Portland NORML News - Wednesday, August 5, 1998
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The Damages Of War (A Letter To The Editor Of The Bend, Oregon 'Bulletin'
Points Out The Willful Blindness Of The US Drug Czar,
General Barry McCaffrey, Revealed In His Recent Boilerplate Op-Ed
Against Harm Reduction)

Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 23:16:30 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US OR: PUB LTE: The Damages Of War
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Curt Wagoner (cwagoner@bendnet.com)
Pubdate: Wed, 5 Aug 1998
Source: Bulletin, The (OR)
Section: My Nickel's Worth
Page: A-6
Contact: bulletin@bendbulletin.com
Website: http://www.bendbulletin.com

THE DAMAGES OF WAR

Regarding "Harm reduction strategy won't work" by General (Ret.) Barry R.
McCaffrey Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy, the good
general seems to believe that the War on Drugs causes no damage by itself.
How silly.

Wars always cause collateral damage. Who keeps track of it? Or does anyone?

The damages are multifaceted, deep and reach into the future. Harm
reduction is about accessing the damage of drugs use, abuse and trafficking
against the collateral damage caused by the effort to stamp it out.

General McCaffrey's tactic of impugning the motives of the harm
reductionists and legalizers, thus far, has allowed him to avoid addressing
these important issues.

How many more villages will the general's drug warriors burn before he
starts counting?

Gerald M. Sutliff
Emeryville, Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

House Panel Votes To Block Suicide Law ('The Oregonian'
Says A Bill That Would Block Oregon's Physician-Assisted Suicide Law
Passed The US House Judiciary Committee By Voice Vote Tuesday
And Was Sent To The Full House)

August. 5, 1998

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

House panel votes to block suicide law

* The bill under debate says assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical
purpose," nullifying Oregon's Death With Dignity Act

Wednesday, August 5 1998

By Dave Hogan
and Jim Barnett
of The Oregonian staff

WASHINGTON -- A bill that would block Oregon's physician-assisted suicide
law passed the House Judiciary Committee by voice vote Tuesday and was sent
to the full House.

That means the bill could be ready for a House vote before Congress adjourns
for the year in early October. Time is short, however, as the House will
recess Friday until early September.

Tuesday marked the most vigorous and far-ranging debate that the measure has
seen in Congress. Democrats on the Judiciary Committee outlined a list of
concerns about the bill, particularly states' rights issues and fears that
the legislation would restrict dying patients' access to pain medication.

"Pain is very much undertreated today," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
"This will increase that problem."

Republicans said those fears are groundless. Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla.,
emphasized that the legislation specifically allows doctors to prescribe
pain medication even if it hastens death.

"Nothing in this bill interferes with a doctor's ability to provide
palliative care," Canady said.

The committee chairman and principal author of the legislation, Rep. Henry
Hyde, R-Ill., said the Oregon law is part of a larger debate about the value
of life, one that also includes abortion and euthanasia.

Hyde described himself and other supporters of the bill as "people who want
to slow down the assault on life."

At one point, Hyde interrupted Democrats when they said his bill addresses
only the use of controlled substances and apparently would allow people in
Oregon to use other drugs to assist suicides.

"Why not just suffocate them?" Hyde asked sarcastically. "Why not use a pillow?"

Hyde said his aim is to maintain the medical profession's role as healers
and to protect people such as those who would contemplate assisted suicide
because they don't wish to be a burden to their families.

But Rep. Steven Rothman, D-N.J., said he didn't see the "culture of death"
that Hyde described. He noted that he was part of the majority in Congress
that voted last year to ban federal funding for assisted suicide, but he
didn't see the need for this legislation.

"Is there some epidemic of doctor-assisted suicides in the country that I'm
not aware of?" Rothman asked. "Is there some epidemic of doctor-assisted
suicides in Oregon that I'm not aware of?"

Other Democrats argued that the bill would cut short the debate on the
issue, mentioning that Michigan is set to vote on legalizing
physician-assisted suicide in November. Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Va., called
it part of a " 'Congress knows best' agenda."

But the principal objections focused on concerns that doctors might not
aggressively prescribe pain medication for terminally ill patients because
of fears that the dosages could inadvertently cause patients' deaths and
cost doctors their federal registration, needed for prescribing medications.

The bill would amend the federal Controlled Substances Act to state that
assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" allowed under the
act. Canady said doctors who prescribed lethal medication could face
criminal penalties for assisting a suicide, as they would for any other
violation of the act.

But, he stressed, the bill would protect physicians as long as they did not
intend to cause a patient's death.

"Physicians would have less reason to be fearful under this law than they
would under existing law," Canady said.

The committee debated the measure for about 21/2 hours, agreeing only to one
minor amendment offered by Canady while rejecting five amendments from
Democrats.

The Clinton administration is opposed to physician-assisted suicide and has
offered its support to Hyde and other opponents on Capitol Hill. But
clearly, the issue has become a hot potato that officials would rather not
deal with.

In a letter sent Monday, Assistant Attorney General L. Anthony Sutin told
Hyde that President Clinton "is open to working with you and other
interested members." But he also said the administration opposes the bill.

Sutin called it and its counterpart in the Senate "a flawed approach" to the
regulation of medicine that would put the Drug Enforcement Administration in
the business of investigating doctors rather than drug dealers.

But no administration officials have come forward with alternative plans to
halt the practice of assisted suicide. In fact, the White House has not yet
decided which agency is best equipped to deal with the issue -- and it
appears to be in no hurry to do so.

"We're open to a variety of alternatives and haven't concluded," a White
House official said Tuesday. "It's worth the time it takes to get something
right rather than to do something quickly."

A possible base for administrative action is the Department of Health and
Human Services, which oversees the Medicare and Medicaid federal health
plans, or the Public Health Service.

Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala was invited to testify at
a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week. But the invitation was
declined in a telephone call by Jane G. Horvath, a deputy assistant
secretary in the department's Legislation office.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to decide next month whether to
send assisted-suicide legislation forward for a vote by the full Senate.
Like the House bill, the Senate version would in essence halt the use of
Oregon's Death With Dignity Act.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Petition Signatures Gathered By Non-Voters Remain Valid
('The Associated Press' Says The Oregon Court Of Appeals On Wednesday
Rejected An Attempt By A Salem Tobacco Company Lobbyist To Nullify
A Successful 1996 Initiative Increasing Cigarette Taxes)

Associated Press
found at:
http://www.oregonlive.com/
feedback (letters to the editor):
feedback@thewire.ap.org

Petition signatures gathered by non-voters remain valid

By CHARLES E. BEGGS
The Associated Press
08/05/98 7:53 PM Eastern

SALEM, Ore. (AP) -- Signatures on initiative petitions gathered illegally by
non-registered voters remain valid, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

The case involves an initiative petition drive that put a cigarette tax
increase on the ballot in 1996. The measure passed.

A Salem tobacco company lobbyist, Mark Nelson, challenged the signature
gathering. He produced evidence that some of the petitioners were not Oregon
registered voters, a violation of Oregon law.

Nelson argued that the practice amounted to voter fraud and the signatures
collected by non-registered voters should be nullified.

He acknowledged that no law allows for signatures to be invalidated in such
cases but contended authorities ought to have a common-law remedy to prevent
voters from being defrauded.

But the Court of Appeals said Nelson assumed that the "collection of
signatures by individuals not registered to vote amounts to fraud."

There is no evidence that petitioners "falsely represented themselves to be
registered Oregon voters or as to how anyone was injured as a result," the
appeals court said.

Nelson also contended that the petitioners' verifications that they gathered
the signatures should have been rejected because they weren't registered voters.

But the court said petitions verified by a circulator who isn't a registered
voter "strictly speaking contain no falsehood" as long the circulators
believed the signatures were from qualified Oregon voters.

Oregon was flooded with initiative petition carriers in 1996, many of them
paid, and 16 measures made it onto the November ballot.

The Court of Appeals ruling upheld a decision by Marion County Judge Albin
Norlbad Jr., who said petition signatures are to be counted even if the
circulators gathering them are not legally qualified.

He said in a similar case that the law is meant to punish only unqualified
circulators, not the voters who sign the petitions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Camas Schools Consider Random Drug Tests ('The Columbian' In Vancouver,
Washington, Says The Camas School Board Is Tentatively Scheduled To Discuss
A Proposal August 24 That Would Allow Students Who Run Afoul Of School
Drug And Alcohol Rules To Be Able To Reduce Their Penalties Or Re-Enter
School Sports And Activities Sooner If They Agree To Drug Testing)

The Columbian
701 W. Eighth St.
Vancouver WA 98666
Tel. (360) 694-2312
Or (360) 699-6000, Ext. 1560, to leave a recorded opinion
>From Portland: (503) 224-0654
Fax: (360) 699-6033
E-mail: editors@columbian.com
Web: http://www.columbian.com/

Aug. 5, 1998

CAMAS SCHOOLS CONSIDER RANDOM DRUG TESTS

By RICHARD S. CLAYTON, Columbian staff writer

CAMAS - Students who run afoul of school drug and alcohol rules may soon be
able to reduce their penalties or re-enter school sports and activities
sooner if they agree to drug testing.

The Camas School District is considering a policy that offers random testing
instead of stiffer penalties for middle school and high school students. The
district also may form a student club that requires members to agree to
random testing.

"We hope to be able to do a better job intervening with the individual
students who might be in trouble with drugs and alcohol," said Camas
Superintendent Milt Dennison.

The Camas School Board is tentatively scheduled to discuss the proposal at
its Aug. 24 meeting.

Camas would be the first district in Clark County to adopt drug testing for
athletes. Woodland was considering mandatory testing for athletes but tabled
the idea last winter.

Camas already offers testing as an option for students caught using or
possessing drugs or alcohol at school. First-time offenders who agree to a
one-time test and drug counseling can reduce their suspensions from 15 days
to five days. The test is given shortly after a student is caught.

Dennison said a majority of students and their parents choose the testing
option.

"It serves as a great motivator for them to get some help," he said.

The idea of random testing grew out of discussions between Athletic Director
Greg Schwab and school coaches, and interest among staff members about
joining the Washington for Drug Free Youth program, Dennison said.

Schools in Spokane and other parts of Washington have adopted the program,
which includes the drug-free club. Entry in the club requires students to
agree to random drug testing.

Possible changes

In addition to school suspension, a first-time drug or alcohol offense
currently also bars students from sports for a season or from other school
club activities until the end of a play or other production.

The proposed policy would allow students to miss only 20 percent of the
remaining season or production if they agree to random urinalysis. The
school suspension would still apply.

As is now the case, schools would provide parents with a list of medical
providers who can conduct the test. Parents would have to pay for the test.

Dennison said the possibility of testing gives students a good excuse when
they are offered drugs or alcohol.

"If they are in a pressure situation," he said, "they can use that as a
response, 'Hey, I'd love to party with you, but I'm on a random testing
program.'"

Nine Camas High School students were suspended last year for drug offenses,
three for alcohol. Nine Skyridge Mid School students committed drug
offenses; four committed alcohol offenses.

A 1995 U.S. Supreme Court ruled it is legal for schools to conduct drug
tests on student athletes. The ruling stemmed from a case in Vernonia, Ore.

Dennison is researching more recent cases that might bring the 1995 ruling
into question.

"I want to make sure anything we are doing is not going to face a court
challenge," he said.

[ed. note: For those from far away, Camas, Washington, is about 5-10
miles east of Vancouver, Washington, which in turn is just north of
Portland, Oregon, across the Columbia River.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Man Who Says Viagra Made Him Sexually Functional Faces Sex Charge
('The Associated Press' Says A 72-Year-Old Man In Olympia, Washington,
Who Told Police That Pfizer's New Drug For Impotence Had Made Him
Sexually Functional Again, Faces A Maximum Of 13 Years In Prison
For Attempted Rape)

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 07:29:16 -0400
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US WA: Wire: Man Who Says Viagra
Made Him Sexually Functional Faces Sex Charge
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Source: Associated Press
Pubdate: Wed, 5 Aug 1998

MAN WHO SAYS VIAGRA MADE HIM SEXUALLY FUNCTIONAL FACES SEX CHARGE

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) -- A 72-year-old man who told police that Viagra had
made him sexually functional again has been charged with attempting to rape
his neighbor.

Authorities stopped short of saying the anti-impotence drug was the cause
of the incident.

James T. McNamara, who turned 72 on Monday, was charged Tuesday with
attempted rape and first-degree assault. He was accused of beating his
52-year-old neighbor in the head with a claw hammer on Saturday after the
woman reportedly spurned his sexual advances, said police in the Olympia
suburb of Lacey.

He told a Lacey police detective that Viagra had made him sexually
functional for the first time in 12 years, Lt. Phil Comstock said. However,
McNamara did not say whether he took the drug before Saturday's alleged
attack.

Two neighbors told police that McNamara had become obsessed with the woman
in recent weeks and harassed her. One said she witnessed the attack, saying
the woman escaped when McNamara tripped over his unbuttoned pants, which
had fallen around his ankles.

If convicted as charged, McNamara faces a maximum 13 years in prison.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Marvin Chavez's Choice (A Staff Editorial In 'The Orange County Register'
Recounts Yesterday's News About The Medical Marijuana Patient
And Founder Of The Orange County Patient, Doctor Nurse Support Group
Being Offered A No-Jail Plea Bargain)

Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 10:41:18 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US CA: Editorial: Marvin Chavez's Choice
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: FilmMakerZ@aol.com
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Pubdate: Wed, 5 Aug 1998

MARVIN CHAVEZ'S CHOICE

Marvin Chavez, founder of what is now known as the Orange County Patient,
Doctor Nurse Support Group and who is facing 10 counts of selling marijuana
and jail time if found guilty, was offered an attractive deal in court
Tuesday morning. Today he will let the court know if he will accept
probation in return for a single guilty plea or allow the case to go to
trial and let a jury decide.

It won't be an easy decision, given the competing values Mr. Chavez told us
he is weighing.

What Judge Robert Fitzgerald suggested to Mr. Chavez's attorneys was that
if he would plead guilty on one count, he would receive a period of
probation, with no jail time and no fine. He would have to avoid breaking
the law, as anybody on probation does, report to a probation officer
periodically, and be subject to being stopped and searched at any time.
But he would not be forbidden to associate with anybody and he could
continue his work of trying to establish a legitimate means for patients
who have a legal right to marijuana under Proposition 215 to get access to
it in an above-board fashion.

The alternative is to go to trial under rules that would make a conviction
fairly likely. Judge Fitzgerald already has ruled (incorrectly, we
believe) that the defense would not be allowed to mention Prop. 215 or what
the voters had intended when they passed the medical marijuana initiative
in 1996. The trial would be treated as a straightforward marijuana sales
case -- did he or didn't he hand it over to an undercover cop? -- in which
all sides acknowledge that he did.

With attorneys and witnesses possibly subject to a contempt citation if
they so much as breathe a word about medical marijuana rights, it would be
difficult -- not impossible, but difficult -- to predict an outcome other
than a guilty verdict followed by jail time.

So why not take the deal? Well, there is the matter of pleading guilty,
which is an admission that you did something illegal. To busy lawyers who
handle dozens of cases a week, that might not seem like much of a
concession, but to somebody who believes he did nothing illegal, it might
be. Probation also involves supervision by an officer of the state and the
loss of certain privacy rights. Somebody on probation can be stopped and
searched by an officer at any time, or have his house searched, with or
without probable cause, simply because he is on probation after admitting a
crime.

Probation could be seen as a legal victory of sorts -- as a possible
admission that the court wasn't eager to see this trial take place in the
full glare of publicity, as acknowledgment of a reluctance by the court to
be seen as eager to put a disabled patient in jail for handing out what he
believed to be medicine. Nonetheless, a guilty plea could put a wisp of a
cloud over Marvin Chavez and his future activities. Whatever success he
might achieve in establishing a "white market" in medical marijuana for
legitimate patients with true medical needs, it would also be true that he
pled guilty to selling marijuana.

If the Chavez case goes to trial it will probably get a certain amount of
public attention. It could be a forum to introduce the media and the
general public to some of the seriously ill people who have the most direct
stake in getting legal access to medicine that helps them.

It could also mean that Marvin Chavez, who suffers from a rare spinal
condition known as ankylosing spondylitis and must wear a chest and neck
brace, would go to prison and serve time, during which he might not have
access to one particular medicine that he says has given him relief.

