijuana in any manner that would make it more available for drug abuse is
risky."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gossip ('New York Post' Columnist Liz Smith Describes The Legal Problems
Besetting Los Angeles Author And Medical Marijuana Patient, Activist
And Defendant Peter McWilliams)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:08:34 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US NY: Column: Gossip
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Source: New York Post
Contact: letters@nypost.com
Website: http://nypostonline.com/
Pubdate: Monday July 27, 1998
Author: Liz Smith
GOSSIP
"MOST PEOPLE are willing to cooperate with both the absolute and arbitrary
laws of government into which they were born, providing (a) the majority of
people follow them, and (b) those agreements are fair: that they somehow
make sense ... We will make personal allowances for others, knowing that
others are making personal allowances for us. For those who don't choose to
obey this fundamental agreement, there are police, courts and jails. When
the laws are irrational, however, people are less likely to sacrifice in
order to obey them."
So writes the prolific Peter McWilliams in his great book "Ain't Nobody's
Business if You Do." (He has written such best-sellers as "DO IT! Let's Get
Off Our But's" and "Love 101.")
McWilliams, who has AIDS and cancer, is a strong proponent of marijuana to
relieve pain and nausea. He recently was arrested in Los Angeles on a
charge of intent to distribute marijuana. Peter is electric with
indignation that those who are suffering but who find legitimate relief in
marijuana are subject to such prosecution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Legalization Would Be The Wrong Direction (An Op-Ed
In 'The Los Angeles Times' Opposing Harm Reduction,
By The US Drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey, Shows Again
How The US Media Will Not Say A Word When He Cites
False Statistics And Other Misinformation)
From: David Mickenberg (dmickenberg@sorosny.org)
To: TLC_ACTIVIST (TLCACT@snake-eyes.soros.org)
Subject: Los Angeles Times: Barry McCaffrey op-ed 7/27;
Letters to the Editor information
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:14:19 -0400
Sender: owner-tlc-activist@server.soros.org
Letters to the Editor can be sent to:
Fax 213-237-7968
Email: op-ed@latimes.com
Los Angeles Times
Times Mirror Square
Los Angeles, CA 90053
*Note: The full and accurate quote from the June 1990 issue of Issues in
Science and Technology, referenced in McCaffrey's article, reads:
"Personally, when I talk about legalization, I mean three things: The
first is to make drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin
legal--under fairly restricted conditions, but not as restricted as
today."
***
Los Angeles Times
COMMENTARY
Monday, July 27, 1998
PERSPECTIVE ON DRUGS
Legalization Would Be the Wrong Direction
Hiding just beneath the theory of harm reduction is a whole other agenda
in dealing with substance abuse.
By BARRY R. MCCAFFREY
The so-called harm-reduction approach to drugs confuses people with
terminology. All drug policies claim to reduce harm. No reasonable
person advocates a position consciously designed to be harmful. The real
question is which policies actually decrease harm and increase good. The
approach advocated by people who say they favor harm reduction would in
fact harm Americans.
The theory behind what they call harm reduction is that illegal
drugs cannot be controlled by law enforcement, education and other
methods; therefore, proponents say, harm should be reduced by needle
exchange, decriminalization of drugs, heroin maintenance and other
measures. But the real intent of many harm reduction advocates is the
legalization of drugs, which would be a mistake.
Lest anyone question whether harm reductionists favor drug
legalization, let me quote some articles written by supporters of this
position. Ethan Nadelmann, director of the Lindesmith Center, a
Manhattan-based drug research institute, wrote in American Heritage
(March, 1993): "Should we legalize drugs? History answers 'yes.' " In
Issues in Science and Technology (June, 1990), Nadelmann aligns his own
opinion with history's supposed verdict: "Personally, when I talk about
legalization, I mean three things: The first is to make drugs such as
marijuana, cocaine and heroin legal." With regard to labels, Nadelmann
wrote: "I much prefer the term 'decriminalization' or 'normalization.' "
People who advocate legalization can call themselves anything they
like, but deceptive terms should not obscure a position so that it can't
be debated coherently. Changing the name of a plan doesn't constitute a
new solution or alter the nature of the problem.
The plain fact is that drug abuse wrecks lives. It is criminal that
more money is spent on illegal drugs than on art or higher education,
that crack babies are born addicted and in pain and that thousands of
adolescents lose their health and future to drugs.
Addictive drugs were criminalized because they are harmful; they
are not harmful because they were criminalized. The more a product is
available and legitimized, the greater will be its use. If drugs were
legalized in the U.S., the cost to the individual and society would grow
astronomically. In the Netherlands when coffee shops started selling
marijuana in small quantities, use of this drug doubled between 1984 and
1992. A 1997 study by Robert MacCoun and Peter Reuter from the
University of Maryland notes that the percentage of Dutch 18-year-olds
who tried pot rose from 15% to 34% from 1984 to 1992, a time when the
numbers weren't climbing in other European nations. By contrast, in 1992
teenage use of marijuana in the United States was estimated at 10.6%.
Many advocates of harm reduction consider drug use a part of the
human condition that will always be with us. While we agree that murder,
pedophilia and child prostitution can never be eliminated entirely, no
one is arguing that we legalize these activities.
Some measures proposed by activist harm reductionists, like heroin
maintenance, veer toward the absurd. The Lindesmith Center convened a
meeting in June to discuss a multicity heroin maintenance study, and a
test program for heroin maintenance may be launched in Baltimore. Arnold
Trebach argues for heroin maintenance in his book "Legalize It? Debating
American Drug Policy": "Under the legalization plan I propose here,
addicts . . . would be able to purchase the heroin and needles they need
at reasonable prices from a nonmedical drugstore."
Why would anyone choose to maintain addicts on heroin as opposed to
oral methadone, which eliminates the injection route associated with HIV
and other diseases? Research from the National Institute for Drug Abuse
shows that untreated addicts die at a rate seven to eight times higher
than similar patients in methadone-based treatment programs.
Dr. Avram Goldstein, in his book "Addiction: From Biology to Drug
Policy," explains that when individuals switch from heroin to methadone,
general health improves and abnormalities of body systems (such as the
hormones) normalize. Unlike heroin maintenance, methadone maintenance
has no adverse effects on cognitive or psychomotor function, performance
of skilled tasks or memory, he said. This research indicates that the
choice of heroin maintenance over methadone maintenance doesn't even
meet the criteria of harm reduction that advocates claim to apply.