When we talked to him late Tuesday afternoon, Marvin Chavez was leaning
toward not taking the deal and permitting the trial go forward. His
decision will be announced in Judge Fitzgerald's courtroom in Santa Ana
at 1:30 p.m. today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Marvin Chavez Refuses Plea Deal, Case Transferred To New Judge
(A Local Correspondent Who Attended Today's Court Hearing
Says The Medical Marijuana Patient And Former Director Of The Orange County
Cannabis Co-Op Will Risk 12 Years In Prison Rather Than Admit Guilt Or Take
A Plea Bargain Entailing Five Years' Probation - A New Judge May Reverse
The Ruling That Would Prevent Chavez From Invoking Proposition 215)
Link to earlier story
From: FilmMakerZ@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 00:47:15 EDT To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org) Subject: Marvin Chavez refuses plea deal, case transferred to new judge Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org Marvin Chavez said today he would not take the plea bargain offered by District Attorney prosecutor Carl Armbrust. He would have pleaded guilty to ten felony charges of selling marijuana in exchange for no jail time, five years of probation, and a return of patients' medical records. Chavez felt it wasn't right to plead guilty to a law he didn't break. He was following all the stipulations of Proposition 215 when he distributed medicinal marijuana for free to patients with verified recommendations from doctors. Judge Robert Fitzgerald hid in his chambers from several newspaper and TV reporters for an hour and a half after Chavez's hearing was supposed to start this afternoon. Fitzgerald decided to have the case transferred to another judge after he heard Chavez was going to take his case to jury trial. While waiting for Fitzgerald to appear, Chavez's attorneys, Robert Kennedy and Jon Alexander, mentioned to Armbrust that the ACLU called them regarding Judge Fitzgerald's ruling that Armbrust could have access to patients' medical records. The ACLU has received numerous calls from patients and doctors regarding the violation of doctor-patient privacy. Shortly after, Armbrust returned all the medical records, but not without copying all of them first. Armbrust said he is using the medical records to see if any of the doctors' notes are forged. It is believed that all of the records were legitimate and that is one of the reasons why Armbrust didn't want Chavez's case to go to trial. Patients are worried the DA's office will use the information they have about them to arrest and charge them. Most patients are on disability and risk losing their benefits if found guilty of a drug-related felony. Chavez's attorneys asked the new judge in the case, Frank F. Fasel, whether he would reconsider not allowing Chavez to use a Proposition 215 defense. Judge Fasel said he would need to look over all the paperwork in his case before making a decision. He said he will announce his decision on Friday, August 14. If he decides to continue to disallow the use of a 215 defense, Chavez's attorneys will take it to the Fourth District Court of Appeals. Chavez's trial is set to begin on Monday, August 24 at the Orange County Central Courthouse, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Division 41, eleventh floor, in Santa Ana. Mira
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Chavez Offered Plea Bargain ('The Los Angeles Times' Version)

From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: "MN" (mapnews@mapinc.org)
Subject: MN: US: CA: Chavez Offered Plea Bargain
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 17:40:50 -0500
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: FilmMakerZ@aol.com
Pubdate: Wed, 5 August 1998
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Author: Lisa Richardson, Times Staff Writer

CHAVEZ OFFERED PLEA BARGAIN

O.C. Medicinal Marijuana Club Director Says He Will Reject the Deal

Though he faces 15 years in prison on 10 counts of selling and distributing
drugs, the director of an Orange County medicinal marijuana club said
Tuesday he would rather go to jail than admit wrongdoing as part of a
proffered deal that could keep him from serving time.

Marvin Chavez, 42, said Tuesday, the first day of his trial, that Superior
Court Judge Robert R. Fitzgerald had given him 24 hours to mull an
unexpected offer from the prosecution: Chavez would probably receive some
time in County Jail but would receive credit for time already served, along
with five years' probation. Because he was in jail for 90 days awaiting
trial, Chavez might not serve time at all.

The deal also would have allowed him to use marijuana personally but not to
distribute it to others, Chavez said.

But Chavez, an ardent defender and proponent of Proposition 215, said he
balks at either pleading guilty or agreeing to stop distributing "the
medicine."

"I'm thinking that I cannot take the deal," Chavez said. "I've always been
inspired by Gandhi and Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela--look at
Mandela! He spent 27 years in prison for what he believed in, and it paid
off.

"I'm not trying to save the world, but I'm an American," said Chavez,
director of the Patient, Doctor, Nurse Support Group. "I'm willing to stand
for my civil rights."

Proposition 215, which passed in November 1996, permits people with doctors'
recommendations to use marijuana legally to treat illness. It also calls on
the federal and other state governments to implement a plan for the
affordable distribution of marijuana to patients. The initiative, however,
has caused much confusion about whether federal or state drugs laws have
more weight.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Carl Armbrust confirmed that Chavez had been offered a
deal but would not discuss any details.

Should he agree to bargain, Chavez would fare far better than another
cannabis club member recently sentenced in an Orange County court.

David Lee Herrick, 48, was convicted in May on two counts of felony
marijuana sale and sentenced to four years in prison. Herrick, who has been
in jail since March 1997, was arrested after police found several plastic
bags of marijuana identified as cannabis club property and marked "Not For
Sale" in his possession.

One of Chavez's attorneys, Robert L. Kennedy, later in the day groaned on
learning of his client's inclination. Only last week, Kennedy was
anticipating an appeal of Chavez's potential conviction. The deal offered
Tuesday would provide an alternative to lengthy legal wrangling.

Also, with a new district attorney and county sheriff coming into office in
January, Chavez would do more for the movement by working with them than by
going to prison, Kennedy said.

Outgoing Sheriff Brad Gates campaigned heavily against Proposition 215, but
Sheriff-elect Mike Carona has said he believes doctors should have the power
to prescribe marijuana to seriously ill people.

"We will stand by [Chavez], but I would rather see him laying the groundwork
for an enlightened allocation of resources for those patients who are
seriously ill," Kennedy said.

Obviously exasperated, Kennedy added: "It's too bad he can't call Herrick up
and ask what his feelings are and what he'd do if he'd had the same offer."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Drug Activist To Reject Offer (The Long Beach, California
'Press-Telegram' Version)

Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 23:06:30 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US CA: Drug Activist To Reject Offer
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: FilmMakerZ@aol.com
Pubdate: Wed, 5 August 1998
Source: Press-Telegram (CA)
Contact: speakout@ptconnect.infi.net
Website: http://www.ptconnect.com/
Author: Joe Segura, Staff Writer

DRUG ACTIVIST TO REJECT OFFER

Plea bargain: Terms in medical pot case not acceptable to Chavez.

SANTA ANA - Medical marijuana activist Marvin Chavez said he'll likely
reject a plea bargain offer today in a Santa Ana Superior Court.

The offer was a 5-year felony probation in exchange for eight felony
marijuana sale charges, said Long Beach attorney Robert Kennedy, one of two
attorneys on the case.

"It's the best offer he's going to get," Kennedy said, after a brief
appearance in Judge Robert R. Fitzgerald's chambers. "And it will be a
tragic error if he turns it down."

Chavez said a final decision on the offer will be made today when he meets
again with his attorneys.

"I cannot accept the deal, as it now stands," he said. "I'm standing up for
my rights and those of others."

Kennedy said he expects to provide an aggressive defense, if the deal is
rejected in Fitzgerald's courtroom today.

Chavez is the co-founder of the Orange County Patient-Doctor-Nurse Support
Group that he says is designed to be a clearinghouse for the seriously ill
who use marijuana medicinally. The organization -- established after the
passage of Prop. 215 legalized the medicinal use of marijuana in the state
-- has about 200 members, people who reportedly have presented a doctor's
recommendation for marijuana use, he says.

Chavez was arrested in April after allegedly selling marijuana to an
undercover officer posing as a care-giver for a terminally ill uncle.

Jury selection was scheduled to begin Tuesday.

However, the judge called Kennedy and co-counsel Jon Alexander of Orange
County and Deputy District Attorney Carl Armbrust, head of the Narcotics
Enforcement Team, into chambers to review a possible plea-bargain deal.

The judge called the attorneys into chamber after reading several stories by
the Press-Telegram, which were being distributed outside the court building
by Chavez supporters.

Armbrust was upset by the demonstration, saying the supporters were
attempting to influence potential jurors walking into the court building.

"I don't think they have a right to influence a jury," he added.

Kennedy credited the press -- both in Orange County and Long Beach - with
bringing the issue of Prop. 215, known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996,
to the public's attention. And the stories and editorials also have caught
the attention of the authorities, the attorney said.

"The only reason they're making this offer is that they're taking a beating
in the press," Kennedy said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Return To Custody . . . . Parole Violation (A List Subscriber Forwards A Plea
From A California Woman Seeking Help In The Case Of A Nonviolent
Marijuana Offender Sent Back To Prison For Possessing A Utility Tool
With A Blade More Than Two Inches Long)
Link to earlier story
From: "W.H.E.N. - Bob Owen - Olympia" (when@olywa.net) To: "-Hemp Talk" (hemp-talk@hemp.net) Subject: HT: Fw: return to custody....parole violation Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 23:36:07 -0700 Sender: owner-hemp-talk@hemp.net I just got this. Sad story of police abuse, if true. Bob Owen -----Original Message----- From: Paula Bell (paulab@inforum.net) To: W.H.E.N. - Bob Owen - Olympia (when@olywa.net) Date: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 11:19 PM Subject: return to custody....parole violation >On 7-29-98 Kirt was hand-cuffed while our home was searched by his parole >officer and an assisting El Dorado County officer. What they were looking >for was anything that would substantiate a "return-to-custody" parole >violation. Their reason for searching our home was a dirty pee test. So I >suppose that means they were looking for drugs. However, Kirt did not give >them a dirty pee test and there were no drugs to be found in our home. So, >when all else fails, the good law enforcement officers grab on to what ever >they can find to validate their invasion. > >On this particular instance they discovered a utility tool, that was >purchased at Wal-Mart for $6.99. This utility tool is multi-purpose, >containing pliers, screw driver, and a small blade, amongst other necessary >and convenient household tools. Unfortunately the blade measured in at >slightly over 2" and therefore violated his parole. Without further ado, >they took Kirt to El Dorado County Jail and have since returned him to Deuel >Vocational Institute Reception Center in Tracy, CA awaiting a screening >offer which is similar to a plea bargain. This will determine how much time >Kirt must spend incarcerated for having access to a knife with a blade >longer than 2 inches. > >Kirt is a non-violent felon. His original offense was possession of >marijuana back in 1991, for which he served his sentence. At this point in >time his parole has continued on beyond the maximum length of four years. >(His original release date was 4-94.) The pettiness of the CDC's continued >harassment is exhausting. The term of parole is seemingly endless. The >number of times they have returned him to custody on fabricated charges is >alarming, especially if this is typical of the treatment parolees receive in >California. > >To date, Kirt has an adjusted discharge date from parole of 1-4-99. Nearly >five years after his parole began. Is this legal, can they continue to >incarcerate someone without proof and substantiated evidence long after a >sentence has been served? Is there anyone out there that can help us? We >need an attorney to put an end to this. The parole officer did not leave a >receipt for the item he took from our house during the search as required by >law. There are other facts which also provide the basis for procedural >errors on the part of the parole officer. I'm desperate, please help.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Judges OK Listing Of Heroin, LSD In Referendum Pamphlets
('The Associated Press' Says A Three-Judge Arizona Supreme Court Panel
Tuesday Approved The State's Listing Of Schedule 1 Drugs Such As Heroin
And LSD In Pamphlets Explaining A Referendum On What's Commonly Referred To
As A Medical Marijuana Measure)

From: "W.H.E.N. - Bob Owen - Olympia" (when@olywa.net)
To: "-News" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: Judges OK listing of heroin, LSD in referendum pamphlets
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 21:04:18 -0700
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net

Judges OK listing of heroin, LSD in referendum pamphlets
08/05/98
Associated Press

PHOENIX - An Arizona Supreme Court panel Tuesday approved the state's
listing of street drugs such as heroin and LSD in pamphlets explaining a
referendum on what's commonly referred to as a medical marijuana measure.

Those who want to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana and certain other
banned substances call that language intentionally misleading and say a more
neutral description is in order. State officials say it's proper, since
heroin and LSD would be allowed along with marijuana.

Voters will decide in November whether to reject a 1997 state law canceling
a voter-approved initiative that would have allowed doctors to prescribe
marijuana and 115 other illegal drugs. The law says doctors can prescribe
such drugs only when federal law allows the medical use of marijuana.

The three-judge panel signed off on a decription in voter pamphlets saying
that to reject the 1997 law would allow doctors to prescribe drugs such as
heroin, LSD, marijuana and certain derivatives of PCP.

On Friday, Judge Joseph D. Howe of Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that
the wording was unfair because only certain drugs were mentioned, not all
drugs affected by the measure. State officials appealed the ruling,
prompting an emergency hearing Monday, a day before Tuesday's deadline to
send the voter-information pamphlets to the printer.

The state is required to send a pamphlet to each registered voter.

"The options were to list nothing or to list all 116, which would be
horribly confusing" said John Lundin, the lawyer for the Legislative
Council, who wrote the descriptions. "You can't pronounce the names, much
less understand what they are."

Lundin said the council decided instead to name only a few of the drugs
involved in the referendum - the ones the public would recognize.

"It's a matter of informing the public, not advocating or arguing or
fighting or scaring," Lundin said.

But opponents said that by naming only a few of the drugs the lawmakers who
wrote the description are trying to scare voters.

"The voters would have been better served with a more neutral description,"
said John Buttrick, a lawyer for backers of the 1996 initiative.

Mike Braun, executive director of the Legislative Council, said the analysis
was neutral and approved unanimously.

"It's a confusing issue, but the bias just isn't there," he said, adding
that the information was too important to leave out of the pamphlet.

In their ruling, the judges said the substances named are "arguably among
those most recognizable by the voting public" and that listing them can be
regarded as providing "appropriate and necessary information" to voters.

The November referendum, Proposition 300, asks voters to check "yes" or "no"
on whether to keep the law that essentially cancels out the 1996 drug
initiative.

That initiative made it legal for doctors to prescribe marijuana or any of
115 other Schedule I drugs to serious or terminally ill patients, even
though federal law restricts such prescriptions.

The pre-election pamphlets describing various ballot referendums are
required by Arizona law to include a description from the Secretary of
State's Office and an impartial analysis of each item by the Legislative
Council, a panel of lawmakers from the state House and Senate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Pot Backers Lose Proposition 300 Suit ('The Arizona Republic' Version)

Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 09:43:37 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US AZ: Pot Backers Lose Prop. 300 Suit
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: Arizona Republic (AZ)
Contact: Opinions@pni.com
Website: http://www.azcentral.com/news/
Pubdate: Wed, 05 Aug 1998
Author: Mike McCloy Arizona Republic

POT BACKERS LOSE PROP. 300 SUIT

Supreme Court OKs pamphlet analyzing bill

Promoters of medical marijuana have lost a court fight over notifying
people that their vote against Proposition 300 could legalize some other
drugs as well, including heroin, LSD and PCP.

The challenge to the Arizona Legislative Council ended when the state
Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Council's official analysis of
Proposition 300 is accurate.

The analysis, in a publicity pamphlet for the Nov. 30 general election, was
attacked in a lawsuit by a group called The People Have Spoken. The group,
then known as Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform, won passage of Proposition
200 in 1996.

The Legislative Council's analysis in the publicity pamphlet for the 1996
election mentioned only legalizing marijuana for prescription purposes and
did not inform the voters that other Schedule I drugs such as LSD, heroin
and PCP could be legalized.

The Legislature amended the initiative last year to halt the legalization
of Schedule I drugs for medical use in Arizona unless Congress or federal
agencies approve marijuana as medicine. The People Have Spoken responded
with Proposition 300, a referendum on the Legislature's changes.

The secretary of state began printing 1.3 million pamphlets on the ballot
issues Wednesday. By law, they contain analyses of the issues by the
Legislative Council.

The Council's analysis of Proposition 300 was rejected last week by
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Howe. By referring to heroin,
LSD and PCP, the Council was attempting to advocate for passage of its
limits on legalizing drugs in the referendum, the judge said.

Howe recommended that all Schedule I drugs should be listed as part of the
legalization attempt, not just the ones commonly associated with serious
abuse. Or, the judge suggested, no analysis of Proposition 300 should be
included in the publicity pamphlet.

A Supreme Court panel disagreed with the judge. Mention of heroin, LSD and
PCP does not misrepresent House Bill 2518, the subject of the referendum,
the court said.

Naming only the three street drugs "can be regarded as an attempt to
provide appropriate and necessary information to the voting public,"
according to the Supreme Court order upholding the Council's analysis.

Sam Vagenas, spokesman for The People Have Spoken, said he was disappointed
that the Supreme Court did not limit the Legislature's power to change an
initiative by the voters and then interpret the matter in an official
publicity pamphlet for a referendum on those changes.

"The same politicians, when they gut an initiative, are able to write the
language that's most beneficial to them," Vagenas said. "The voters know
what they were voting on in 1996. They will see through this ruse and vote
"no' on Proposition 300."

The only ruse was in 1996 when Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform said they
wanted to legalize marijuana for the sick and dying, Maricopa County
Attorney Rick Romley said. He favors Proposition 300 and opposes the
attempt to legalize marijuana or any other street drug.

"Once again, they tried to hide the ball," Romley said. "The Supreme Court
saw right through it."