Treatment must differ significantly from the disease it seeks to
cure. Otherwise, the solution resembles the circular reasoning spoofed
in Saint-Exupery's "The Little Prince" by the character who drinks
because he has a terrible problem, namely, that he is a drunk. Just as
alcohol is no help for alcoholism, heroin is no cure for heroin
addiction.
As a society, we are successfully addressing drug use and its
consequences. In the past 20 years, drug use in the United States
decreased by half and casual cocaine use by 70%. Drug-related murders
and spending on drugs decreased by more than 30% as the illegal drug
market shrunk.
Still, we are faced with many challenges, including educating a new
generation of children who may have little experience with the negative
consequences of drug abuse, increasing access to treatment for 4 million
addicted Americans and breaking the cycle of drugs and crime that has
caused a massive increase in the number of people incarcerated. We need
prevention programs, treatment and alternatives to incarceration for
nonviolent drug offenders. Drug legalization is not a viable policy
alternative because excusing harmful practices only encourages them.
At best, harm reduction is a half-way measure, a half-hearted
approach that would accept defeat. Increasing help is better than
decreasing harm. The "1998 National Drug Control Strategy"--a
publication of the Office of National Drug Control Policy that presents
a balanced mix of prevention, treatment, stiff law enforcement,
interdiction and international cooperation--is a blueprint for reducing
drug abuse and its consequences by half over the coming decade. With
science as our guide and grass-roots organizations at the forefront, we
will succeed in controlling this problem.
Pretending that harmful activity will be reduced if we condone it
under the law is foolhardy and irresponsible.
Barry R. Mccaffrey Is Director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy
Copyright 1998 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved
Search the archives of the Los Angeles Times for similar stories. You
will not be charged to look for stories, only to retrieve one.
David Mickenberg
The Lindesmith Center
(212) 548-0383
dmickenberg@sorosny.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MAP Focus Alert Number 74 - McCaffrey Applauded For Lying!
(The Media Awareness Project Asks You To Write A Quick Letter
Protesting The Refusal Of 'The San Diego Union Tribune' To Print The Facts
Friday Regarding The US Drug Czar's Misrepresentations Of Dutch Drug Policies
And Statistics)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:49:08 -0700
To: mgreer@mapinc.org
From: Mark Greer (MGreer@mapinc.org)
Subject: Focus Alert No. 74 McCaffrey applauded for lying!
FOCUS Alert No. 74 San Diego Union Tribune Applauds McCaffery for Lying!
Here's one for the record books. Drug Czar McCaffey goes to Europe, lies
numerous times about the murder rates, drug use rates, and effectiveness of
drug policy in the Netherlands and the San Diego Union Tribune applauds him
and calls him a stand up guy! McCaffrey generated an international
incident, was soundly criticized and corrected by Dutch officials for his
faux pas and made a complete fool of himself in the eyes of most observers
and media.
Please write a letter to the Tribune. As far as we know they are the only
newspaper in the nation to go so far as to try to put a positive spin on
McCaffrey's ruinous trip.
Below are two sample letters, the original article, contact info, and a
fact sheet Everything you need to send off a good LTE. Please use them and
help us nail this wild distortion of the truth.
WRITE A LETTER TODAY- LIVE IN A FREER WORLD TOMORROW
Just DO it!
***
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 and pasting your letter in or by E-mailing a copy
directly to MGreer@mapinc.org
***
CONTACT INFO
Email your Letter to the Editor to:
letters@uniontrib.com
San Diego Union-Tribune
(619) 299-3131
Fax (619) 293 1440
letters@uniontrib.com
http:// www.uniontrib.com
Doug Hope Managing Editor
San Diego Union-Tribune
350 Camino de la Reina
PO Box 191
San Diego CA 9211
"EXTRA CREDIT"
Call The Tribune and ask for the senior editor Karin Winner and express
your views that some semblance towards balance and reason on drug issues
would indeed be a refreshing change from this paper.
***
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
US CA: America's Drug Warrior
Newshawk: John Harper
Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)
Pubdate: Fri, 24 Jul 1998
Contact: letters@uniontrib.com Website: http://www.uniontrib.com/
McCAFFREY COMMITS TRUTH DURING EUROPEAN TOUR
Barry McCaffrey is a stand-up guy. If there were any doubts that the
Clinton administration's drug czar was anything but, he dispelled them
during his recent eight-day visit to Europe.
The highlight of McCaffrey's trip was a stop in the Netherlands, where the
retired army general got to judge for himself the merits of that nation's
liberal drug policies.
McCaffrey was unimpressed. He pronounced the Dutch government's heroin
distribution program an "unmitigated disaster," not the least, he added,
because the program consigns "part of the population to suffering endlessly
from heroin."
The drug czar also made known his dim view of Dutch coffeehouses, which
sell marijuana and hashish to anyone over 18, even though they technically
are not allowed to do so under Dutch law. "It is a legal hypocrisy that
bothers many," McCaffrey understated.
The Dutch government took umbrage with McCaffrey's frank criticisms. The
Dutch Foreign Ministry called in the U.S. ambassador in protest. And the
Dutch Ministry of Health questioned why McCaffrey had set foot on Dutch
soil in the first place.
But McCaffrey was guilty only of committing truth. The Dutch government's
laissez-faire drug policies are, indeed, a disaster. This is borne out by
the across-the-board increases in crime and drug-related deaths in the
Netherlands since 1978.
The frightening thing of it is that, in recent years, a startling number of
prominent Americans -- from former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders to U.S.
Appeals Court Judge Richard Posner to billionaire George Soros -- have
publicly expressed the view that the United States should emulate the
Netherlands by legalizing drug use.
This kind of thinking -- whatever the motivation -- may have contributed to
the rise in drug use in this country, particularly among younger Americans.
Indeed, marijuana use among teen-agers has increased more than 100
percent. Teen-age use of cocaine, heroin and LSD is up 150 percent.
Liberalizing America's drug policies, a la the Netherlands, would only make
these disquieting statistics worse. And it is hard to see how having more
junkies in this country amounts to good public policy, no matter what
Elders, Posner, Soros and other advocates of drug legalization suggest.
The best approach, the approach that happens to be favored by Gen.
McCaffrey, is three-pronged: Maintain law enforcement's zero tolerance of
illegal drug use, not the least to deter casual use. Coordinate with
foreign governments to fight drug trafficking. Expand prevention programs
to discourage nonusers from becoming users and expand drug treatment
programs to help addicts beat their deadly habit.
Ultimately, victory or defeat in the war on drugs will depend in part on
leadership at the top. And, unfortunately, leadership has been sorely
lacking in most of the men who have occupied the position of drug czar.
But Gen. McCaffrey is different. He has proven his willingness to speak
the truth, no matter the political fall-out. That's the mark of a real leader.
***
To the San Diego Union Tribune editors,
In response to your July 24 article "McCAFFREY COMMITS TRUTH DURING
EUROPEAN TOUR" praising both General McCaffrey's truth and accuracy in his
assessment of Dutch drug policy.
General McCaffrey acknowledges it was incorrectly claimed that the
Netherlands murder rate was "twice" the US rate, asserting "that's drugs."
In fact, the Dutch rate is only one quarter of the US rate.
Although McCaffrey was inaccurate in his data, he is truthful when he
attributes the difference in the murder rates to "drugs."
Drug prohibition and its many unintended consequences, to be specific.
Ashley H Clements
via the internet
***
Dear Editor
There are few papers in the country who could be so uninformed or purposely
misleading as to call Drug Czar McCaffrey's trip to Holland a success. To
insinuate that McCaffrey "committed truth" (SDUT 7/24) is not only wildly
inaccurate but supports the General for getting his facts wrong.
McCaffrey called Dutch drug policy an "unmitigated disaster" recently when
in fact it was his trip that was the disaster. He began by inaccurately
claiming that the Dutch murder rate exceeds that in the United States. In
fact the US murder rate is 8.22 per 100,000. In Holland it is 1.8 per
100,000. Our incarceration rates are also far above Holland's yet McCaffrey
seems unable to separate truth from fiction. In virtually every category
the Dutch have shown that their policies are superior to ours.
The nations Drug Czar was soundly criticized for his numerous inaccuracies
by Dutch officials and for this paper to report otherwise not only flies in
the face of facts but puts a complete reverse spin on what most papers
accurately reported as at least a blunder by McCaffrey.
McCaffrey is far from a stand up guy. He completely ignores science, fact,
truth, and reason when it suits his purpose to extend and support the "drug
war" which amounts to the biggest national failure in our history.
Mark Greer
Executive Director
DrugSense
***
FACTS YOU CAN USE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 15, 1998
Contact: Paul Lewin, 703-354-5694
Drug Czar's Misstatements on Dutch Drug Policy Provoke Outrage from Dutch
Officials, U.S. Drug Policy Experts
Gen. Barry McCaffrey's Eight-Day EuropeanTour of Anti-Drug Programs Dodged
by Protest over Inaccuracies
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Calling the Dutch drug policy an "unmitigated disaster"
and relying on erroneous statistics, White House Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey
embarked on an eight-day European tour of anti-drug programs amid criticism
from Dutch officials and U.S. drug policy reform groups who are urging him
to stick with the truth, not false facts.
"The fabrications the Drug Czar has put forward thus far are completely at
odds with the fact-finding nature of his mission in Europe," said Kevin
Zeese, President of Common Sense for Drug Policy, a Washington, D.C.-based
public education and advocacy organization critical of the drug war.
"We wouldn't let a general this fuzzy with the facts lead an army into
battle. Yet we're allowing a general who has clearly lost his objectivity
to determine sweeping policy that impacts millions of Americans. We urge
McCaffrey to approach the remainder of his tour with a more open mind."
At the center of the controversy are statements McCaffrey made at Monday,
July 13 press conference in Stockholm. McCaffrey cited the murder rate in
the Netherlands as double that in the United States, and blamed drugs as a
major culprit. McCaffrey said the U.S. had 8.22 murders per 100,000 people
in 1995 compared to 17.58 murders in the Netherlands. The Dutch
government's Central Planning Bureau has disputed the claim, faulting
McCaffrey for including attempted murders in his figures. Accurate data put
the Dutch murder rate at 1.8 per 100,000. (see attached fact sheet)
The Stockholm conference came on the heels of similar misstatements
McCaffrey made on a July 9 CNN "Talkback Live" debate with Mike Gray,
author of Drug Crazy, a critically acclaimed account of the failures of the
drug war. McCaffrey called the Dutch drug policy an "unmitigated disaster"
that has resulted in escalating drug use among the Netherlands' youth - a
claim also at odds with the facts.
In a June 25th radio interview on the "Marc Cooper Show" (Pacifica KPFK in
Los Angeles), Jim McDonough, Counsel to the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, also claimed that the murder rate in the Netherlands was higher
than in the U.S. When asked by the Washington Times to respond to a Dutch
official's refutation of the claim, McDonough responded, "Let's say she's
right. What you're left with is that they are much more violent society and
more inept [at murder], and that's nothing to brag about."
"(McCaffrey's) statements show...that he is not coming totally unbiased,"
Dutch Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesperson Birgitta Tazelaar told Reuters on
July 14. "We hope his opinions will...come more into line with the facts."
***
WRITE AWAY!
***
Mark Greer
Media Awareness Project (MAP) inc.
d/b/a DrugSense
MGreer@mapinc.org
http://www.DrugSense.org/
http://www.mapinc.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Carson City Man Files Suit After Arrest ('The Associated Press'
Says John Longshore Of Nevada Was Initiatially 'Roughed Up'
And Dosed With Pepper Spray By Cops Who Arrested Him
On Charges Of Possessing Marijuana And Methamphetamine,
But A Judge Suppressed The Evidence Due To Lack Of A Warrant
And Now The Victim Is Suing)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:06:59 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US NV: Wire: Carson City Man Files Suit After Arrest
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Patrick Henry (resist_tyranny@mapinc.org)
Pubdate: Mon, 27 Jul 1998
Source: Associated Press
CARSON CITY MAN FILES SUIT AFTER ARREST
CARSON CITY -- A man who is accused of fighting with officers when they
arrested him on a number of drug charges is suing them, claiming they
violated his rights by roughing him up.
In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Reno, John Longshore alleges
the multijurisdictional task force violated his constitutional rights.
It names Sheriffs Ron Pierini of Douglas County, Rod Banister of Carson City
and Sid Smith of Lyon County.
Longshore, 42, was arrested April 30, 1997, on charges of possession of
marijuana and methamphetamine at his Carson City home, trafficking and
battery on a peace officer. He claims the officers did not have a search
warrant or probable cause to search the residence.
When the officers asked permission to search the premises, he turned them
down and was going back inside when one officer grabbed him by the arm and
another splashed him with pepper spray, Longshore said. Longshore was taken
to Carson City jail, where he was held in lieu of $50,000 bail.