The publicity pamphlets will be available at primary-election polling
places on Sept. 8. The information also is posted at
http://www.sosaz.com, the secretary of state's Web site.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposition 300 Wording Stands (The United Press International Version)

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 13:40:16 -0700
From: owner-maptalk-digest@mapinc.org (Maptalk-Digest)
To: maptalk-digest@mapinc.org
Subject: Maptalk-Digest V98 No. 315
Reply-To: maptalk@mapinc.org
Sender: owner-maptalk-digest@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/
Subj: Proposition 300 wording stands
From: "Patrick Henry" (resist_tyranny@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 09:55:19 PDT

Proposition 300 wording stands

PHOENIX, August 5 (UPI) - The state supreme court has refused to alter
some wording in the information booklet sent to voters which explains
ballot measures. Opponents of Proposition 300 objected to an explanation
of the question's impact. If passed, voters would be affirming support
for the legislature's decision to ignore the overwhelming passage of a
proposition to legalize some drugs for medical uses two years ago. The
pamphlet language says defeat of the measure would allow doctors to
offer marijuana, heroin and LSD.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Officers Work To Wipe Out Pot Plant Explosion
(According To 'The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,'
A Bumper Crop Of Wild And Cultivated Marijuana
Has Prompted Waukesha County, Wisconsin Prohibition Agents
To Destroy 20,000 Plants So Far This Growing Season,
More Than 10 Times Last Year's Amount)

Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 10:35:15 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US WI: Officers Work to Wipe Out Pot Plant Explosion
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: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI)
Contact: jsedit@onwis.com
Fax: (414) 224-8280
Website: http://www.jsonline.com/
Pubdate: Wed, 05 Aug 1998
Author: Linda Spice and Mike Johnson of the Journal Sentinel staff

OFFICERS WORK TO WIPE OUT POT PLANT EXPLOSION

A bumper crop of wild and cultivated marijuana has prompted law enforcement
officers in Waukesha County to destroy 20,000 plants so far this growing
season -- more than 10 times last year's amount, officials said Tuesday.

"I don't know what to blame it on," Sheriff's Capt. Terry Martorano,
commander of the 15-member Waukesha County Metro Drug Enforcement Unit,
said of the record harvest. "Maybe it's the marijuana gods. Someone has
certainly looked over the crops this year because marijuana is growing
rampant."

Apparently, Waukesha County is not alone. James Haney, a state Department
of Justice spokesman, said Tuesday this year's growing season has been a
very good one.

"When the corn crop is doing well, the marijuana crop does well," he said.

During August, Waukesha County's metro unit is stepping up its efforts,
collecting and burning wild plants but saving cultivated ones as evidence.

Chris Boerboom, a weed scientist for the University of Wisconsin Extension
at Madison, attributed a bumper marijuana crop to ideal growing conditions
early in the season.

"I don't know if we had any specific environmental conditions that would
have caused a greater number to germinate this spring, but we did have high
temperatures and plentiful moisture through June and early July, which
would have led to good plant growth," he said.

Boerboom said that a lot of marijuana in the state is growing wild,
remnants of crops grown in the 1940s for rope fiber production.

Despite law enforcement eradication efforts, Boerboom said wild marijuana
probably will be back next year because new seeds are in the soil.

"Every year we target the entire county," Martorano said. "We have some
areas that we know that grow every year. We go out and handpick everything.
We don't cut it with weed cutters. We pull it out at the roots, so it
doesn't come out."

Haney said sheriff's departments handle marijuana eradication efforts and
report the number of marijuana plants destroyed to the Department of
Justice. The numbers for July have not been collected yet, he said.

However, for the first six months of this year, 6,017 non-cultivated
marijuana plants and 326 cultivated plants growing in fields have been
destroyed statewide, Haney said. That compares with 61,029 non-cultivated
marijuana plants destroyed and 200 cultivated plants destroyed in the first
six months of 1997.

The numbers for this year still could change dramatically, Haney said,
because the most active months of the growing season are July through
September.

For all of 1997, about 8 million non-cultivated marijuana plants and 5,289
cultivated plants were destroyed in fields statewide, he said.

Cultivated marijuana plants generally have higher tetrahydrocannabinol
levels and are more potent than non-cultivated plants, Haney said. THC is
the hallucinatory chemical most active in marijuana.

The percentage of THC is 0.5% to 1% in a non-cultivated plant compared to
3% to 6% in the commercially grown product, law enforcement officials said.
In Dane County, the Narcotics and Gang Task Force, based in Madison, pulled
up about 21,000 wild marijuana plants on July 19, according to Sgt. Mark
Twombly, the unit's commander.

"With the growing season, what we've found this year is the plants are much
larger than they have been in prior years for this early in the season,"
Twombly said.

The department has plans to eradicate a couple of large fields,
anticipating they will find about 250,000 plants, he said.

Without the eradication of the plants, the marijuana could wind up in the
hands of juveniles. Also, dealers will mix it with cultivated marijuana to
yield a higher drug profit, Twombly said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

No Trading Of Testimony For Leniency, Judge Says ('The Sun Sentinel'
In Florida Says US District Judge William J. Zloch Ruled In Fort Lauderdale
Tuesday That The Government Can No Longer Promise Sentencing Leniency
To Witnesses In Return For Testimony Against Co-Defendants - Zloch's Decision
Follows The July 1 Singleton Decision By A Three-Judge Federal
Appellate Panel In Denver)

NO TRADING OF TESTIMONY FOR LENIENCY, JUDGE SAYS

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 17:29:38 -0500
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: cheechwz@mindspring.com (A H Clements)
Subject: fwd: NO TRADING OF TESTIMONY FOR LENIENCY, JUDGE SAYS
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

[forwarded from Nora & Selena of the November Coalition]

newshawk: Selena K selena@november.org
source: Sun Sentinel (FL)
pubdate: 08/05/1998

NO TRADING OF TESTIMONY FOR LENIENCY, JUDGE SAYS
Published: Wednesday, August 5, 1998
Section: LOCAL
Page: 1A

By LARRY LEBOWITZ Staff Writer

A ruling that could prove troublesome for prosecutors and law enforcement
became law in one Florida courtroom when a Fort Lauderdale federal judge
declared on Tuesday that the government can no longer promise sentencing
leniency to witnesses in return for testimony against co-defendants.

U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch's ruling is thought to be the first of
its kind in the nation, according to Justice Department officials, defense
attorneys and legal scholars.

Zloch issued his written ruling on Tuesday, barring three men who have
already pleaded guilty to drug charges from testifying at the upcoming
trial of the remaining defendant, 73-year-old Oslet Franklin Lowery.

Even though trading lighter sentences for testimony has been an integral
part of the American criminal justice system since the 1870s, Zloch says
prosecutors are violating federal bribery laws prohibiting anyone from
buying the testimony of a trial witness.

Prosecutors have ``quite simply, purchased the testimony of the
co-defendants through promises of leniency,'' said Zloch, who issued an
oral ruling in the case two weeks ago. ``Each co-defendant, therefore, has
every reason to fabricate, falsify or exaggerate his testimony in an
attempt to curry favor with [prosecutors). . ..''

That ruling did not become law until Zloch entered his written order on
Tuesday explaining his decision.

For the short term, Zloch's ruling will create a modicum of chaos in the
South Florida federal courts because testimony that would be admissible in
some courtrooms is no longer permitted in Zloch's.

``I guarantee you, the government is very shook up by this ruling,'' said
Miami attorney Jeffrey Weiner, a past president of the National Association
of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Adalberto Jordan, chief of the appellate division at the U.S. Attorney's
Office in Miami, said he expects to receive swift approval to challenge
Zloch's ruling from the Justice Department and Solicitor General's Office.

``We respectfully disagree with Judge Zloch's order, as we argued in
court,'' Jordan said.

So do at least two other South Florida federal judges: Federico P. Moreno
and William P. Dimitrouleas have rejected similar arguments. Several
motions seeking to dismiss or suppress testimony are pending before a
half-dozen local federal judges.

But Zloch's ruling joins a growing national debate over plea bargaining.
Defense attorneys have argued that witnesses, influenced by the hope of
obtaining immunity or a reduced sentence, will promise to testify to
anything desired by the prosecution.

On July 1, a three-judge appellate panel in Denver tossed out the money
laundering and conspiracy conviction of Sonya Singleton because the
testimony of her co-conspirators was ``purchased'' in return for
recommended sentencing leniency.

The Singleton decision, which is headed for a showdown before the U.S.
Supreme Court, set off a slew of motions by defense attorneys nationwide
seeking to suppress key testimony or dismiss entire cases.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Singleton decision 10
days after it was issued, pending a rehearing before the entire panel in
November.

Zloch's ruling, like the Singleton decision, is hooked on the federal
bribery law that prohibits giving, offering or promising anything of value
to a witness for or because of his testimony.

The Justice Department has argued that Congress never intended for the law
to apply to pacts between prosecutors and defendants. But Zloch, who has a
reputation as one of the more conservative judges in a conservative
judicial district, says a ``plain language'' reading of the law doesn't
exempt prosecutors.

``If the judicial process is tainted by the admission of unreliable
testimony induced by a defendant's promises, it is no less tainted by the
identical actions of a prosecutor,'' Zloch wrote.

Several law-and-order members of Congress have reacted to the Singleton
ruling with bills that would exempt prosecutors and plea bargains from the
bribery law.

Moreno said Congress ``clearly intended to exclude plea agreements between
a defendant and a prosecutor'' and that ``government cannot be expected to
depend exclusively upon the virtuous in enforcing the law.''

While legal experts are debating whether the Singleton ruling will
seriously disable the government's investigatory and prosecutorial powers,
it could prove to be a double-edged sword for defense lawyers.

``If you want to go to trial, it helps,'' said Miami attorney Philip
Horowitz, who successfully argued to suppress the testimony against his
client, Lowery. ``If you have a client who wants to cooperate and is
willing to testify, it's going to hurt. The bottom line is I can't buy
testimony and neither should they.''

Some legal observers say the rulings are indicative of the growing
frustration among federal judges whose discretionary power has been eroded
by strict sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum terms for drug
crimes. Some judges and defense attorneys bristle when hard-core criminals
with information to trade wind up with shorter prison terms than low-level
associates with little to barter.

``The Department of Justice does not ensure justice,'' said Weiner. ``You
have a system where the little people are getting slammed with draconian
sentences, and the higher-ups are cutting deals.''

The sentencing guidelines, enacted in 1987 as part of the War on Drugs,
have placed most of the power to reward cooperating witnesses with
prosecutors.

``Many district judges, including this one, have expressed frustration at
minimum-mandatory sentences and resulting reductions available to those who
are higher in the criminal venture hierarchy and not available to those
with little information and thus little testimony to provide,'' Moreno
noted. ``Nevertheless, Congress has maintained its position to reward
cooperation and testimony with a reduction in the sentence.''

Copyright 1998, SUN-SENTINEL Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't Just Say No (A 'San Francisco Bay Guardian' Article
About Berkeley Researcher Dr. Joel Brown, One Of The Country's
Foremost Authorities On Drug-Prevention Education, Who Questions
The Effectiveness Of The Federal Government's Antidrug Education Policies
And New $1 Billion Drug-War Advertising Campaign)

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:16:48 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US CA: Don't Just Say No
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: tjeffoc@sirius.com (Tom O'Connell)
Source: San Francisco Bay Guardian
Contact: letters@sfbayguardian.com
Website: http://www.sfbg.com/
Pubdate: 5 Aug 1998
Author: Jason Cohn
Page: 13

DON'T JUST SAY NO

Berkeley researcher Dr. Joel Brown questions the effectiveness of the
federal government's antidrug education policies.

LAST MONTH, WHEN President Bill Clinton stood side by side with Speaker of
the House Newt Gingrich and drug czar General Barry McCaffrey to announce a
new $1 billion antidrug advertising campaign aimed at kids, Berkeley-based
researcher Dr. Joel Brown knew his phone would soon be ringing.

Brown is one of the country's foremost authorities on drug-prevention
education and his outspoken opposition to what he calls "the failed
policies and programs of the past" has made him the voice of change in the
field. His pivotal 1994 study of California's school-based drug, alcohol,
and tobacco education programs concluded that the antidrug messages and
programs -- the very ones the federal government is poised to spend $1
billion on in the new round of television ads -- have no positive impact on
youth drug use and may even lead to more risky behavior.

Standing before a backdrop of young children in Atlanta in July, Clinton
said, "We know that the more young people fear drugs, the more they
disapprove of them, the less likely they are to use them."

But Brown argues -- with substantial evidence to back him up -- that basing
antidrug messages on fear is simply ineffective.

"These types of fear-arousing messages initially shock people -- very
initially -- and after that they become nothing more than the butt of a lot
of jokes," Brown told the Bay Guardian.

Images like the now infamous fried egg in a pan ("This is your brain on
drugs") may have a short "halo period" during which they might frighten
some potential drug users, according to Brown, but then they take on a life
of their own. "We have to consider the possibility that these ads and the
programs connected with them are actually placing kids at risk," Brown said.

Brown is in a better position to talk about how young people react to
antidrug messages and programs than most experts in the field because his
research has centered on extensive interviews with school-age children.

Brown has shown that drug-prevention policies based on the "Just Say No"
ethic of the early '80s shortchange the very nature of adolescence, which
is to seek and challenge. "Just Say No" requires students to accept on
faith what they are told in school or see on television. The problem is
that a great deal of that message is contradicted by observable reality,
Brown said.

"For example, these programs tell kids that marijuana is as bad as heroin,
which is as bad as alcohol," Brown said. But having been told this, kids
might observe a parent harmlessly drinking beer or wine with dinner or an
older sibling smoking a joint with friends. Furthermore, kids learn about
drugs from movies, music, the Internet, and what Brown calls an "informal
underground network of informational transmission." Young kids know, for
example, that doctors use marijuana to treat glaucoma and nausea, that
moderate amounts of alcohol can help people relax, and that psychedelic
drugs are used to explore alternate realities.

"The equation of all substances as just being 'bad,' with no possible
benefits, ends up with young people rejecting the messengers as well as the
message," Brown said. What is worse, he says, is that kids who exhibit the
most need for drug counseling are the first to get kicked out of school,
adding to the overall impression among students that educators don't really
care about them. The result is that, while drug-prevention education makes
up only a tiny part of the total curriculum, its effects play a
disproportionately large role in the alienation of young people from their
teachers and adult society.

Brown says the reason the zero tolerance, or "no use," policy has stayed in
place despite its demonstrable failure is not the fault of educators but of
policy makers who are more concerned with politics than science. His 1994
study, for instance, was commissioned by the California Department of
Education. But the department immediately disavowed the study when it
concluded that a decade of DARE and similarly oriented programs would
likely lead to increased drug use among minors -- a prediction borne out by
subsequent research and current statistics. "The discussion about drugs
focuses on who is tough and who can be tougher, while the children suffer,"
Brown said.

Brown has been widely published and often quoted in the New York Times, the
Los Angeles Times, radio, and television news programs. Nevertheless his
research is not often included in critical program and policy discussions,
and he and his like-minded colleagues are regularly labeled drug
legalizers, which he calls "a rhetorical device used to exclude some
researchers from the debate."

Frustrated by the difficulty of affecting ossified policy and finding
acceptance within academia, Brown and a group of other researchers have
formed a nonprofit organization, the Berkeley-based Center for Educational
Research and Development, which works directly with school districts and
family service centers to create progressive drug-prevention programs.

Brown, who carefully prefaces many of his statements with the insistence
that he is not an advocate of drug legalization or drug experimentation for
minors, said, "We're seeking a new vision for drug-prevention education
that combines honest, accurate, and complete information with the courage
to trust the capabilities of youth instead of dwelling on their
disabilities."

To contact the Center for Educational Research and Development, call (510)
559-8112.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Drug Czar Not A Straight Shooter (A Letter To The Editor
Of 'The Houston Chronicle' Responds To General Barry McCaffrey's
Recent Anti-Harm-Reduction Op-Ed That Appeared In The 'Chronicle'
And Other Newspapers Around The Nation, Rebutting A Few Of His Big Lies)

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 11:30:53 -0500
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: cheechwz@mindspring.com (A H Clements)
Subject: fwd: Epstein (DPF Texas) whips McCaffrey's butt
in the Houston Chronicle
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

[forwarded from DPFT-L(DPFT-L@TAMU.EDU). I copied this LTE to our "addled"
McCzar (MCCAFFREY_B@a1.eop.gov), who seems to be half-lying all the time &
all-lying half the time. - ashley]

Jerry Epstein (JerryEp138@AOL.COM), president of the Drug Policy Forum of
Texas, got a good LTE in this morning's (8/5/98) Houston Chronicle:

Drug czar not a straight shooter

The Aug. 2 Outlook diatribe by Gen. Barry McCaffrey, director of the Office
of National Drug Control Policy ("Legalization of drugs wrong, regardless of
how it is done"), was a litany of inaccuracy and flawed logic from start to
finish and typifies why we so desperately need an open debate.