In December 1997, Carson City District Judge Michael Fondi ordered the
evidence suppressed and Longshore released, according to the lawsuit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug 'War' Misstates Government's Approach (A Letter To The Editor
Of 'The Denver Post' From Robert Housman, The Chief Policy Adviser
For The US Office Of Strategic Planning, Defends The Lies
Of The US Drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey, Cited By 'Los Angeles Times'
Columnist Robert Scheer - Plus Commentary From List Subscribers)
From: GDaurer@AOL.COM
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 07:56:51 EDT
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: McC's Mouthpiece
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
Here's a published response from the Office of Strategic Planning (is that
part of the ONDCP?) that appeared in The Denver Post. It refers to a reprint
(from the LA Times) of Robert Scheer's editorial.
***
The Denver Post
7-27-98
Drug 'war' misstates government's approach
In "The Drug War Can't Abide Honest Statistics" (July 23), Robert Scheer
points fingers about inaccuracies but disregards the facts.
We aren't waging a "war" on drugs. Federal efforts are more akin to fighting
cancer -- via prevention and treatment. The largest percentage dollar increase
has been in prevention: $256 million in this year's proposed budget.
Treatment funds are up 33 percent over the past three years. (Law enforcement
and interdiction reinforce -- don't drive -- our approach.)
Scheer is wrong about the Dutch. Prevalence of marijuana use among Dutch
adolescents is 30.2 percent: the U.S. prevalence is 10.6 percent. He also
misstates how the Netherlands handle cocaine and amphetamines.
Use and sale of the drugs there is criminal, not medical. Dutch drug seizures
are up, and prison populations have more than doubled over the past 10 years.
The Dutch also are combating drug production and distribution: much of the
amphetamines and Ecstasy in Europe are produced in Holland.
Marijuana in not benign; it is addictive and has long-term effects on the
brain. Children using marijuana experience learning and socialization
difficulties. A 12- to 17-year-old who uses marijuana is 85 times more likely
to use cocaine than one who does not. A recent study of 182 fatal truck
accidents revealed that 12.5 percent of the drivers had used marijuana -- the
same percentage as alcohol.
Educating children about the dangers of marijuana grows more difficult each
time Mr. Scheer and others echo the false belief that marijuana is not
dangerous.
ROBERT HOUSMAN
Chief Policy Adviser
Office of Strategic Planning
Washington, D.C.
***
Date: 20 Jun 98 21:06:39 -500
From: Gary Metzendorf (dreaming@AVANA.NET)
Subject: Re: McC's Mouthpiece
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
>We aren't waging a "war" on drugs. Federal efforts are more akin to fighting
>cancer -- via prevention and treatment. The largest percentage dollar
>increase has been in prevention: $256 million in this year's proposed budget.
We don't fight cancer by putting the patients in jail.
We don't fight cancer by taking people's cars and houses.
We don't fight cancer by breaking into people's houses with no-knock warrants
at 3 o'clock in the morning.
We don't fight cancer by putting AIDS, glaucoma, and MS patients in jail.
We don't fight cancer by threatening doctors with the lose of their license.
We don't use retired Army generals to fight cancer, we use doctors.
This is a war.
>Treatment funds are up 33 percent over the past three years. (Law enforcement
>and interdiction reinforce -- don't drive -- our approach.)
$1 increased by 33 cents is a 33 percent increase, using percentages without
the underlying numbers they are composed of is both disengenous and dishonest.
>Scheer is wrong about the Dutch. Prevalence of marijuana use among Dutch
>adolescents is 30.2 percent: the U.S. prevalence is 10.6 percent. He also
>misstates how the Netherlands handle cocaine and amphetamines.
Both of these numbers are subject to interpretation, but the U.S. number is
the result of a phone poll. How many people would be likely to indict
themselves for a felony? So few, this poll really only measures stupidity.
>Use and sale of the drugs there is criminal, not medical. Dutch drug seizures
>are up, and prison populations have more than doubled over the past 10 years.
>The Dutch also are combating drug production and distribution: much of the
>amphetamines and Ecstasy in Europe are produced in Holland.
Conjecture, please state the source of your fact that much of the production
of amphetamines and ecstasy are of Dutch origin.
>Marijuana in not benign; it is addictive
define addictive. Marijuana is NOT addictive in the classical sense, or most
of the known medical sense. Perhaps you have a new definition of addiction and
in this new definition (new speak) marijuana is addictive. I'll bet love is
addictive in this model as well.
>and has long-term effects on the
>brain.
Most everything has long-term effects on the brain. This is not necessarily a
"bad" thing.
>Children using marijuana experience learning and socialization
>difficulties.
Children NOT using marijuana experience learning and socialization
difficulties, Where is the proof Marijuana, is exclusively to blame for this?
Besides no one is arguing, that children should use marijuana, it is the
Federal government's prohibition of Adult usage of marijuana that has led to
the extensive unregulated black-market which supplies children and adults
alike. Dealers have no license to lose, it doesn't matter to them who they
sell it to. As long as prohibition exists children will be MORE likely to use
marijuana, not LESS.
> A recent study of 182 fatal truck
>accidents revealed that 12.5 percent of the drivers had used marijuana -- the
>same percentage as alcohol.
Ambigous, please quote the study.
Gary Metzendorf
informed Voter
Somewhere in America
***
X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences
University of Amsterdam
Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130
NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam
X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822
X-Sender: arjansas@pop.frw.uva.nl
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 14:36:28 +0200
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: Arjan Sas (A.Sas@FRW.UVA.NL)
Subject: Re: McC's Mouthpiece
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
At 10:32 -0400 30-07-1998, Tim Sheridan wrote:
>> Scheer is wrong about the Dutch. Prevalence of marijuana use among Dutch
>> adolescents is 30.2 percent: the U.S. prevalence is 10.6 percent. He also
>> misstates how the Netherlands handle cocaine and amphetamines.
>> ROBERT HOUSMAN
>> Chief Policy Adviser
>> Office of Strategic Planning
>> Washington, D.C.
>
>One point to consider..
>"Prevalance" is a meaningless term as it is used here.
>It does not say whether the Dutch use "more" pot or are more likely to
>try it in small amounts.
But more important: the so-called Dutch figure of 30.2 percent is in fact
the lifetime prevalence of cannabis use in *AMSTERDAM* in 1994 for the age
group 16-19 years.
Source: Paul Sandwijk, Peter Cohen, Sako Musterd and Marieke Langemeijer
(1995), Licit and illicit drug use in Amsterdam: Report of a household
survey in 1994 on the prevalence of drug use among the population of 12
years and over, Amsterdam: CEDRO, p. 55.
Of course it's not fair to compare the prevelance data of the cultural
capital city of one country with national prevalence data of another
country. Stanton Peele and I already pointed this out last week at:
http://www.peele.net/mccaffrey/
National prevalence data for the Netherlands are not yet available.
However, national prevalence figures will be much lower than the figures
for Amsterdam. See: http://www.frw.uva.nl/cedro/press/drugs19en.html
Tim is right if he says that lifetime prevalence does not say much about
the amounts of cannabis consumed. Perhaps a better figure would be the last
month prevalence.
The last month prevalence of cannabis in Amsterdam in 1994 for the age
group 16-19 is 13.2 percent.
The last month prevalence of cannabis in Utrecht in 1996 for the age group
16-19 is 7.1 percent. Lifetime prevalence in Utrecht for the same group was
32.1 percent.
The last month prevalence of cannabis in Tilburg in 1996 for the age group
16-19 is 5.4 percent. Lifetime prevalence in Tilburg for the same group was
25.6 percent.
Source for the Utrecht and Tilburg data: Marieke Langemeijer, Roelf-Jan van
Til, & Peter Cohen (1998), Het gebruik van legale en illegale drugs in
Utrecht en Tilburg. Amsterdam: CEDRO, p. 60.
I have not been able to verify the US prevalence data that were mentioned
in the press lately. On July 15, the Washington Times reported it to be 9.1
percent, and now Robert Housman suddenly mentions a 10.7 percent figure.
Does anyone know the source of these figures?
My guess is that they mistook last month prevalence for lifetime
prevalence. A figure that I think can be compared with the 30.2 ltp figure
for Amsterdam (albeit that we still compare the data of one city to
national U.S. data) is the ltp of cannabis use for twelth graders in 1994
from the Monitoring the Future study, which is 38.2 percent.
Source: Monitoring the future study, University of Michigan. Online:
http://www.isr.umich.edu/src/mtf/pr97t01a.html
Arjan Sas
Arjan Sas - Researcher / Website Administrator
CEDRO - Centre for Drug Research, University of Amsterdam
Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018 VZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
phone: +31 20 5254061 - fax: +31 20 5254317
http://www.frw.uva.nl/cedro/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomaston Teen Wins Challenge To Expulsion For Off-Campus Pot
('The Associated Press' Says The Connecticut Supreme Court Ruled Monday
That The Thomaston School Board Should Not Have Expelled A Student
For Possession Of Marijuana Off School Grounds)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:11:51 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US CT: Wire: Thomaston Teen
Wins Challenge To Expulsion For Off-Campus Pot
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Patrick Henry (resist_tyranny@mapinc.org)
Pubdate: Mon, 27 Jul 1998
Source: Associated Press
THOMASTON TEEN WINS CHALLENGE TO EXPULSION FOR OFF-CAMPUS POT
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - The Thomaston School Board should not have expelled a
student for possession of marijuana off school grounds, the Connecticut
Supreme Court ruled Monday. The landmark decision also gives guidance on how
future cases should be handled.
The high court said a student can only be expelled for an off-campus action
that "markedly interrupts or severely impedes the day-to-day operation of a
school," and not merely because the student's action violated school policy.
The court also ruled in the case of Kyle Packer that public education is a
basic right that cannot be taken away from a student without due process.
The court said the school district did not give adequate warning that a
student could be expelled for such an incident.
"We do not mean to pin any medals on the plaintiff or condone his
destructive conduct in any way," Chief Justice Robert J. Callahan wrote for
the court. "Moreover, we recognize that he is probably a thorn in the side
of the administration and that his conduct poses an all too familiar, and
difficult, problem for school administrators.
"The school expulsion statute, as applied to these set of facts, however, is
simply too vague to be constitutionally enforceable," Callahan said.
Packer's lawyer, William A. Conti of Torrington, said the ruling was "a
terrific victory for Kyle and a terrific victory for students everywhere."
"A war on drugs does not have to be a war on the Constitution. People have
rights. An education is guaranteed in the Constitution," Conti said.
Packer was a 17-year-old senior at Thomaston High School in September when
he was charged with possession of marijuana. The arrest came off school
grounds and after school hours.
A Connecticut State Police trooper stopped Packer's car in Morris because
Packer was not wearing a seat belt. The trooper saw a marijuana cigarette in
the car's ashtray, and a search of the car turned up two ounces of marijuana
in the trunk.
The school's student handbook included an anti-drug policy and stated that
students may be expelled for off-campus actions. State law allows students
to be expelled for off-campus activities that "are seriously disruptive of
the educational process."
The school board decided to expel Packer for a semester and bar him from
extracurricular activities for the rest of the school year. The board argued
that Packer's actions met the criteria for expulsion because his brother and
a former student who had been involved with distributing drugs in the past
were present at the time of the arrest.
Teachers had also asked for a response to Packer's arrest, school leaders
said in justifying the expulsion.
Packer appealed to Litchfield Superior Court and won a temporary injunction
that allowed him to return to school while the case made its way through the
courts. Litchfield Judge Walter M. Pickett ruled the state law about
off-campus expulsions was unconstitutionally vague.
The Thomaston School Board then appealed to the state's highest court. The
justices found that the law was clear enough, but said that it was applied
to Packer's case in an unconstitutional manner.
Specifically, the court ruled the law does not give school boards the power
to define "seriously disruptive of the educational process." Rather, schools
should follow the Legislature's definition of the term.
By researching legislative history, the Supreme Court said expulsions could
be ordered for such disruptive conduct as a telephoned bomb threat, or
threatening to harm a teacher or student while off-campus.
Thomaston School Superintendent George Counter said school leaders tried to
make their decisions based on the best interests of the 450 students in
grades 7 through 12.
"What might be seriously disruptive in Thomaston might not be seriously
disruptive in Bridgeport or Hartford," Counter said.
Leaders of the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, which had
sided with the Thomaston school board in the case, had not yet reviewed the
ruling and could not comment on it.
Association Executive Director Robert Rader, however, expressed concern
about any action to limit local school boards' authority to expel students,
especially in cases involving violence and safety.
"Any change of law diminishing the authority of school boards in questions
of this area is cause for concern," Rader said.
Packer graduated this spring and plans to attend the University of
Connecticut in the fall, said his mother, Jane Packer. He was sentenced to
16 hours of community service for the criminal charges.
"My husband and I did not do this because we did not think Kyle did anything
wrong," Mrs. Packer said. "We just thought that what the school board did
was way out of line."