The American Public Health Association asked the government in a 1995
resolution to make marijuana available for doctors to prescribe, yet the
addled general told us he couldn't find a "shred of evidence" that marijuana
was good medicine.

Who knows what "legalization" is? Thalidomide, horribly dangerous, is once
again legal to prescribe, but virtually impossible to obtain. By contrast,
marijuana is illegal and, our teens tell us, easier to get than alcohol.

Decriminalization has not, in fact, produced increased usage in Australia or
in 10 states in the United States. McCaffrey and all prohibitionists insist
that the government must be given more power to save us from a non-existent
bogey man who will force us to use drugs against our will.

Marijuana was not made illegal because it was harmful, but because of lies
that its use would cause death, violence, crime and insanity. Thousands of
protesting doctors were arrested between 1937 and 1939 and many more are
routinely threatened today into withholding both proper medical advice and
adequate pain medication from the suffering. Galileo reincarnate.

McCaffrey's endless half-truths include the bizarre claim that "we are
successfully addressing drug use and its consequences." He cites a 50
percent reduction in "drug use" over 20 years.

He does not say that our statistics only measure the willingness of people
to admit to a felony in an ever harsher punitive environment, not actual
use. The measurement of increased deaths and hospital admissions tell a very
different story.

McCaffrey does not include data that show that illegal drug addiction
increased by over 30 percent during those 20 years. Nor does he recount that
heroin use among 8th-graders has increased.

At no point does he acknowledge that, after the effects of prohibition,
legal drugs are our biggest drug problem. Not because they are legal, but
because they are dangerous. Of all drug-related deaths, over 97 percent are
due to legal drugs. Alcohol produces about four times as many addicts as all
illegal drugs combined.

Our tax dollars and gullibility are the ammunition and our children are the
victims in this grotesque war on drugs. How will it end if our own leaders
won't shoot straight?

Jerry Epstein, president,
Drug Policy Forum of Texas,
Houston
-------------------------------------------------------------------

US Drug Control Chief Warns Against Dutch Policies ('Reuters'
Notes The US Drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey, Is Still Unchecked
In His Campaign Of Lies Against Dutch Drug Policy - To See Through
His Willful Fabrications, Read Through The Almost-Daily Updates
In This Archive Starting About July 11)

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 20:49:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: David (hansi@lancnews.infi.net)
Reply-To: hansi@lancnews.infi.net
Organization: InfiNet
To: "NTList@fornits.com" (NTList@Fornits.com)
From: ntlist@Fornits.com
Subject: [ntlist] McCaffery Strikes Again! Lying Sack of Sh** That He IS!

U.S. drug control chief warns against Dutch policies

07:40 p.m Aug 05, 1998 Eastern

By Steve James

LOS ANGELES, Aug 5 (Reuters) - America's drug control chief blasted liberal
drug policies in the Netherlands on Wednesday, saying that they would
increase crime and addiction if adopted in the United States as legalisation
advocates want.

``I'm not trying to persuade the Dutch, but I'm darn sure I don't want to
apply their model intellectually to the United States,'' Barry McCaffrey
said in an interview with Reuters.

``They've tried to be consistent with a harm-reduction policy which hasn't
worked and is leading them now to beginning heroin maintenance trials,'' the
retired general and Vietnam War hero added.

McCaffrey upset the Dutch last month during a seven-country European tour
when he singled out tolerant drug laws in the Netherlands as being
responsible for much higher rates of murder and other crime there than in the
United States.

The Dutch government rebuked McCaffrey, the director of the White House
Office of National Drug Control Policy, for calling Dutch drug policy a
``disaster.''

``There was a huge uproar (in Holland) over murder rates and crime stats, and
was I right or wrong?... For an American to suggest that their crime rates
were higher than the U.S absolutely blew their mind,'' he said.

On Wednesday, in an address to business and community leaders in Los Angeles,
McCaffrey outlined his office's 10-year strategy to combat illegal drugs in
which the emphasis is on education, treatment and prevention. He also spoke
of the need to appoint regional narcotics control officials at all crossing
points on the U.S.-Mexico border to coordinate drug interdiction operations.

Later in an interview, he expanded on his criticism of the Dutch, who
recently started giving free heroin to hard-core addicts through a health
ministry project in a pilot programme.

Marijuana is freely available in bars in Amsterdam and it is not illegal to
smoke it in Dutch homes.

``I'm not trying to persuade the Dutch about anything. But I do want to watch
what they're doing because their experience is being used by harm-reduction
drug legalisation advocates as an argument on what we ought to be doing,'' he
said.

``I think the drug legalisation argument in the United States sets up a false
stereotype of what we're doing. What we're actually doing is a
prevention-treatment approach,'' he said.

``Our model has resulted in lowering the rates of drug abuse in America by 50
percent. Cocaine use is down by 70 percent; drug-related murders are down
by a third; the armed forces are drug-free,'' he added.

McCaffrey said he had looked at two countries in Europe with different
approaches to the problem.

``The Swedes liberalised their policies in the 1960s; it turned into a
disaster. They reversed course and they now have among the lowest rates of
drug-abuse in Europe.

``The Dutch have consistently followed a harm-reduction policy ....In their
country, drug-abuse rates among their youngsters have gone way up under
this policy and their prison population has gone way up.

``So we look at legal hypocrisy in the Netherlands,'' McCaffrey said, citing
an example of a recent visit when he accompanied Dutch customs officials
searching the hold of a Chinese ship for marijuana.

``Meanwhile, they're growing it. The Netherlands has turned into a major
drug-producing country,'' he said.

``Half the MDMA (a hallucinogen known as Ecstasy or X) in Europe is probably
made in the Netherlands; a good bit of the amphetamines used in Europe is
manufactured in the Netherlands; a good bit of the hash (marijuana) that's
sold in violation of their own law is grown in the Netherlands.

``It's exported all over Europe; so the Netherlands international partners aren't
thrilled with their policy. We don't think it's working at all,'' said McCaffrey.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The Prison Population Is Rising - Politicians Must Be Very Proud
('Boston Globe' Columnist David Nyhan Discusses The Latest US Figures
On State And Federal Prisoner Populations)

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 11:30:50 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US: OPED: The Prison Population Is Rising - Politicians Must Be
Very Proud
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: emr@javanet.com (Dick Evans)
Pubdate: Wed, 5 Aug 1998
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Contact: letters@globe.com
Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/
Author: David Nyhan (Columnist)

THE PRISON POPULATION IS RISING - POLITICIANS MUST BE VERY PROUD

If I told you that my prescription for making America a bit safer from
crime was to lock up every blessed soul living in Maine and New Hampshire,
you'd think I was nutty.

But official government policy in this country has almost that many people
behind bars this morning, more than 1.7 million. And if you throw in all
the employees who report to prison or jail every day, the guards, cooks,
nurses, and administrators, the total of Americans who spend their day
inside prison walls is more than the combined populations of Maine and New
Hampshire. Now for more news: The prison and jail population will probably
top 2 million in time for 2000. Sure, crime rates are falling, but prison
and jail populations are rising. How so? Longer sentences. Since Ronald
Reagan's tough talk on crime proved politically popular in the mid-'80s,
your typical inmate has had five months tacked on to his time in the jug,
from an average of 20 months to 25 months.

Just ask yourself: Have you ever seen a politician brag that he's for
shorter sentences? Easier time? More parole and probation? Have you
forgotten what George Bush's hatchetmen did to Michael Dukakis over Willie
Horton in the presidential election 10 years ago? No politician has
forgotten that lesson.

So sentences get longer, rhetoric gets harsher, and candidates outdo
themselves in bragging how tough they'll be on miscreants. Remember Bill
Weld riding into office promising to introduce his prisoners to ''the joy
of breaking rocks''? It's still a trend.

And that average sentence gets longer each month, with longer minimums,
three-strikes-and-you're-out, stricter sentencing rules that prevent judges
from weighing a defendant's youth, IQ, mitigating circumstance, or general
stupidity in easing prison stays. We are also cracking down on parole
violators: Nearly one-third of all inmates are back where they are because
they did something really stupid all over again.

You thought our hottest growth industry was something in the computer line?
Try prison construction. All through the '90s, our prison population
expanded by about 64,000 per year. That means every month, we need new
cells for 5,350 men - they are overwhelmingly men. That's a roof, a bed, a
barred door, a toilet, three squares and medical care, plus the custodial
charges, for a net increase of 175 men per day.

You are paying for all this. You are hiring, as taxpayers, on average,
every day of the year, weekends and holidays included, a fresh crew of 175
prisoners, whom you will now have to feed, cloth, medicate, guard, and
entertain, plus another crew to watch over them and make sure they don't
leave their new home before their 25-months-and-growing, on average, is up.
Make sense to you? Do you feel safer because going on 2 million of your
fellow Americans are locked up? In many cases, yes, we know there are
dangerous people who deserve to be locked away. The most violent and
felonious, sure, no problem, keep them tucked away.

But why do we have so many more prisoners per capita than any other
industrial nation, save Russia? That is the only country with more inmates
per head than we have. Our rate of incarcerating 645 out of every 100,000
citizens is six to 10 times higher than the rest of the so-called civilized
world. Sound bites elect politicians, and three-strikes-and-you're-out
sounds satisfactory after the local TV station zips up its audience share
with live shots from the latest gruesome crime scene. But 19 out of 20 of
those prison inmates chilling in noisy, crowded, understaffed,
over-brutalized prisons come out, typically after 25 months of
soul-deadening punishment. And they come back to live in our midst and try
to pick up where they left off. Some go straight.Some have the gumption and
IQ to get jobs, to overcome the stigma of a prison record, to renew family
life, to get on with living. A lot don't. They were drunk or high when they
did what they did to get in trouble in the first place, and most prisoners
have done a lot more wrong than what they got sentenced for.

Drink and drugs gave a lot of them the false courage they needed to try
something really crooked. And if they're a little light in the IQ
department, as many prisoners are, if they had broken families, lousy
schooling, and a predilection for dope, booze, or violent behavior, then
over they go, and in they go. But every other industrial nation, save one,
has devised smoother, calmer, more efficient, and less costly ways of
dealing with malefactors.

Shorter, swifter sentences, more counseling and oversight on the street,
intensive job-skill training and maximization of religious and
psychological help, teaching reading and writing and basic social skills,
all these would help. Prison too often makes hard and brutal men harder and
more brutal. I write a similar column every summer when the numbers come
out, usually picking two states whose population mirrors that in prison.
Next year, I'm afraid, I may have to toss in Rhode Island.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Addicted To Abolition / MAP Focus Alert Number 76 (A Review Of Mike Gray's
'Drug Crazy,' A New History Of The War On Some Drug Users, By The Notorious
Prohibitionist, Dr. Sally Satel, In 'The Wall Street Journal,' Combined With
A Request From The Media Awareness Project To Write A Letter To The Editor)

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 15:19:21 -0700
To: mgreer@mapinc.org
From: Mark Greer (MGreer@mapinc.org)
Subject: FOCUS ALERT No. 77 Sally Satel Trashes "Drug Crazy"

FOCUS Alert No. 76 - The "Lone Sally" Writes Again

Dr. Sally Satel has once again had her moronic prose published in the Wall
Street Journal. I hesitate to provide a sample letter with this Focus Alert
because there are so many targets in Satel's "Review" of Mike Gray's "Drug
Crazy" that I hesitate to influence your creativity. I will in fact post
two letters just to demonstrate how bereft of facts Satel's piece is.

Please read Satels Review below and let's all team up and really bomb this
paper with scores of letters. The WSJ is a 1998 MAP "target paper" and we
are working very hard to educate and "convert" this heavily pro drug war
paper into unbiased and accurate reporting on drug policy issues. Please
help. Even a quick short letter is an important effort. Every letter counts!

You CAN make a big difference

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

It's not what others do it's what YOU do

***

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

Wall Street Journal
Paul Steiger Managing editor
200 Liberty St
New York
NY 10281
212-416-2500

LTEs
Email: letter.editor@edit.wsj.com

"EXTRA CREDIT"

CC and/or fax your letter to the WSJ Book Editor

Wall Street Journal
Eric Eichman
Book Editor
200 Liberty St
New York
NY 10281-1003
212-416-2500
FAX 212-416-2658

Book Editor only
E-mail editor@cor.dowjones.com

***

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

NewsHawk: Mark Greer
Source: Wall Street Journal, Interactive Edition
Pubdate: Aug. 5, 1998
Contact: letter.editor@edit.wsj.com
Website: http://www.wsj.com/

Wall Street Journal Bookshelf

Addicted to Abolition

By SALLY SATEL

At the turn of the last century, unrestricted access to morphine, heroin
and cocaine led to a great wave of addiction in the U.S. Witnessing this
devastation of people's lives, the nation responded with antidrug laws.
Somehow the simple lesson here--that drugs are dangerous--has been
forgotten by many of our nation's elites. Mike Gray's "Drug Crazy" (Random
House, 251 pages, $23.95) is the product of such selective memory.

Mr. Gray, a film producer, makes the claim that the harms produced by drug
prohibition are worse than the hazards of the drugs themselves. Yet his
book is so lopsided that it fails to persuade. This is not to say that the
"drug war" is being waged in the best way. Indeed, many drugs today are
accessible, cheap and potent, not a good advertisement for current
interdiction efforts. But Mr. Gray's angry, anecdote-driven account is
hardly the best place to look for reform.

Most of the book catalogs drug-war excesses: abuses of police power,
corruption, gang violence, paranoid officials. The author uses them as
reason to abolish our drug laws. "The black market must be underbid," Mr.
Gray writes. "If that means drugs have to be given away to serious addicts,
so be it. Anyone who is determined to use heroin regardless of consequences
must be able to get the stuff from a legitimate source at a price that
doesn't require stealing car radios."

This is typical of the harm-reduction philosophy Mr. Gray advocates: Since
addicts will be addicts, let's make it easier on them and our car radios.
In other words, give them the means of their own destruction and leave the
taxpayer to pick up the pieces.

Making drug control work better by reducing demand--perhaps our best
hope--isn't even an option for Mr. Gray. Apart from denigrating the
D.A.R.E. program (a nationwide school-based education program) and calling
for fewer restrictions on methadone, he virtually ignores prevention and
treatment. He sees addicts as victims of everything but the drugs they
abuse. For example, he blames the recent increase in heroin overdoses on
the prohibitionists' scare tactics: "Cool Gen X-ers knew from experience
that government claims about marijuana were exaggerated, so they assumed
the grown-ups were lying about heroin as well." More likely the deaths were
due to batches of extremely high-purity drug.

Mr. Gray is adamant that prohibition must go, and he packs into each
chapter stories of corruption and brutality that would make even the
toughest drug hawk cringe. But in his zeal to legalize drugs, he slights
the facts. He claims that the nation's current homicide rate is a function
of prohibition, yet in a graph he presents the years 1951-55 have the
century's lowest rate, even though drug laws then were harsher than now.
Nor is mention made of property crime and burglary (the hallmarks of drug
use in the '60s and '70s), which have been on a steady decline over the
past two decades under the very laws Mr. Gray condemns.

Mr. Gray blames society's negative attitudes about addicts, whom he calls
"unfortunate citizens," on the federal Harrison Anti-Narcotics Act of 1914.
Yet the Harrison Act was simply the culmination of two decades of efforts
to pass antidrug legislation. Indeed, the 1914 law did not demonize
addicts; they had turned popular sentiment against themselves. As early as
1892, Sir William Osler's celebrated medical textbook called morphine
addicts "inveterate liars . . . not confined to matters relating to the vice."

The final chapter, "Prescription for Sanity," is more rhetoric than
practical advice. It features a post-prohibition agenda that is vague
except for one sure thing: In the world according to Mike Gray, we would
have a new dependent class of citizen--the government-supported addict.
Strikingly, Mr. Gray's prescription contains no discussion of how to reduce
the consumption of drugs. His heroes are Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke,
whose public-health commissioner is seriously considering heroin
maintenance (that is, the medically supervised distribution of
pharmaceutical-grade heroin); the millionaire backers of the California and
Arizona medical marijuana initiatives; and of course philanthropist George
Soros, who is underwriting much of the nation's harm-reduction movement.

Are some changes needed? Definitely. We could start by easing restrictions
on physicians who prescribe pain-killers; researching the medical
properties of marijuana; and rethinking aspects of the crack cocaine/powder
cocaine sentencing disparity. Some interesting suggestions (and some insane
ones) can be found on the Web sites of the advocacy groups that are listed
in the book's appendix.

In this era of hysteria over tobacco, the new evil weed, it is astonishing
to see how many intelligent people have gone soft on drugs. They are right
to be frustrated with aspects of our drug problem and to seek enlightened
direction, but Mr. Gray's skewed vision is just a bad trip.

Dr. Satel is a psychiatrist and lecturer at the Yale University School of
Medicine.