A lawyer for the school board did not respond to a request for comment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NSW Fails The Drug Test (According To 'The Sydney Morning Herald,'
A Report To Be Released August 10, 'Drugs, Money And Government,'
By The Alcohol And Other Drugs Council Of Australia, Or ADCA,
Says The State Of New South Wales Has The Country's Worst Drug Problem,
Is Doing The Least To Combat It, And Has Even Cut Back
On Per Capita Spending)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 20:47:20 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: Australia: Nsw Fails The Drug Test
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Ken Russell
Source: Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)
Contact: letters@smh.com.au
Website: http://www.smh.com.au/
Pubdate: 27 Jul 1998
Author: Marion Downey, Health Writer
NSW FAILS THE DRUG TEST
NSW, the State with the worst drug problem, is doing the least to combat
it, a damning new report has found.
The NSW Government does not know the extent of the problem, has no clear
strategy, and is cutting back on spending, says the report, which ranks the
State last in prevention and treatment of drug and alcohol problems.
NSW was one of only two governments to have cut back on per capita spending
and was now ranked in the bottom three for spending through health
department drugs strategy programs.
The Herald has obtained details of the report - Drugs, Money and
Government, by the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA),
representing non-government drug and alcohol agencies.
It surveyed 200 leading experts in the field and covered alcohol, tobacco,
inhalants and illicit drugs.
Heroin especially is ravaging many young lives in NSW and, as the Herald
reported recently, is fuelling a billion-dollar national crime wave.
The report, which is to be released on August 10, reveals that NSW has
fallen from a middle-ranking government to the lowest in the survey, which
measures performance in 10 areas, including:
* Provision of appropriate treatment services.
* Prevention and education.
* Strategy.
* Professional development.
* Giving priority to alcohol and drug issues.
* Identifying the extent of the drug problem.
The report also reveals that while NSW was one of only two governments to
cut spending on drug and alcohol programs for 1996-97, other governments
increased spending.
The survey dealt only with spending through health and drug authorities
aimed specifically at reducing drug problems and not spending on related
issues such as police, courts and hospital admissions.
The president of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, Dr Alex Wodak,
said the findings were shameful. "The density of the illicit drug problem
in Sydney is far greater than in other cities and we undoubtedly have more
illicit drug-users in NSW than in any other State.
"We still have the epicentre of the HIV epidemic in NSW. We not only have a
responsibility to keep this under control through our programs with
injecting drug-users - we have a national responsibility and there are huge
social and economic consequences of failing to do so."
One of the authors of the report, Mr David Crosbie, chief executive officer
of the ADCA, said the report would show that NSW had performed extremely
poorly.
"There is a lot of frustration in NSW that the Government is not committed
to doing anything that is other than marginal," he said.
The ADCA president, Professor Ian Webster, said the report reflected the
concerns of people working in the field, many of whom felt under siege.
"There is a dichotomy between the demand for services and the aggressive
community backlash to treatment programs. People working in the methadone
programs feel their efforts are being vilified."
The head of the Network of Alcohol and other Drug Agencies in NSW, Mr Peter
Connie, said there was no underlying commitment to a clear spending
strategy in the State.
"We have a lot of people working very hard," he said. "The lack of
government support in this State is quite difficult to understand.
"If we had a person a day dying for any other health reason we would throw
whatever resources we had at the problem."
The NSW Department of Health declined to comment before the report's
publication.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cannabis - Telephone Vote Results (An Unscientific But Impressive Poll
By The BBC's Healthcheck Program Finds 96 Percent Of 42,000 British Callers
Favor Legalising Medical Marijuana)
From: Phillizy@AOL.COM
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:45:03 EDT
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: BBC Poll: Legalize Medical Cannabis
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
On July 7,27,98, the BBC Healthcheck program conducted an online telephone
poll on the subject of medical marijuana.
42,000 viewers responded to the poll.
96% said marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes.
4% said it should remain illegal
The story and the phone poll stats are at this website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/stories/cannabis.shtml
Lizy
***
CANNABIS
Healthcheck 27.07.98
TELEPHONE VOTE RESULTS
Healthcheck conducted a telephone poll during the
programme: We received 42,000 calls: 96% said Yes,
cannabis should be legalised for medical purposes.
4% said No, Cannabis should remain illegal.
What do you think?
Cannabis is said to have strong medicinal powers
and many GPs want to prescribe it - but it is illegal
in Britain.
Cannabis can be smoked, drunk in tea or eaten. It is a natural plant which
contains hundreds of chemicals, including sixty called cannabinoids.It is
some of these cannabinoids that are claimed to have medicinal benefits.
Dr Nathanson of the British Medical Association says that cannabinoids may
help people with muscle spasm, as in multiple sclerosis and spinal injury,
pain relief and nausea and vomiting especially after taking anti-cancer drugs.
Andrew Coldwell has had multiple Sclerosis for eighteen years. He suffers
from the eye disease glaucoma, and arthritis. He has tried almost every
prescribed drug available to help combat the symptoms but, he says, none
have worked well enough and many have produced serious side-effects. He
tried cannabis and says it alleviates the symptoms of his MS and so he has
had to resort to buying drugs from criminals. He wants doctors to be able to
prescribe cannabis.
In California the law has recently been changed to allow doctors to sanction
the legal purchase of cannabis for medicinal purposes. People can visit the
Los Angeles Cannabis Buyers Club and get up to an ounce a week if they have
a letter of recommendation from their doctor.
In Britain, medicinal users, like Colin Davies, are taken to court. He
admitted to possession of eighteen cannabis plants. He says he was growing
the plants for his health, while using cannabis he could reduce the amounts
of codeine and paracetamol he needed to control the chronic pain he suffers
from a spinal injury. He was able to prove to the jury that the side-effects
from cannabis were less harmful than those from the conventional
pain-killers and he was aqutitted.
Professor Ungerleider, of the University of California Medical Center, has
been researching the medicinal uses of cannabis for the past twenty years.
His work is amongst a growing body of evidence that cannabis is good for
your health. Crucially, it has been found that some cannabinoids stimulate
receptors in the brain which control parts of the body's immune and nervous
systems.
However, Dr Tierney, a GP, says that cannabis should not be used in any way.
He says if you smoke it, it can cause coronary heart disease, lung disease
and cancer. It can cause anxiety and he thinks we should look to other
products instead of researching into illegal drugs.
Dr Nathanson of the BMA says that research into cannabis will help produce
pure drugs with known side effects and known positive effects. It will make
sure the drug is administered in tablet form, or as a nasal inhalation, thus
avoiding the cancer-causing agents from smoking.
The Government has just granted a licence for cannabis to be grown for
research purposes and the House of Lords will debate the whole subject this
week.