***

Two SAMPLE LETTERS:

Dear Editor,

Dr. Satel's review of Drug Crazy, by Mike Gray, is a poignant reminder
that some of us with a degree in higher education need not necessarily
exercise their mental acuity after they have been placed in their realm
of satisfied comfort.

One would almost suspect Dr. Satel of being a reformed addict, her
distaste for this "class" of undesirables is so great.
What is most interesting regarding her review of "Drug Crazy", by Mike
Gray, is her prohibitionist tendency to distort facts, misrepresent the
truth, and gloss over the truly important issues.

According to her, the drug laws of 1951-55 "were harsher than now".
Really!? Who does she expect will believe this, a complete idiot?
Where Mr. Gray, after six years of research to produce this book,
established the reason behind the "demonization" of then legal
narcotics, she clumsily suggests the author asserts that the Harrison
Act was responsible for society's attitude towards opiates and cocaine,
and she stresses the Act was not passed as a demonization measure.

Huh?

Did she actually read this book or obtain a botched Cliff Notes?
As for the harm perpetrated by prohibition - as she states, "abuses of
police power, corruption, gang violence, paranoid officials" - perhaps
she was reading the notes at night and couldn't stomach a planeload of
innocents blown from the sky by a psycho drug lord, or one half of the
Supreme Court of Columbia assassinated by the same. I suspect she cannot
admit this horrendous violence to herself - it doesn't fit her picture
of a happy little drug war, maybe a little bit errant, but nonetheless
keeping those hoards of potential addicts off the Government heroin
dole-out.

Where do you dig these reviewers up, Never-Never Land?

Kevin Droski
Michigan

***

Dear Editor:

It seems that only on the topic of the "War on Drugs" are proponents
allowed to spew blatant inaccuracies on a regular basis and go largely
unchallenged by the media. The latest example, "Addicted to Abolition" by
Dr. Sally Satel (WSJ 8/5) is a prime example.

In her biased diatribe Satel "reviews" Mike Gray's excellent and insightful
book "Drug Crazy." Virtually every paragraph of Satels commentary contains
a factual inaccuracy.

For example: Satel states "At the turn of the last century, unrestricted
access to morphine, heroin and cocaine led to a great wave of addiction in
the U.S. Witnessing this devastation of people's lives, the nation
responded with anti drug laws."

This is revisionist history at its worst. Our drug laws were implemented by
uninformed fear mongers like Harry Anslinger who used blatant inaccuracies
and wild exaggeration to push through legislation that has resulted in the
United States having the highest incarceration rates in the world.

The "great wave of addiction" Satel refers to was the lowest addiction rate
in our nations history and something we would be delighted with today. In
other words eighty years of drug prohibition, billions of wasted dollars,
and millions of ruined lives has resulted in a massive increase in
addiction rates compounded by the fact that any child in that country with
a few dollars in his pocket can buy any illegal drug at will.

Satel rambles on: "Somehow the simple lesson here--that drugs are
dangerous--has been forgotten by many of our nation's elites. Mike Gray's
"Drug Crazy" (Random House, 251 pages, $23.95) is the product of such
selective memory."

The fact that drugs are dangerous has nothing whatever to do with the fact
that the "War on drugs" is unwinnable stupidity. Cars are dangerous so are
cigarettes and aspirin but we don't put people in jail for using them
thereby creating a black market that increases drug use by orders of
magnitude.

The above quotes represent only the first paragraph of Satels litany of
fabrications, distortions and a nearly maniacal predilection towards
cognitive dissonance.

I can only assume that Dr. Satel's livelihood as an "addiction
psychiatrist" depends on the continuation of drug prohibition. This must be
a primary factor in her inability to view the topic with logic science and
reason.

XXX
-Word count 380-

Mark Greer
(Contact info)

Note: Always include your phone number. It will not be printed but is
needed to verify authorship by most papers.

WRITE AWAY!

***

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

***

[A few more reviews of 'Drug Crazy' in this archive: ed.]

Drug Crazy - Stoning The Drug War
Book Review - 'Drug Crazy' Challenges Mind-Set Of Policymakers
Book Review - Drug Crazy
Stone Crazy
The War On Drugs - Vietnam All Over Again
War On Drugs A Bust, Author Argues
Drug Crazy - How We Got Into This Mess And How We Can Get Out
Drug Crazy And The UN Drug Summit
Pray For Peace Foundation News, May 1998
-------------------------------------------------------------------

House Overwhelmingly Passes Measure To End DOJ Attempts To Hold Itself
Above The Law (A List Subscriber Forwards News That Today, The US House
Of Representatives Approved A Proposal In The Department Of Justice
Spending Bill, Requiring The Department To Hold Its Lawyers To A Standard
Of Ethical Conduct Applicable To Other Lawyers - Since 1989, DOJ Has Claimed
That Its Lawyers Can Ignore The Fundamental Ethical Prohibition
Against Contacting Represented Persons Without Their Lawyers, In Order To
Intimidate And Interrogate Them)

From: LawBerger@aol.com
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 20:04:43 EDT
To: dpfor@drugsense.org
Subject: DPFOR: Fwd: Fw: Legislative Update:
House Overwhelmingly Passes Measure to End DOJ ...
Sender: owner-dpfor@drugsense.org
Reply-To: dpfor@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/

this is a significant win

Lee

***

From: "LINDA RAMIREZ" (LFRPC-OREGON@worldnet.att.net)
To: "ocdla" (ocdla-list@pond.net)
Subject: Fw: Legislative Update: House Overwhelmingly Passes Measure to End
DOJ Attempts To Hold Itself Above the Law
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:51:28 -0700

Linda Friedman Ramirez
Attorney at Law
Admitted in Oregon and Florida
Suite 720, 888 SW Fifth Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
503-227-3717 (fax) 503-227-5518
LFR@spanishlaw.com
http://www.spanishlaw.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Leslie J. Hagin (nacdllegis@aol.com)
To: Ms. Linda Friedman Ramirez (lfr@spanishlaw.com)
Date: Tuesday, August 18, 1998 3:30 PM
Subject: Legislative Update: House Overwhelmingly Passes Measure to End DOJ
Attempts To Hold Itself Above the Law

Legislative Update: House Overwhelmingly Passes Measure to End DOJ
Attempts To Hold Itself Above the Law

Washington, DC, August 5, 1998 -- Today's action by the U.S. House of
Representatives, approving by 345-82 Title VIII in the Department of Justice
spending bill, moves Congress toward putting a stop to attempts by DOJ to
hold its lawyers above the law of ethical conduct applicable to all lawyers.

Contrary to some reports, today's spending bill provision is nothing new.
DOJ lawyers, like all other lawyers, are and historically have been subject
to independent investigation and discipline by the high court of the state
or states in which they are admitted to practice. But since 1989, DOJ has
claimed that its lawyers can ignore the fundamental ethical prohibition
against contacting represented persons without their lawyers (ex parte
contacts), in order to intimidate and interrogate employees of corporations,
small businesses, and individual citizens under criminal or civil
(regulatory) investigation.

The Department's refusal to abide by the fundamental laws of ethical
attorney conduct has been roundly condemned by state and federal courts,
including a unanimous resolution of the Conference of State (Supreme Court)
Justices. Most recently, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected
the DOJ's arrogant position, in a case concerning a government regulatory
investigation of the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, U.S. v. McDonnell
Douglas Corporation, 132 F.3d 1252 (8th Cir. 1997).

Now, the United States House of Representatives has called a halt to
attempts by the Department to evade the rules by which all lawyers are
supposed to abide, as required by the state supreme courts granting those
lawyers their licenses. Said NACDL President Gerald Lefcourt of New York
City, "No one, not even federal prosecutors, should consider themselves
above the law. The House has set the record straight and put an end to the
Department's policy of deciding which ethical rules it will obey or disobey,
a policy that has squandered scarce tax dollars and abused citizens' rights.
The Senate should follow the House lead."

"It only makes sense for Congress to condition its appropriation of citizen
ax dollars to DOJ operations on the basic requirement that the federal
lawyers employed through the public purse abide by the rule of law,"
Lefcourt said.

For more information:Leslie Hagin,
Legislative Director and Counsel
(202) 872-8600 ext. 226
-------------------------------------------------------------------

House Balks At Drug Tests For Members (United Press International
Says Today, Republican Cosponsors Of A Resolution Calling For Drug Testing
Members Of Congress And Their Staffs Attacked Their Own Party Leadership
For Stalling The Bill Before It Came To A Final Floor Vote)

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: turmoil (turmoil@hemp.net)
To: hemp-talk@hemp.net
cc: Multiple recipients of list (november-l@november.org)
Subject: HT: House balks at drug tests for members (fwd)
Sender: owner-hemp-talk@hemp.net

WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 (UPI) -- A small but determined group of House
members dream of a day when everyone in Congress is subjected to random,
mandatory drug testing.

Today, Republican cosponsors of a resolution calling for drug
screening for members of Congress and their staffs attacked their own
party leadership for stalling the bill before it came to a final floor
vote.

Rep. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, said: ``Nobody's saying members of Congress
are using drugs. But there's been a lack of leadership on this
leadership issue.''

The resolution -- which was toned down in committee so it no longer
called for the test results to be made public -- was ready to go to the
floor for a final vote when House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., placed a
hold on the bill.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said he did not blame the speaker, who
feared the bill would be too divisive, but ``we've got a few well-placed
people who just do not want to see this bill come to a vote.''

He said: ``It's just hypocritical. We want a drug-free America, but
refuse to submit to drug tests.''

Many members of Congress already undergo voluntary drug tests each
year, and a handful of members have mandated drug tests for their office
staffs. The Barton resolution would have allowed members to submit
either hair or urine samples, double-check any drug-positive results,
and pass them along to the House Ethics Committee for possible action.

Coburn said drug testing is a sensible precaution, considering how
much confidential information members and their staffs deal with each
year. Barton said the resolution is merely meant to get those with a
problem into drug counseling.

Supporters of the resolution, including the powerful House Rules
Committee chairman Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y., are pushing their case during
this afternoon's meeting of the House Republican caucus. But with just
more than a month left in the legislative year, most agree a vote this
year is unlikely.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Drug Testing Plan Held Up ('The Associated Press' Version
Says 'Many Lawmakers Have Complained That The Measure
Is Unnecessary And Insulting,' Even Though Lawmakers Approved
Drug Testing For Everyone Else Just Recently)

Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 07:37:26 -0400
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US: Wire: House Drug Testing Plan Held Up
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Dave Fratello (104730.1000@compuserve.com)
Source: Associated Press
Pubdate: Wed, 5 Aug 1998

HOUSE DRUG TESTING PLAN HELD UP

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican leaders have apparently quashed, at least for
now, a plan by two Republican lawmakers to require drug testing of House
members and their staffs.

"We have a few well-placed people who don't want this," Rep. Joe Barton of
Texas said Wednesday. Opponents of the plan, he complained, have erected
"one obstacle after another."

Barton, a cosponsor of the proposal with Rep. Gerald Solomon of New York,
said the chairman of the House Republican Conference, Rep. John Boehner of
Ohio, is refusing to allow the drug plan to be brought up for discussion.

Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas told reporters earlier there isn't time
in the House schedule to take up the matter before the August recess, which
begins Friday.

"We are loaded up," Armey said. Barton and Solomon introduced a measure in
June that would require all 435 members of the House of Representatives and
their office staffs to undergo mandatory drug testing.

Many lawmakers have complained that the measure is unnecessary and insulting.

Copyright 1998 The Associated Press
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Barton Attempts To Force Drug Testing Vote (The Version In The Washington,
DC, 'Roll Call Online')

Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 23:38:40 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US: Barton Attempts To Force Drug Testing Vote
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)
Pubdate: Wed, 5 Aug 1998
Source: Roll Call Online (Washington D.C.)
Contact: JMM@rollcall.com
Website: http://www.rollcall.com/
Author: Jim VandeHei (JWV@rollcall.com)
Note from Newshawk: I found this article in the 8/5 edition, but it could
have been here a few days earlier. There is no date on the page with the
article itself.

BARTON ATTEMPTS TO FORCE DRUG TESTING VOTE

Ticked off at Conference Chairman John Boehner (R-Ohio), Rep. Joe Barton
(R-Texas) is circulating a petition designed to force Republicans leaders to
schedule a vote by Friday afternoon that would institute mandatory, random
drug testing for Members of Congress and their staff.

At press time, Barton was scrambling to convince 50 GOP Members to sign a
petition that would require the entire Republican Conference to meet today
to discuss drug testing before a final vote would be set, presumably on Friday.

However, several GOP leadership sources said a vote will not take place this
week, if ever.

Barton said he was forced to circulate the petition after Boehner refused to
follow through on a promise made by Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga) to hold a
vote on drug testing before the August recess.

"Boehner said, and I quote, 'it ain't gonna happen,'" Barton said late
Wednesday. "I don't think the Conference chairman has the right to prevent
something from coming to the floor."

Boehner was not available for comment at press time.

Barton said he is confident he will get enough signatures to demand that
Members discuss the details of a testing bill that he hopes will land on the
House floor tomorrow. Once the entire Conference debates the issues, Barton
said, Gingrich has promised him a vote by Friday.

Under Conference rules, any Member can demand an internal discussion of a
given issue during a meeting of the entire House GOP if he or she can get 50
Members to sign a petition. However, the Conference rules do not guarantee
that Barton can force a discussion of drug testing before the August break.

One leadership source said numerous GOP Members are irritated with Barton
for "trying to push a political issue at the expense of his colleagues."

Barton, one of the GOP's leading proponents of drug testing, said
leadership's decision to delay action would all but rule out any chances of
mandatory, random screening of Members and their staff this Congress.

"I don't want to mislead you: We need to have a vote this week so we can
have some testing this Congress," Barton said, adding that the logistics of
setting up a drug testing system would take too long to implement if a vote
is taken after the August break.

Under current rules, Members are allowed to use their operating budgets to
test themselves and their staff for illegal drug use, but they are not
required to do so.

A debate in yesterday's closed-door GOP Conference meeting, however, exposed
divisions inside the party over drug testing, prompting Gingrich and
Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) to postpone a vote on the topic until
September at the earliest.

Armey spokeswoman Michele Davis said late Wednesday that the Republican
Conference will meet in September to discuss the issue before a final vote
is scheduled.

But several GOP leadership sources said party leaders do not want a vote
ever because scores of Members would be forced to vote for an idea they
adamantly oppose.

"Most of our guys hate the idea, but they will be forced to support it or
risk being portrayed as afraid to submit themselves and their workers to the
same tests many workers take," said one leadership source. "It's very much
like the pay raise: Members are forced to vote against their better judgment
to placate the voting public."

Rules Chairman Gerald Solomon (R-NY), an ardent supporter of drug testing,
started to mark up the bill yesterday in his committee before postponing
action on it pending consultation with leaders from both sides of aisle.

The Rules panel would have to reconvene today or tomorrow to finish the
markup before the bill could be sent to the floor.

While most Members don't want to publicly attack the idea of mandatory drug
testing, Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill) criticized the idea in an
interview.

"This is an implication that there is a problem here and you have to prove
you're not a druggie," Hyde said. "It's intrusive. You need to urinate in
front of someone to guarantee you didn't switch samples."

Hyde added: "I will take the damn thing if I have to, but it should not be
required."

Hyde said many Members feel as he does, but conceded that "it is one of
those things that people will have a problem voting against."

In addition to Hyde's criticism, House Oversight Chairman Bill Thomas
(R-Calif) has voiced concerns that the bill is unconstitutional and should
be reworked before a vote is scheduled, according to GOP sources.

Thomas said he will not take a position on the bill because, as chairman,
his job is to provide information on drug testing to Members, not to
advocate a new approach.

But, based on information provided to Thomas by the House counsel and
outside counsel, the drug testing mandate would be legally and practically
unenforceable and, in some parts, unconstitutional, according to documents
obtained by Roll Call.

Barton said those problems can be worked out. "Thomas supports part of the
bill, but he has some constitutional problems, but I am satisfied we can
overcome the constitutional problems," he said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Man Takes Ottawa To Court Over Medical Marijuana ('The Canadian Press'
Notes AIDS Patient Jim Wakeford's Federal Court Battle Begins Today
In Toronto - Building On The Successful Constitutional Challenge By Epileptic
Terry Parker In December, Wakeford Is Demanding That The Canadian Government
Provide Him With Cannabis)

From: creator@islandnet.com (Matt Elrod)
To: mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com
Subject: Canada: Man takes Ottawa to court over medical marijuana
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 09:18:29 -0700
Lines: 53
Newshawk: creator@mapinc.org
Source: Canadian Press
Pubdate: Wednesday, 5 August, 1998

Man takes Ottawa to court over medical marijuana

TORONTO (CP) -- A man who uses marijuana to control the side effects
of his AIDS treatment takes on the federal government in federal court
today.

Jim Wakeford says he wants safe, clean, affordable marijuana -- and he
wants the government to get it for him.

"I want it without penalty of criminal record," said Wakeford, 53. "I
want it provided by the government so that it's clean, free of
contaminants. It's time to get the criminal element out of the
medicine business."

He smokes up to two joints a day to control nausea and to stimulate
his appetite.

Wakeford knows he's in for a real fight, but he's hopeful.

"I'm optimistic. The public is certainly supportive. In a Gallup poll
a few months ago, 83 per cent of Canadians believed it should be
available for medical use."

The cocktail of medicines Wakeford takes to control his AIDS have
strengthened his immune system and decreased the virus levels in his
body, his doctor, John Goodhew, said in February.

But before Wakeford started smoking pot he looked gaunt, lost weight
and was depressed because of the nausea, Goodhew said.

The federal Health Department's top drug regulator says doctors can
seek permission from Ottawa to provide controlled substances like
marijuana to patients provided they show it has a legitimate medical
use. So far no doctor has done so.

"It already is decriminalized," said Dan Michols of the therapeutic
products directorate.

Even so, other cases before the courts have already argued a
constitutional exemption from criminal law against marijuana
possession for medicinal purposes.

Epileptic Terry Parker, of Toronto, who smokes pot to prevent
seizures, won a landmark ruling in December that said parts of the
Criminal Code's marijuana section are unconstitutional.

But Wakeford's case goes a step further, arguing that the Charter also
obliges the federal government to supply the drug so sick people don't
have to look for it on the streets.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Suit Says Government Should Supply Clean, Safe Pot
('The Associated Press' Version)

From: BulldogUSA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 05:09:30 EDT
To: DPFT-L@TAMU.EDU, dpfca@drugsense.org
Subject: DPFCA: CANADIAN MEDICAL CANNABIS LAWSUIT
Sender: owner-dpfca@drugsense.org
Reply-To: dpfca@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/

AUGUST 05, 21:28 EDT

Wednesday's Canada News Briefs

By The Associated Press
Suit Says Government Should Supply Clean, Safe Pot

TORONTO (AP) - The lawyer for a man who smokes marijuana to control the side
effects of his AIDS medication says the law discriminates against his client
by not allowing him the treatment of his choice.

Alan Young says not only should Jim Wakeford be allowed to smoke marijuana,
the government should provide it for him.

Wakeford, 53, was diagnosed with AIDS in 1993. He wants the court to exempt
him from the law that makes it illegal to grow or possess marijuana.

His application says that not allowing him to smoke marijuana to control the
nausea caused by his illness and the cocktail of drugs he takes to control it
violates his Charter rights to life, liberty and security.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Marijuana Helped To Save My Life, Prominent Harvard Scholar Says
('The Ottawa Citizen' Says Geologist And Popular Author Stephen Jay Gould
Testified Today In Toronto In Support Of AIDS Patient Jim Wakeford's Lawsuit
Against The Canadian Government, Saying Medical Marijuana Helped Him
To Become One Of The First People On Earth To Survive Abdominal Mesothelioma,
A Deadly And Inoperable Form Of Cancer)

From: creator@islandnet.com (Matt Elrod)
To: mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com
Subject: Canada: Marijuana helped to save my life
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 09:16:18 -0700
Lines: 141
Newshawk: creator@mapinc.org
Source: Ottawa Citizen
Contact: letters@thecitizen.southam.ca
Pubdate: Wed 05 Aug 1998
Section: News A1 / Front
Author: Luiza Chwialkowska

Marijuana helped to save my life, prominent Harvard scholar says: Stephen
Jay Gould tells Toronto court to allow medical use of drug

His books crowd best-seller lists, he holds 40 honorary degrees, and
in legendary lectures that combine poetry with the study of ancient
fossils, he has taught generations of Harvard students how life
evolved on Earth.

In July 1982, doctors told geologist Stephen Jay Gould -- whose mind
dwells in prehistory and who measures time in billions of years --
that he had eight short months to live. With his career in full bloom,
he was diagnosed with a rare and incurable cancer called abdominal
mesothelioma.

A case study in determination, Mr. Gould was one of the first people
on Earth to beat the disease, thanks to surgery, radiation, and years
of torturous chemotherapy. But the ``most important effect upon my
eventual cure,'' he says in hindsight, was the illegal drug,
marijuana.

Mr. Gould is one in a chorus of patients and experts whose stories and
studies will be heard today in Ontario General Division Court, where a
Toronto AIDS patient is suing the federal government for the right to
smoke marijuana as part of his medical treatment.

An academician who hates to fog his prodigious mind with any kind of
substance -- he doesn't touch alcohol and hates drugs -- Mr. Gould
smoked marijuana to reduce the otherwise uncontrollable nausea that
came with the chemotherapy that saved his life.

``I was miserable and came to dread the frequent treatments with an
almost perverse intensity,'' he wrote of the chemotherapy.

``Absolutely nothing in the available arsenal of (anti-nausea
medications) worked at all.''

Marijuana, on the other hand, ``worked like a charm.''

Marijuana also works for Jim Wakeford, a 53-year-old Toronto community
activist with AIDS, who says his right to smoke the drug for its
anti-nausea and appetite-inducing effects is protected by the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

``It is beyond my comprehension,'' wrote Mr. Gould of marijuana laws,
``that any humane person would withhold such a beneficial substance
from people in such great need simply because others use it for
different purposes.''

Mr. Wakeford is asking for a constitutional exemption from the laws he
has to break to produce and possess the drug. He also wants the court
to force the federal government to ``produce and/or provide (him) a
lawful and safe source of medicinal marijuana.''

The founder of such highly regarded charities as the Oolagen Community
Centre, the Ontario Association of Children's Mental Health Centres,
and the Casey House Foundation, Mr. Wakeford almost died this spring
while waiting for this case to be heard.

His doctor, Toronto AIDS specialist John Goodhew, says smoking two
marijuana cigarettes a day is keeping Mr. Wakeford alive.

AIDS was causing him to literally waste away earlier this year. His
weight dropped from 140 pounds to 118 pounds. He was put on intensive
intravenous feeding that gave him hepatitis and nearly killed him.

Mr. Wakeford quit that and used marijuana to stimulate his appetite
instead. He is now back to 132 pounds and will restart his anti-AIDS
medicines when he gains more weight. When he starts them again,
however, he will still need the marijuana. Like Mr. Gould, he uses it
to fight nausea.

His lawyer, Osgoode Hall law professor Alan Young, will argue today
that Canada's marijuana laws violate Mr. Wakeford's rights under
Sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

``Criminalizing the therapeutic use of marijuana constitutes a
deprivation of life, liberty and security of the person (Section 7),''
Mr. Young states in court documents. ``State interference with bodily
integrity and serious state-imposed psychological stress constitutes a
serious breach of security of the person.''

The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act also violates Section 15 of
the Charter, says Mr. Young, because it ``denies (Mr. Wakeford) equal
benefit of the law on the basis of the enumerated ground of physical
disability.'' The legislation also discriminates against AIDS victims,
he will tell the court.

Rather than bringing a live caravan of witnesses before the court,
lawyers have submitted testimony in the form of written affidavits
over the past two months. Today is the first time they will argue in
person before Judge Harry LaForme.

Mr. Young will summarize four volumes of evidence consisting of four
personal stories, including Mr. Gould's, and expert opinions from
seven pharmacologists, psychiatrists, oncologists, and AIDS
specialists.

The medical experts include Lester Grinspoon, a professor of
psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, who has been studying the social
and medicinal aspects of cannabis since 1969, and documented Mr.
Gould's case in a book Marijuana -- The Forbidden Medicine.

``Marijuana is the wonder drug of the future,'' Dr. Grinspoon told the
Citizen in an interview yesterday.

Comparing it to penicillin, Dr. Grinspoon said the drug is versatile
in its uses. ``It can help glaucoma, migraines, muscle spasms, and
nausea,'' he says, is cheap to produce, (``30 to 40 cents per dose
rather than $30-$40 for conventional anti-nausea medicines,'') and is
``non-toxic.''

``One to two thousand people in the U.S. die every year from aspirin,
but no one has ever documented a death from marijuana,'' said Dr.
Grinspoon.

Mr. Wakeford, on the other hand, might die without it.

``The marijuana is what is allowing him to eat and live,'' insists Dr.
Goodhew.

A verdict is likely to take several weeks, but could come as early as
this afternoon.

Mr. Wakeford vows to continue his fight regardless of today's outcome.

He won a $50,000 grant from the federal Court Challenges program that
supports cases challenging legislation under the equality provisions
of the Charter. He has also raised $10,000 for the Wakeford Medical
Marijuana Expense Fund and is looking for more donations.

``As long as I'm still alive, I will try to get safe, clean, and
affordable medical marijuana for everyone with HIV and AIDS,'' he
says.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Police Ease Stance On Decriminalising Dope ('The Evening Post'
In Wellington, New Zealand, Says Assistant Commissioner Of Police
Ian Holyoake Told A Parliamentary Inquiry Into The Mental Health Effects
Of Cannabis That Police Were Opposed To Legalisation Of The Drug,
But He Believed Decriminalisation Warranted Further Investigation)

Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:53:59 +1200 (NZST)
To: drctalk@drcnet.org, update@adca.org.au, mattalk@islandnet.com
From: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn)
Subject: Police ease stance on decriminalising dope
Cc: editor@mapinc.org, kpc15@student.canterbury.ac.nz, hempstor@ihug.co.nz
Source: The Evening Post (Wellington)
Pubdate: August 5, 1998
Author: Guyon Espinor
Contact: editor@evpost.co.nz

Police ease stance on decriminalising dope

Police are open-minded about decriminalising cannabis, Assistant
Commissioner of police Ian Holyoake told a Parliamentary inquiry into the
mental health effects of the drug.

Mr Holyoake told Parliament's health select committee today that while
police were opposed to legalisation of the drug, he believed
decriminalisation warranted further investigation.

"We would think legalisation was completely wrong. We would be prepared to
look at other possibilities, which must include decriminalisation," Mr
Holyoake said.

He signalled that police were willing to look at supporting putting
possession of the drug on a similar footing to traffic offences, where
infringement notices were issued rather than criminal charged laid.

"There are instant fines for offences which perhaps take away the criminal
stigma that worries a number of people," he said.

Mr Holyoake said that the legal direction in relation to cannabis was one he
believed warranted further investigation.

Last week, the Ministry of Health told the committee that cannabis did not
pose a big health risk to users.

Mr Holyoake said the police were unable to support that view because of
conflicting evidence on the health effects.

Today, Mr Holyoake said that the traditional law enforcement "crime control"
approach to cannabis had not reduced cannabis use.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Banning Drugs Makes The Problem Even Worse (An Op-Ed
In 'The European' By British Member Of Parliament Paul Flynn,
Vice-Chairman Of The Parliamentary All-Party Drugs Misuse Group)

Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 10:52:46 +0000
To: chantalw@rivieramail.com
From: Peter Webster (vignes@monaco.mc)
Subject: Why Banning Drugs Makes The Problem Even Worse
Source: The European
Contact: editor@the-european.com
Website: http://www.the-european.com/
Pubdate: Wed, 5 Aug 1998
Author: Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West

WHY BANNING DRUGS MAKES THE PROBLEM EVEN WORSE

Heroin use is soaring. Indeed, the Home Office in new research, predicts
an epidemic among young people as the drug spreads from the inner cities to
the comfy shires. Towns with serious hard-drugs problems are the target of
a network of pushers who are rebranding heroin to make it more readily
available and cheaper for children.

Government ministers are right to be alarmed. Heroin will continue to
spread to children as young as 10 as long as we imitate the anti-drug
policies of America - where use of the drug is growing at a frightening
rate. Both Britain and America believe the solution lies in prohibition of
drugs. Yet 30 years of prohibition has made the US the drug sink of the
world. And Britain has the worst problems in Europe. It's not working, so
we don't fix it. But why imitate failure when we can repeat success? The
Dutch and Swiss, with more liberal policies, have spectacularly reduced
heroin use and heroin-based crime. In the Netherlands, there are virtually
no heroin users under 20. Because young people there have spurned
hard-drugs use, average age of Dutch addicts has risen from 28 in 1981 to
44 today. Switzerland cut drugs-related crime by 80 per cent in a two year
trial in Zurich by encouraging addicts to turn to using supervised
injectable heroin. After the approval of a national referendum, their
programme of cutting heroin crime is being used nationally.

Common sense tells us that hardened addicts who get their fix under medical
supervision do not have to be full-time criminals or prostitutes to get
drug money. Their lives can return to normal.

However, in Britain we have a heroin crises. Nothing the authorities do
improves anything. Instead we have more addicts every year. And they're
getting younger. Plus the total of heroin deaths in Britain has leapt
nearly fourfold in three years.

Incredibly, methadone, our chosen "cure" to substitute addiction, is worse
than the cause. The medicine kills twice as many people as heroin does.
Keith Hellawell, the Government's anti-drugs policy co-ordinator believes
the solution is more anti-drugs education. That's been tried for 30 years
in America - and it failed. The US message to adolescents - that drugs are
wicked, dangerous and hated by parents - has encouraged kids to experiment
with them. After all, being young is all about risk-taking. The mythology
of drugs has terrified the older generation here. Their fear is that if
their youngsters take cannabis they will end up with a needle in their arm,
dead in a dark alley. The chances of that happening are as likely as a
social drinker becoming an alcoholic.

The stark fact is that most young people have tried an illegal drug. A
tiny number migrate to hard drugs and are more likely to do so under
prohibition. A generation of young people are being criminalised; they
have no choice but to use the illegal market for their inevitable
experiments in soft-drugs use.

The only way to reduce the harm drugs cause is to destroy the illegal,
irresponsible, armed black market by replacing it with a legal market,
which can be rigorously policed, regulated and controlled. That is
precisely the story of the success of Dutch decriminalisation. There, the
soft and hard drugs markets have been separated.

Cannabis is openly on sale to adults in controlled conditions. Those who
sell to youngsters or who also sell hard drugs lose their licences. But
under our prohibition system, a seller commits the same offence if he sells
to a disturbed 10-year-old or to a mature, well-balanced adult. Twenty
years of cannabis decriminalisation in the Netherlands has cut all
hard-drugs use. Young people are not moving on to hard drugs because they
can experiment with soft-drugs without mixing with hard-drugs pushers. In
Britain, however, cannabis prohibition wastes UKP2.5 billion a year. The
equivalent of six jails are filled with cannabis offenders and we are
planning to build 20 new jails at a cost of UKP88 million each. It's
madness. In the US, switching from an illegal alcohol market to a legal one
in the thirties cut alcohol deaths and robbed gangsters of their profits.
A spoof Press release from the "International Crime Syndicate" thanked
European governments for their prohibition policies "that allow our drug
business to grow every year without paying taxes".

True to form, our government releases its horror report on heroin on day
one of the parliamentary recess. Like the previous government, Labour
ministers hide from open parliamentary debate, which would expose the
futility of their policies.

With difficulty I discovered the facts of Operation Charlie, on which new
education policies are to be based. I expected it to be an exhaustive
study involving thousands of kids over many years. Nothing of the sort.
Only 44 children were involved. It did not last a year. They had one
hour-long lesson per week for 39 weeks. Four years later, they were
compared with other children who did not have the lesson. Their views were
slightly different. Big deal.

We will not know for a decade whether Charlie kids are more or less likely
to use drugs. Charlie stands for: Chemical Abuse Resolution Lies in
Education - its instigators decided the result of the trial before they
started it.

The "drugs tsar" Keith Hellawell and the Government tell us this anti-drugs
programme will last 10 years. Very convenient. By 2008 Hellawell will be
retired and Tony Blair will be Lord Sedgefield.

When will the Government realise that prohibition increases drugs use and
that intelligent policies reduce drugs harm?

(Paul Flynn is vice-chairman of the parliamentary all-party drugs misuse
group)
-------------------------------------------------------------------

'Regulating Cannabis - Options For Control In The 21st Century' Conference
September 5 In London (A Bulletin From The Lindesmith Center In New York
Publicizes The International Symposium)

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 98 23:57:44 EST
From: enadelmann@sorosny.org
To: #TLC__INTERESTED_at_osi-ny@mail.sorosny.org

REGULATING CANNABIS

Options for control in the 21st Century

An International Symposium
London, September 5, 1998
Regent's College

Academics, lawyers, policy makers, scientists, public health officials,
drug professionals, criminologists, politicians, policy institutes, law
enforcement agencies, journalists, social scientists, researchers.

The Lindesmith Center and Release invite individuals and organisations,
with a policy or professional interest, to attend a symposium on options
for the regulation and decriminalisation of cannabis. This symposium
will bring together leading experts from Europe, Australia and North America
in the fields of science, jurisprudence, sociology and government to examine
recent experiences and possible options for regulating the world's most
popular illicit drug. This interactive conference aims to shed light on
optimal cannabis controls and bring a new maturity and clarity to public
debate. Particular attention will be devoted to exploring pragmatic
opportunities for reform within the context of prohibition and examining
recent constitutional and judicial developments in the regulation of
cannabis.