For those who believe that cannabis can ease their suffering, a change in
the law can't come soon enough. They say the research could take years and
they want cannabis to be legally prescribed now.
800 302 The results of our telephone poll will be added here before midday
tomorrow - Tuesday 28th July.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EPO - A Powerful, Dangerous Drug (A 'New York Times' Article
In 'The International Herald-Tribune' Says EPO, The Synthetic Hormone
Erythropoietin, Which Stimulates The Production Of Red Blood Cells,
Is At The Epicenter Of A Widening Drug Scandal In The Tour De France)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:27:58 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: France: IHT: Epo: A Powerful, Dangerous Drug
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Sender: webmaster@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Peter Webster
Pubdate: Mon, 27 Jul 1998
Source: International Herald-Tribune
Contact: iht@iht.com
Website: http://www.iht.com/
Author: Jere Longman, New York Times Service
EPO: A POWERFUL, DANGEROUS DRUG
Epicenter of Scandal Stimulates Production of Red Blood Cells
For patients suffering from anemia caused by kidney disease, use of the
synthetic hormone erythropoietin, or EPO, can be a lifesaver because it
stimulates the production of red blood cells. For endurance athletes, the
increased oxygen-carrying capacity provided by EPO has made it an alluring,
performance-enhancing drug although it is banned and can leave athletes at
risk of strokes, heart attacks and even death.
EPO is at the epicenter of a widening drug scandal in the Tour de France.
It is thought to be widely used in cycling, distance running and Nordic
skiing by world-class athletes. But the drug goes largely undetected
because scientists have yet to develop a reliable test to differentiate
naturally occurring EPO from the genetically engineered version of the
hormone.
"And we're probably not really very close," said Dr. Don Catlin, who runs
the Olympic drug testing labomtory at the Univasity of California at Los
Angeles and who is a member of the International Olympic Committee's
medical commission. "It's a terrible problem," he said.
The synthetic version of EPO was approved by the Food and Drug
Administration in 1989 for patients with specific diseases, according tothe
U.S. Olympic Committee's drug education handbook. But it has been available
in Europe since 1987 and has concerned Olympic officials since the 1988
Winter Games in Calgary, Alberta.
Evidence of the use of EPO as a performance-enhancing drug has been most
visible and ominous in cycling, where approximately two dozen deaths have
been linked anecdotally to the drug since the late 1980s.
EPO is a glycoprotein, or proteincarbohydrate compound, which is produced
by the kidneys and circulates through-the bloodstream, stimulating the bone
marrow to produce red blood cells, which in turn carry oxygen to the
muscles. The drug is synthetically produced for use by patients with kidney
disease, AIDS and cancer, according to the Olympic Committee handbook.
Endutance athletes inject EPO to increase the number of red blood cells
thus providing themselves with greater aerobic capacity. The use of EPO is
the evolution of another procedure, called blood doping or blood packing.
Blood doping involved an athlete removing a portion of his blood, allowing
his body to replenish its redblood cell supply, then intravenously
restoring the removed blood to increase his oxygen-carrying ability.
Both procedures are banned because they give athletes unfair competitive
advantages, and both carry health risks.
The danger with EPO is that an excessive number of red cells thickens the
blood, especially with the dehydration that results from strenuous
exercise, making it more difficult for the heart to Dump blood through the
body. This ieaves athletes atrisk of clotting, strokes and heart attacks,
Dr. Catlin said.
"If you give a kidney patient EPO, it remarkably improves the quality of
their life," he said. "But it's a two-edged sword, and the edges are very
sharp. "
Over the last four years, federations for sports like cycling, speed
skating, biathlon and cross-country skiing have begun using programs to
measure athletes' red blood cells. In cycling, for instance, those athletes
who have a hematocrit, or percentage of red blood
cells in whole blood, above 50 percent, are suspended for two weeks. Seven
riders have been caught this year and about a dozen last year.
These programs are not referred to as doping tests but as health-protection
initiatives. Those caught are not branded as cheaters or banned for long
periods. Controversy has erupted on sevemI fronts. In speed skating, for
instance, the tests have been voluntary instead of mandatory.
Doctors in Italy and Norway are working on tests that would detect
synthetic use of EPO. Last January Dr. Francesco Conconi of Ferrara, Italy,
reported that encouraging steps had been made in isolating synthetic EPO
from naturally occurring EPO in urine samples.
However, research on a reliable test for EPO lags behind research to detect
synthetic human growth hormone, another banned substance used by athletes
for its steroid-like qualities.
SAMARANCH WOULD SLASH LIST
The list of banned doping products must be slashed, and substances that do
not damage an athlete's health should not be prohibited, Juan Antonio
Samaranch, the head of the International Olympic Committee, said Sunday,
The Associated Press reported from Madrid.
Speaking about the scandal involving the Tour de France, Mr. Samaranch told
El Mundo that he has been asking for an "exact definition" of doping "for
years."
"Doping is everything that, firstly, is harmful to an athlete's health and,
secondly, artificially augments his performance," Mr. Samaranch said.
"If it's just the second case, for me that's notdoping," he said. "If it's
the first case, it is."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tour Goes On As Riders Close Ranks ('The International Herald-Tribune'
Says The 147 Remaining Bicyclists In The Tour De France Continued Sunday
To Roll Toward Their Rendezvous With The Alps Sunday After Two Officials
Of The TVM Team From The Netherlands Were Jailed In Connection With
The Seizure Of A Team Car Carrying Illegal Performance-Enhancing Drugs)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:51:45 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: France: IHT: Tour Goes On as Riders Close Ranks
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Peter Webster
Pubdate: Mon, 27 Jul 1998
Source: International Herald-Tribune
Contact: iht@iht.com
Website: http://www.iht.com/
Author: Samuel Abt, International Herald Tribune
TOUR GOES ON AS RIDERS CLOSE RANKS
GRENOBLE, France---What doping scandal? After agreeing with bicycle-racing
authorities to discuss the sport's pharmacological problems in the fall and
deciding not to talk now about anything but the athletic aspect of the Tour
de France, the 147 remaining riders continued Sunday to roll toward their
rendezvous with the Alps. If teams had psychologists instead of sports
doctors they would say the race is in denial.
Unmentioned by anybody on two wheels is the fact that two jailed officials
of the TVM team from the Netherlands are due to be transferred Monday to
the French city of Reims for questioning about the police seizure in March
of a team car carrying illegal performance-enhancing drugs. If the
officials implicate the team Tour officials have said, it will be expelled.
Nevertheless, the riders have closed ranks. "It's a bike race and we're
here to do the bike race and that's all I'll talk about," said a rider in a
typical comment. He declined to be identified.