THE ORGANISERS

This is a collaborative event organised by The Lindesmith Center and
Release.

The Lindesmith Center is a drug policy research institute founded in
1994 as a project of the Open Society Institute, a private foundation
that encourages public debate and policy alternatives in complex and
often controversial fields. With offices in New York and San Francisco,
The Lindesmith Center undertakes and supports innovative projects
relevant to drugs, drug users, and drug policies that are often
overlooked or ignored in public discussion and government-
funded research.

Release is the UK based drugs and legal advice charity which was founded
in 1967 when it established the world's first ever 24-hour drugs and
legal advice helpline. The organisation's range of innovative services,
pioneering work with young people as well as its commitment to the civil
rights of drug users, has contributed to its unique credibility in the
drugs and legal advice field.

COST

The cost of attendance, including refreshments, lunch and conference
pack, is ť75 (sterling). A discount rate of ť37 for research students
is available upon request. Delegates are responsible for their own
accommodations but the symposium office at Release is pleased to assist
with details of hotels available at a range of prices.

VENUE

The symposium will be held on September 5 at The Regent's College
Conference Centre, situated within the formal gardens of London's
Regent's Park. The venue offers a quiet and idyllic setting for the
symposium and is only a half mile away from the arts, entertainment and
heritage of London's West End.

PROGRAM

Regulating Cannabis will explore various models of cannabis control,
both actual and proposed, address legal developments concerning
production, possession and sale, and examine UN international
conventions. The meeting is intended not as a platform for advocating
any one solution but rather a forum for considering a range of effective
cannabis control schemes.

Speakers and contributors include*

Daniel Abrahamson, Director of Legal Affairs, The Lindesmith Center

Robert Ali, Chair of the Australian National Illicit Drugs Expert
Committee.

Martin Barriuso, President of Kalamudia Association, Spain

Professor Lorenz Bollinger, University of Bremen,

Professor Peter Cohen, University of Amsterdam.

Dr. Patricia Erickson, Senior Scientist, Addiction Research Foundation,
Toronto.

Benedikt Fischer, Scientist and Coordinator, Addiction Research
Foundation, Toronto.

Mike Goodman, Director of Release, London.

Steve James, Manager, Victoria Police Cannabis Cautioning Program.

Professor Adriaan Jansen, University of Amsterdam.

Professor Krysztof Krajewski, University of Krakow.

Professor Harry Levine, Queens College.

Professor David MacDonald, The Australian National University.

Ueli Minder, Swiss Federal Office of Public Health.

Dr. John P. Morgan, City College of New York.

Ethan Nadelmann, Director of The Lindesmith Center.

Professor Craig Reinarman, University of California.

Professor Christian Nils Robert, Université de Geneve.

Susanne Schardt, Director Coordination Bureau - European Cities on Drug
Policy.

Professor Eric Single, University of Toronto.

Professor Lynn Zimmer, Queens College.

* The majority of these speakers have confirmed attendance and will be
joined by others not mentioned.

For more information regarding the agenda or supporting literature for
the symposium, please contact Mireille Jacobson at the Lindesmith Center
at (212) 548-0603, ext. 1469 or send an e-mail to mjacobson@sorosny.org.
On these matters as well as for registration information, please contact
Vicki Charles at Release at (44/171) 729-5255, fax (44/171) 729-2599 or send
an e-mail to info@release.org.uk. Background information can also be found
on The Lindesmith Center website, www.lindesmith.org. Registration will be
available on Release's website, www.release.org.uk, as of August 12, 1998.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Medicinal Use Of Cannabis (A Letter To The Editor Of 'The Irish Independent'
From A Representative Of GW Pharmaceuticals Says The British Company
With A Licence To Cultivate Medical Marijuana Has Never And Will Never
Advocate Smoking As A Means Of Drug Delivery)

Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 09:33:26 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: Ireland: LTE: Medicinal Use of Cannabis
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Martin Cooke (mjc1947@cyberclub.iol.ie)
Source: Irish Independent
Contact: independent.letters@independent.ie
Website: http://www.independent.ie/
Pubdate: Wed, 05 Aug 1998

MEDICINAL USE OF CANNABIS

Sir - I am writing on behalf of G. W. Pharmaceuticals Limited (GW) and
refer to the item in the Irish Independent on July 29, "Cannabis on Trial".
You say in your story: "A group of patients will legally be allowed to
'puff' cannabis next year..." as part of a clinical trial being conducted
by GW into the medicinal effects of cannabis.

Dr G. W. Guy, chairman of the company, did indeed say in evidence to a
House of Lords Select Committee and also in discussion with reporters that
some form of inhaler might be developed as part of the trial. Those whose
children suffer from asthma will be familiar with the type of technology
envisaged.

But it was made abundantly clear that the products to be developed by GW
would not in any way involve smoking, as your article implies. This is not
just a semantic distinction. Smoking is medically proven to be harmful. GW
Pharmaceuticals has never and will never advocate it as a means of drug
delivery.

Mark Rogerson, Grosvenor Gardens, London.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

DrugSense Weekly, Number 58 (A Weekly Summary Of Drug Policy News,
Including The Second Part Of An Original Three-Part Feature
By Jeffrey A. Schaler, PhD, 'The Drug Policy Problem')

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 13:28:05 -0700
To: mgreer@mapinc.org
From: Mark Greer (MGreer@mapinc.org)
Subject: DrugSense Weekly August 5, 1998, No. 58

DrugSense Weekly, August 5, 1998, No. 58

A DrugSense publication

URL: http://www.drugsense.org

***

DRUGSENSE WEEKLY -

In 10 minutes a week you can stay aware and informed on drug policy
developments worldwide.

Consider investing another 10 minutes to write a letter to the editor
using the email addresses provided in this publication.

You CAN make a difference!

***

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

* Feature Article

THE DRUG *POLICY* PROBLEM - Part Two
Jeffrey A. Schaler, PhD

* Weekly News In Review

Drug War Policy-

	OPED - McCaffrey: Media Blitz Is Effective Against Drugs

	Kids and the Politics of the Drug War

	Suppression Of Debate Is Monkey On Nation's Back

	DEA Official Becomes Rich At The Expense Of Agency

	DEA Drives Off The Old Guard

Drug War: Prison Front-

	Police Say Prison Works

	Corcoran Guards Thwarted Probe, DA Tells Lawmakers

	Female Inmates To Be Sent Out Of State

	Don't Look For Parole In Texas

Drug War: Sporting Front-

	2 Track Stars Fail Drug Tests

	Tour Goes On as Riders Close Ranks

	Olympics Chief's Call To 'go Soft' On Drugs Attacked

	Governing Body Of World Basketball Votes To Penalize Use Of Cannabis

	Blowing Smoke: Marijuana Use NBA's Biggest Drug Concern These Days

Medical Marijuana-

	Prop. 215 Disallowed In Pot Trial

	Medical Marijuana Advocate Pleads Innocent To Conspiracy Charges

	Oakland May Back Medical Pot Providers

	MS Victims To Puff Pot To Test Medicinal Effectiveness

International News-

	Heroin Scandal Rocks London's Devout Jewish Community

	60 Mexico City Police Suspended For Drug Use

	Alleged Drug Chieftan Threatens To Kill Americans

* Hot Off The 'Net

Peter McWilliams -Two sites to keep you informed

* DrugSense Tip Of The Week

Prison stats on-line
The November Coalition

* Quote of the Week

Norman Mineta

* Fact of the Week

***

FEATURE ARTICLE

THE DRUG *POLICY* PROBLEM - PART Two
by Jefrey A. Schaler, PhD

Editor's Note: This is Part two of Dr. Schaler's essay. Part one can be
read in the July 29 issue of the DrugSense Weekly Volume No. 57. See:
http://www.drugsense.org/news.htm The remainder of this article will
be published in future issues.

QUESTIONS WE NEED TO ASK AND ANSWER

To understand the values and beliefs behind our federal drug policy, it
is necessary to ask some unpopular questions:

Do illegal drugs cause crime? Given that drugs are inanimate objects,
are they capable of causing a human action?Can drugs "act" in the way
that people can?

Does drug use in the form of "addiction" encourage people to commit
crimes other than the purchase and use of the drug itself? And if so, do
the crimes stem from the addiction or from circumstances involved in
the trade in illegal drugs, such as competition between dealers?

Should drug policies that are based on the relationship between drug
use and crime be consistent with legal precedents?Should drug policies
reflect court opinions regarding the nature of addiction and criminal
responsibility, and vice versa?

For the most part, U.S. drug policies are based on the assumption that
drugs cause addiction. But many leading researchers and thinkers
question the very existence of addiction as an empirical entity in the
sociological "positivist" sense, viewing it rather as a social
construct.

Does addiction exist? Do drugs cause addiction? The answers to these
questions depend on what we mean by "addiction." If by addiction we are
referring to what drugs do to the physical body, then the answer to
both questions is yes. We know for a fact that drugs create changes in
the body, a physiological dependency often characterized by tolerance,
withdrawal symptoms, and death. However, if by addiction we are
referring to how drugs get into the body, the answer is less clear.In
this sense, research has produced no empirical evidence for the belief
that drugs can cause drug users to lose control of their
behavior.Furthermore, from a logical point of view, behavior is by
definition a matter of choice. Do the bodily changes effected by drugs
cause people to ingest more drugs in the same way that epilepsy causes
people to have seizures? Most people would say no.The two cases are
categorically different.

It is important to be clear about the meanings of words. When applied
to human action, the term "behavior" refers to a mode of conduct or
deportment. Human behavior is moral agency and as such can never be
caused. Things are caused; people make choices.This difference is what
makes us human. To speak of human behavior as caused makes no more
sense than to speak of things as capable of choosing.Such confusion of
language is inaccurate and irrational. The English philosopher Gilbert
Ryle called this kind of mistake a "category error."

Shall we then create and implement policy on the assumption that
addiction is simply a metaphor--that drug use is a moral issue ruled by
choice? In that case, how much policy making is called for?If we agree
that drug use is a choice--one that harms no one but the user--should
the government make any effort to control it?

Philosophical as these questions are, they should not be confined to
the ivory tower as some politicians and academicians may prefer. If the
advocates of a particular drug policy invoke science to justify their
actions, they should be required by a discerning public to examine all
available evidence, not just that which supports their political,
economic, or moral interests. If they invoke moral principles, they
should be challenged to defend those principles in a clear and rational
manner.

Any meaningful discussion of the values expressed in drug policies
raises large philosophical questions. We might begin by asking which is
more important, health or liberty?Is it better to be sick and free from
coercion in a society where medicine and state are separate, or to be
healthy under the control of a therapeutic state?Can we trust our
medical guardians to refrain from the paternalism and the persecution
of "undesirables" exercised by theocracies throughout history?Who will
guard us from the guardians?

The issue might be rephrased this way: Does the constitutional right to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right to harm
oneself? We accept the need for government to protect us from one
another, and we agree that the exercise of liberty at the expense of
another's freedom constitutes crime. But should the values of the
majority dictate the personal behaviors of a minority when such actions
harm no one else?Is it constitutionally proper for the government to
protect us from ourselves?

Finally, can institutional methods of social control such as those
advanced by our current federal drug policies increase responsibility
and decrease liberty simultaneously? Or are these outcomes logically
incompatible? If they are incompatible, what is actually going on in
the field of drug control--and cui bono (who benefits)? Could it be
that any drug policy short of total repeal of prohibition is simply a
problem masquerading as a solution?These are questions we rarely hear
discussed in a public forum.

***

WEEKLY NEWS IN REVIEW

***

Domestic News-Policy

***

COMMENT:

Fall-out from the ad campaign continued to resonate in the nation's
op-eds; prevailing opinion seems to be that not only are the ads
ineffective, the campaign itself is doing little to halt a growing
number of drug-war desertions in the media. McCaffrey was moved to
write this defense which is still making the rounds of major dailies
even as this is written. Kendra Wright's trenchant rebuttal was
published in the Austin American-Spectator.

Next is David Morris' remarkably accurate assessment of the current
status of reform with the press; Morris analyzed how McCzar's Dutch
debacle was dealt with on the Internet. He was especially accurate for
someone who had yet to discover MAP (although he had found Cliff
Schaffer's library)

A WSJ piece details amazing blindness at the DEA; a mid-level
functionary, cast in the mold of Aldrich Ames, brazenly siphoned a
million dollars a year in government funds directly into a dummy
company with his own name on it. Following on the heels of a
devastating GAO report, this could not have made good twenty-fifth
anniversary reading at the embattled agency.

As if to underscore "embattled" the next article from an on-line
publication disclosed why DEA Director Tom Constantine isn't popular
with everyone at the agency.

In contrast to McCzar's tortured syntax, Jerry Sutliff's succinct
treatment of a complex subject deserves to be read in its entirety.

***

MEDIA BLITZ IS EFFECTIVE AGAINST DRUGS
By Barry R. McCaffrey

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Office of National Drug Control Policy has
just launched a national advertising campaign to stop illegal drug
use aimed at young people, 9 to 17 years of age, and the adults in
their lives. After test ads in 12 cities throughout the U.S.,
campaign has gone national, with regional adjustments for target
audiences.

In some pilot cities, requests for information related to drug
prevention and treatment increased 500 percent after the ads appeared,
and calls to a national clearinghouse for anti-drug publications rose
300 percent.

[snip]

Pubdate: Wed, 29 Jul 1998
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: tribletter@aol.com
Section: Sec.1, page 16
Website: http://www.chicago.tribune.com/
Author: Barry R. McCaffrey
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n631.a05.html

***

KIDS AND THE POLITICS OF THE DRUG WAR

This month House Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Clinton unveiled a
five-year, $1 billion advertising campaign to combat adolescent drug
use. Between cartoons, America's kids will be bombarded with
federally-sponsored anti-drug commercials. But while Republicans and
Democrats pat each other on the back for "knocking America upside the
head" on the dangers of drug use, both parties are guilty of
grandstanding on the teen drug problem without contributing
substantially to the solution.

[snip]

Since viewing the ads, my 14-year-old and 10-year-old have learned it
is possible to get high from everyday household products. How many
other children who would never have considered such products as
intoxicants now have the notion planted in their heads? This is not the
type of education I want for my children.

[snip]

Pubdate: Fri, 31 Jul 1998
Source: Austin American-Statesman
Contact: letters@statesman.com
Website: http://www.Austin360.com/
Author: Kendra E. Wright
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n638.a03.html

***

U.S. SUPPRESSION OF DEBATE IS MONKEY ON NATION'S BACK

On July 9, before he left on what his office called a "fact-finding"
tour to the Netherlands, U.S. drug czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey declared
the Dutch drug policy "an unmitigated disaster." The stunned Dutch
ambassador responded: "I must say that I find the timing of your
remarks [rather astonishing], six days before your planned visit [to
gain] firsthand knowledge about Dutch drugs policy and its results."

[snip]

Americans who believe that our drug policy is doing more harm than good
lack the power and resources of the drug prohibitionists. But they make
up for it in scholarship. Indeed, they seem to believe that simply by
presenting facts, they will convince the policy-makers.

The motto of one Web site declares "Just Say Know." My favorite
information fount is the remarkable Schaffer Library of Drug Policy
(www.druglibrary.org/schaffer). The nation owes a debt to Clffford
Schaffer, .

[snip]

Pubdate: Tue, 28 Jul 1998
Source: St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN)
Section: Opinion, 7A
Contact: nconner@pioneerpress.com (Reader Advocate Nancy Conner)
Fax: 651-228-5564
Website: http://www.pioneerplanet.com
Author: David Morris, Columnist
Note: Morris, a local author, lecturer and consultant, can be
reached at 1313 Fifth St. S.E., Suite 306, Minneapolis, Minn. 55414.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n633.a03.html

***

DEA OFFICIAL BECOMES RICH AT THE EXPENSE OF AGENCY

ARLINGTON, Va. - David Bowman's cubicle, usually a bureaucrat's ideal
of meticulous order, was a shambles. His desk had been rifled, his
computer was gone. This much, though, was left undisturbed on the
cubicle wall: the seal of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the
agency he had served for 21 years.

[snip]

Indeed. The Bowmans had lived luxuriously for years, thanks to the
father's mysterious side business, Bowman Enterprises Inc. The company
grossed $1 million a year on average. But investigators have concluded
that the money was illegally siphoned to a bogus company from DEA
headquarters here, in hundreds of checks averaging just under $9,000
each. In all, the government says in an indictment, Mr. Bowman stole
more than $6 million between 1990 and 1996.

And for years, nobody noticed.

[snip]

Source: Wall Street Journal
Contact: letter.editor@edit.wsj.com
Website: http://www.wsj.com/
Pubdate: Fri, 31 Jul 1998
Author: Phil Kuntz - Staff Reporter
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n640.a02.html

***

DEA DRIVES OFF THE OLD GUARD

Changing times brought on by Janet Reno have forced many of the
agency's most experienced, toughest agents into early retirement.
Their departure may be great news for drug cartels.

They call themselves the "Jurassic narcs" - a fitting description for
such an endangered species.

[snip]

Pubdate: August 17, 1998
Source: Insight On The News Online
Section: Vol. 14, No. 30
Contact: insight@wt.infi.net
Website: www.insightmag.com
Author: Jamie Dettmer
Note: Published in Washington, D.C.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n633.a12.html

***

TAINTED DRUG JUSTICE

Milton Friedman pointed out over 25 years ago that prohibitionary laws
are at their core corrupting of law enforcement, the judicial system
and society itself.

Drug transactions between seller and buyer are consensual - neither
makes the complaint about the activity. Consequently, law enforcement
authorities resort to using informants to obtain convictions.

This leads inevitably to a point where, as was said by the 10th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, "The judicial process is tainted and justice
cheapened when factual testimony is purchased, whether with leniency or
money" ("Loss of plea deals perils war on crime," July 20).

The war on drugs would become nearly impossible should the 10th Circuit
decision stand. For that reason I am confident the decision will not.
The verbal contortions required to reverse the dead-on correct decision
will make interesting reading.

GERALD M. SUTLIFF
Emeryville

Pubdate: Thu, 30 Jul 1998
Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Contact: letters@examiner.com
Website: http://www.examiner.com/
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n632.a06.html

***

Prisons-

***

COMMENT:

Rapidly expanding prisons are among the more durable consequences of a
harsh drug policy. Even though they imprison at only one sixth the US
rate, British prison rolls are also at record levels, explaining why
the recommendations of a professional police organization provoked
squawks of outrage.

Closer to home; the unsuccessful attempt to whitewash Corcoran
brutality may score some points for Gray Davis in November, but the
real problem is that an over-expanded, under-funded California prison
system is a ticking bomb.

The poignancy of sending young mothers beyond their families' visiting
range obviously didn't register with economy minded legislators in
Wisconsin.

Molly Ivins' long article explains how fear of recidivism has all but
eliminated parole in Texas.

***

POLICE SAY PRISON WORKS

Senior police officers have embarked on a collision course with the
Home Secretary, Jack Straw, by asking him to abandon plans for more
community punishments and, instead, to send even more criminals to
prison.

The challenge by the Police Superintendents' Association of England
and Wales comes at a time when the prison service is struggling to
cope with a record jail population of 65,000.

[snip]

Pubdate: Sun, 26 Jul 1998
Source: Independent, The (UK)
Contact: letters@independent.co.uk
Website: http://www.independent.co.uk/
Author: Ian Burrell, Home Affairs Correspondent
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n626.a04.html

***

CORCORAN GUARDS THWARTED PROBE, DA TELLS LAWMAKERS

Special Hearing On `Blood Sport' Fights

A district attorney told legislators yesterday that prison guards used
a code of silence to block his investigation of brutality at California
State Prison at Corcoran.

The prosecutor testified before a special committee looking into
operations at the San Joaquin Valley prison, where eight guards were
indicted in February on federal charges of staging ``blood sport''
fights among inmates in which one convict was killed.

[snip]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Contact: chronletters@sfgate.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Pubdate: Wed, 29 Jul 1998
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n627.a05.html

***

FEMALE INMATES TO BE SENT OUT OF STATE

Panel allows move of 120 women to West Virginia prison to ease crowding

Madison - In as little as two weeks, Wisconsin for the first time will
send female inmates to a prison out of state to ease severe crowding,
under a contract approved Thursday by a key legislative committee.

[snip]

Pubdate: Fri, 31 Jul 1998
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI)
Contact: jsedit@onwis.com
Fax: (414) 224-8280
Website: http://www.jsonline.com/
Author: Richard P. Jones of the Journal Sentinel staff
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n632.a11.html

***

DON'T LOOK FOR PAROLE IN TEXAS

[snip]

The overall parole approval rate, according to the latest figures from
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, is 22 percent for both
violent and nonviolent offenders, which means it's actually much lower
for violent offenders. This is the lowest approval rate in state
history. Before 1992, the approval rate was about 60 to 70 percent and
was simply a way of managing the prison population.

[snip]

Pubdate: Thu, 23 Jul 1998
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
Author: Molly Ivins, columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram
Note: This item came from SJMN on-line edition
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n627.a01.html

***

Drug War: Sporting Front-

***

COMMENT:

Two events illustrated how drug policy impacts sports; the Tour de
France was turned into a shambles over the issue of doping, and two
American Olympians were suspended for testing positive for performance
enhancing drugs.

The IOC's position is as interesting as it is hypocritical: using
banned drugs is OK if you are merely cheating to win, but try taking
pot and we'll ban you.

Speaking of recreational use, the little noticed FIBA decision could
become a big issue for NBA contract negotiators.

***

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.

[snip]

Pubdate: Mon, 27 Jul 1998
Source: International Herald-Tribune
Contact: iht@iht.com
Website: http://www.iht.com/
Author: Samuel Abt, International Herald Tribune
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n623.a06.html

***

2 TRACK STARS FAIL DRUG TESTS

U.S. won't enforce IAAF suspensions

Another drug scandal rocked international sports Monday when track and
field's world governing body announced that two of America's top
athletes, sprinter Dennis Mitchell and 1996 Olympic shot-put champion
Randy Barnes, had been suspended for possible doping offenses.

[snip]

Pubdate: Tue, 28 Jul 1998
Source: Dallas Morning News
Section: OpEd
Contact: letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com
Website: www.dallasnews.com
Author: New York Times News Service
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n630.a10.html

***

OLYMPICS CHIEF'S CALL TO 'GO SOFT' ON DRUGS ATTACKED

LEADING figures in British athletics yesterday reacted in anger and
astonishment to calls by the president of the International Olympics
Committee (IOC) for a relaxation in doping restrictions.

Juan Antonio Samaranch ignited the latest drugs controversy during a
Spanish newspaper interview when he demanded some "harmless"
performance-enhancing drugs be legalised in sport.

[snip]

Source: Scotsman (UK)
Contact: Letters_ts@scotsman.com
Website: http://www.scotsman.com/
Pubdate: Tue, 28 Jul 1998
Author: Nick Thorpe
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n628.a06.html

***

GOVERNING BODY OF WORLD BASKETBALL VOTES TO PENALIZE USE OF
CANNABIS

FIBA NOTE: The FIBA World Congress meeting this week in Athens elected
Abdoulaye Seye Moreau of Senegal as its new president. He replaced
American George E. Killian who served for eight years.

The congress also voted to penalize the use of marijuana (cannabis) by
players in FIBA competitions.

[snip]

Pubdate: Tue, 28 Jul 1998
Source: Guardian, The (UK)
Contact: letters@guardian.co.uk
Website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Author: Sarah Boseley Scripps Howard News Service
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n626.a01.html

***

BLOWING SMOKE: MARIJUANA USE NBA'S BIGGEST DRUG CONCERN

The stock line with regard to marijuana use in the NBA for years went
something like this: if commissioner David Stern walked in on a team at
half time and they were getting high, he would have no other recourse
than to smile and just say no if a player asked him if he had a light.

Evidently, players rarely say no these days amid reports that as many
as 70 percent smoke pot at least on a recreational basis.

Because it's not included with cocaine, heroin, amphetamines and opium
in the league's current drug policy. With the existing agreement with
the union being scrapped in the current lockout by owners, the
marijuana issue is one of the elements being carved into the
negotiations over a new deal.

[snip]

Source: CBS SportsLine
Contact: http://www.sportsline.com/u/feedback/feedback.htm
Website: http://www.sportsline.com
Pubdate: Mon, 20 Jul 1998
Author: Mike Kahn, CBS SportsLine Executive Editor

***

Medical Marijuana

***

COMMENT:

The concerted attacks on 215 by hostile law enforcement at local,
state and federal levels leave little doubt about how important they
think marijuana prohibition is to their meal tickets.

The shocking tactics used against David Herrick 2 weeks ago in an
Orange County court will probably be repeated against Marvin Chavez.
This judicial misconduct will hurt the prohibitionist's image in the
long run, but meanwhile, it actively victimizes advocates of medical
marijuana, many of whom are patients themselves. They are being made
to pay a terrible price for their compassion and humanity.

In asking about Peter McWilliams' condition, I also talked to Ass't
Warden Linda Thomas. She wouldn't give me any useful information
either.

Oakland is a rare bright spot: a friendly local government working
with an impeccable distribution team to see if medical marijuana might
become practical reality despite unrelenting federal opposition.

In Britain, more details were released about the privately financed
research Effort to develop a workable system for administering
vaporized.

***

PROP. 215 DISALLOWED IN POT TRIAL

Courts: A judge says prosecutors can subpoena Cannabis Co-Op patients'
medical records.

A Santa Ana judge ruled Friday that Orange County Cannabis Co-Op
founder Marvin Chavez cannot use Prop. 215 as a defence in his upcoming
pot-peddling trial, Chavez's defence attorney said.

And Superior Court Judge Robert Fitzergald also upheld a prosecutor's
request for proof that people who obtained pot for alleged ailments
were actually ill, defence attorney Jon Alexander said.

[snip]

Pubdate: Sat, 25 Jul 1998
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Author: Jeff Collins-OCR
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n626.a07.html

***

MEDICAL MARIJUANA ADVOCATE PLEADS INNOCENT TO CONSPIRACY CHARGES

LOS ANGELES, July 27 - A Los Angeles medical marijuana advocate pleaded
innocent Monday to charges that he conspired with several others to
grow massive amounts of the drug to sell to Cannabis Buyer's Clubs.

Peter McWilliams, who claims he is suffering from AIDS and cancer, is
accused of conspiring with Todd McCormick to supply the clubs, which
distribute marijuana to those who say they use it as medicine.

[snip]

A status conference was set for Aug. 24 in front of U.S. District Judge
George King. Last week, McWilliams was granted $250,000 bail. So far,
he hasn't come up with the money to post it.

Meantime, Assistant U.S. Attorney Fernando Aenlle-Rocha said he hopes
officials from the Metropolitan Detention Center will "take steps to
remedy the problem" of the defendant not receiving all of his
medications. Linda Thomas, a spokeswoman for the downtown lockup where
McWilliams is being held refused to discuss the case.

[snip]

Source: KNBC - MSNBC affiliate in Los Angeles
Contact: msnbc@tvsknbc.nbc.com
Website: http://www.msnbc.com/local/KNBC/default.asp
Pubdate: Tue, 28 Jul 1998
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n628.a03.html

***

OAKLAND MAY BACK MEDICAL POT PROVIDERS

OAKLAND - The Oakland City Council is expected tonight to make
designated providers of medical marijuana "officers of the city,"
giving them legal immunity from criminal and civil actions.

Robert Raich, attorney for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative,
said the city's support should block the federal government's efforts
to shut down the pot club.

"This will hopefully blast a hole right through the Controlled
Substances Act," said Raich, who is representing the club and its
executive director, Jeff Jones, in the pending federal lawsuit.

[snip]

Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Contact: http://www.sacbee.com/about_us/sacbeemail.html
Website: http://www.sacbee.com/
Pubdate: July 28, 1998
Author: Lesli Maxwell Bee Correspondent
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n629.a06.html

***

MS VICTIMS TO PUFF POT TO TEST MEDICINAL EFFECTIVENESS

The Guardian

LONDON - The first human trials of the medicinal properties of
marijuana will controversially involve inhaling substances made from
the entire weed, not derivatives, it became clear Tuesday.

Dr. Geoffrey Guy, chairman of GW Pharmaceuticals, a company he set up
with a license from the British Home Office to explore the medical uses
of marijuana, told the House of Lords select committee on science and
technology in London that he expected to move to clinical trials,
probably with multiple sclerosis sufferers, within the next few years.
He hoped the drug would be licensed as a medicine within five.

[snip]

Source: Guardian, The (UK)
Contact: letters@guardian.co.uk
Pubdate: July 28, 1998
Website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Author: Sarah Boseley Scripps Howard News Service
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n626.a01.html

***

International News

***

COMMENT:

The international scene provided little but embarrassment for the drug
war; London may have been shocked at criminal behavior from an
unaccustomed source, but Mexicans had to little reason for surprise.

The bizarre Caribbean threat might easily have evoked memories of
Panama- that was the last time we invaded a sovereign country to make
a drug bust.

***

HEROIN SCANDAL ROCKS LONDON'S DEVOUT JEWISH COMMUNITY

The Orthodox Jewish community has been shocked by a series of arrests
of its members for alleged heroin smuggling. Police and Customs
inquiries are centering on a drugs link between Israel, Antwerp and
London.

[snip]

Source: Independent, The (UK)
Pubdate: Sat, 25 Jul 1998
Contact: letters@independent.co.uk
Website: http://www.independent.co.uk/
Author: Paul Lashmar
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n624.a10.html

***

60 MEXICO CITY POLICE SUSPENDED FOR DRUG USE

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Sixty officers from Mexico City's police force
were suspended Tuesday after failing a drug test, the latest blow to an
already dismal reputation for Mexico's capital police force.

The suspended officers included delegates to two of the city's biggest
districts and two other high-ranking officials, the city's attorney
general Samuel del Villar told a news conference.

The scandal came days after 15 policemen were arrested in a brutal rape
and kidnap case of three teenage girls.

[snip]

Pubdate: Wed, 29 Jul 1998
Source: Reuters
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n630.a05.html

***

ALLEGED DRUG CHIEFTAN THREATENS TO KILL AMERICANS

WASHINGTON -- A St. Kitts drug trafficker known as "Little Nut" is
threatening to randomly kill American veterinary students there if the
United States succeeds in extraditing him for trial, the State
Department said yesterday.

The threats by 37-year-old Charles Miller, wanted in Florida for
cocaine smuggling, prompted an implicit warning that American
authorities are prepared to go after the man if he harms U.S. citizens.

[snip]

Pubdate: Fri, 31 Jul 1998
Source: Standard-Times (MA)
Contact: YourView@S-T.com
Website: http://www.s-t.com/
Author: George Gedda, Associated Press writer
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n643.a05.html

***

HOT OFF THE 'NET

Peter McWilliams updates

Two sites are doing a good job of keeping us informed on the arrest and
incarceration of the nationally famous author and medical marijuana
activist Peter McWilliams. To review the latest on this developing case
see:

http://www.marijuanamagazine.com/

and

http://www.me.mtu.edu/~hull/

***

TIP OF THE WEEK

There is a really disturbing yet useful web page on the growth of the
prison industry at:

http://www.abcnews.com/sections/us/DailyNews/prisons980802.html

Be sure to click the Profits&Punishment banner.

And by all means scroll down to "Prison Population and interactive Atlas"
Here you can click on your state on a US map to find incarcerations rates,
growth percentages and other prison growth stats. Great for cites and
quotes in LTEs

***

The November Coalition

Do you have a friend, relative, or loved one in prison who is a victim
of our failed and cruel drug policies?

Do you need to provide examples of the hypocrisy and unfairness of our
existing policies?

Please visit the November Coalition web page. There you will find the
names and horror stories of scores of people who have had their lives
ruined by foolish laws maintained by a corrupt and power mad federal
government.

A ten minute visit to this page should convince nearly any open minded
individual that "The War on Drugs" is doing more harm than good. See

URL: http://www.november.org/

***

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

`Being briefed by the CIA is like being a mushroom: you're kept in the
dark and fed manure' - Norman Mineta

***

FACT OF THE WEEK

Every year since 1975, 85% of high school seniors have said they find
illegal drugs "fairly easy" or "very easy" to obtain.

Source: Johnston, L., Bachman, J. & O'Malley, P. (1996). National
survey results from the monitoring the future study, HHS, National
Institute on Drug Abuse.

***

DS Weekly is one of the many free educational services DrugSense offers
our members. Watch this feature to learn more about what DrugSense can
do for you.

News/COMMENTS-Editor - Tom O'Connell (tjeffoc@drugsense.org)
Senior-Editor - Mark Greer (mgreer@drugsense.org)

We wish to thank all our contributors and Newshawks.

NOTICE:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.

REMINDER:

Please help us help reform. Send any news articles you find on any drug
related issue to editor@mapinc.org - For details on how to NewsHawk see:

http://www.mapinc.org/hawk.htm

PLEASE HELP:

DrugSense provides this service at no charge BUT IT IS NOT FREE TO PRODUCE.

We incur many costs in creating our many and varied services. If you are
able to help by contributing to the DrugSense effort please Make checks
payable to MAP Inc. send your contribution to:

The Media Awareness Project (MAP) Inc.
d/b/a DrugSense
PO Box 651
Porterville,
CA 93258
(800) 266 5759
MGreer@mapinc.org
http://www.mapinc.org/
http://www.drugsense.org/

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

[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 July 30-August 5

Back to Portland NORML news archive directory

Back to 1998 Daily News index (long)

This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/980805.html

Home