Frankie Andreu, an American rider with the U.S. Postal Service team,
explained: "I understand the drug story is part of the Tour but it's been
more than a week. It's time the drug story stops and the Tour de France
gets going."
Andreu, who has completed all six of his previous Tours, said he was
impressed with at least three of the overall leaders a day before the race
entered the Alps for three testing stages.
Of Jan Ullrich, the German leader of Telekom, the wearer of the leader's
yellow jersey and the defending champion, Andreu said, "He looks strong. Me
looks good, maybe not as good as last year, but he's going to be hard to
beat."
Bobby Julich, the American leader of the Cofidis team who ranks second
overall, also drew praise from Andreu, his tearnmate last year at Cofidis
and at Motorola for two years before that. "Bobby looks great," he said.
"He's just waiting for the Alps to try to do something. Like Ullrich, he
looks very comfortable."
Marco Pantani, the Italian leader of Mercatone Uno, fourth ranked and the
acknowledged king of the mountains, drew Andreu's praise, although he
tempered it by noting that Pantani is not the time-trial rider that Ullrich
and Julich are. A long race against the clock on Saturday, a day before the
three-week race ends, may decide the result.
"He's incredible," Andreu said. "I donit know about the time trial, but I
think he can take some time back in the mountains to make a difference."
All the leaders retained their positions Sunday as a six-man breakaway by
low-ranked riders at Kilometer 56 of 186.5 (116 miles) was allowed to roll
away over a big climb and then into Grenoble the doorstep to the Alps.
The winner was Stuart O'Grady, an Australian with Gan and the wearer of the
yellow jersey for three days a week ago. He had sunk to 91st, more than 58
minutes behind Ullrich.
He was timed in 4 hours 30 minutes 53 seconds, a speed of 41 kilometers per
hour in this 14th stage of the 85th Tour. The first six finished 10:05
ahead of the pack and O'Grady rose to 78th place.
The weather continued to be hot and muggy but the route passed through
wonderful countryside, including fields of lavender scenting the air below
the Vercors plateau. If only Cezanne had moved his easel about 100
kilometers northeast of his beloved Provence near the start of Sunday's
stage in Valreas.
Anyway, second in the sprint before he was set back to sixth for
interference was Giuseppe Calcaterra, an Italian with Saeco. The new
second-place finisher was Orlando Rodrigues, a Portuguese with Banesto.
Leon Van Bon, a Dutchman with Rabobank was third.
For the second successive day, U.S. Postal Service had a rider in the
breakaway. But again, the mailmen's hopes were marked "Return to Sender."
Peter Meinert-Nielsen, a Dane, was strong, as his teammate, Marty Jemison,
an American, had been Saturday. But like Jemison, Meinert-Nielsen came up
short in the dash to the line, finishing fifth until he was elevated to
fourth.
Andreu dreams of being the Postal Service rider in a break that gets away.
"I'm trying to win something or do something," he said. "In the mountains
the same guys win, in the mass sprints the same guys win, so the other days
are the ones you really have to concentrate on. It's difficult.
"Making that break takes a bit of luck and a bit of form," he said. "You
can join 20 attacks and sometimes it's the 21st that goes. You've got to
gamble and time it right. You go, go, go, go and sometimes it happens."
Not for the next three days, however. Andreu is strong and smart but no
climber.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Olympics Boss Wants Drug Rules Relaxed ('The Calgary Herald'
Says Olympic Chief Juan Samaranch, Speaking To The Spanish Daily Newspaper,
'El Mundo,' Reignited The Controversy Over Drugs In Sport Sunday
By Calling For A Distinction Between Drugs That Enhance Performance
And Those That Harm Users' Health)
From: creator@islandnet.com (Matt Elrod)
To: mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com
Subject: Olympics boss wants drug rules relaxed
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 09:00:54 -0700
Lines: 75
Newshawk: creator@mapinc.org
Source: Calgary Herald
Contact: letters@theherald.southam.ca
Pubdate: Mon 27 Jul 1998
Section: News A1 / FRONT
Olympics boss wants drug rules relaxed
Olympic chief Juan Samaranch reignited the controversy over drugs in
sport Sunday by calling for restrictions to be eased.
Speaking to the Spanish daily newspaper El Mundo, the Olympic
movement's top figure demanded a radical overhaul of doping control
with athletes being allowed to use ``harmless'' performance-enhancing
drugs.
Samaranch, calling the drug scandal plaguing the Tour de France
cycling competition a ``tough blow . . . for all sports,'' wants a
more precise list of which drugs athletes cannot use. ``The ones to
blame are not the athletes but those around them,'' the International
Olympic Committee president said. ``Doping demands an exact definition
. . . and I have been asking for it for years.''
Samaranch said that while the IOC would not consider legalizing
doping, ``the actual list of (banned) products must be reduced
drastically.''
He did not specify which drugs should be stricken from the list.
Samaranch said: ``Doping at the moment is every product that first can
damage the health of a sportsman and secondly artificially improves
his performance.
``If it only produces the latter which improves the performance but
does not affect the health then that, for me, is not doping. If it
does damage the health, then it is.''
British Olympic Association chief executive Simon Clegg said this
distinction between ``harmful'' and merely ``performance-enhancing''
drugs is a dangerous path to tread for athletes and administrators.
Samaranch said he did not endorse blood tests, instead of urine
samples, as a means of combatting drug use.
Samaranch said that while the Tour de France drug scandal was
embarrassing, he was encouraged by the bigger picture.
``For example, in the World Cup there were more than 60 games and
nearly 300 doping controls carried out, but not one player tested
positive,'' he said.
The Festina cycling team, long ranked one of the world's best, was
expelled from the Tour after the team's director admitted the team had
supplied banned substances to improve performance.
Last week it was reported that customs officials found the banned drug
EPO in a car of officials from the Dutch team TVM in March.
At the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano, Canadian snowboarder Ross
Rebagliati was stripped temporarily of his gold medal after testing
positive for marijuana, considered a banned substance but not a
performance-enhancing drug.
Rebagliati later appealed the ruling and won back the gold.
Samaranch denied the IOC was in a position to impose a change, saying
the co-operation of all sports was required.
He pointed to the drug scandal at the 1988 Seoul Olympics in which
Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson was stripped of his 100-metre gold medal
as the key moment in the doping fight.
``And since then we have seen that we are not alone in the struggle,''
he said. ``We have been joined by federations and sports groups of all
sorts and, as the Tour showed, even by governments.''
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[End]
to 1998 Daily News index for July 23-29