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

Oakland Deputizes Medical Pot Club ('The San Francisco Examiner' Version)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:16:41 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Organization: BlueDot
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Oakland Deputizes Medical Pot Club
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: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Contact: letters@examiner.com
Website: http://www.examiner.com/
Pubdate: 14 Aug 1998
Author: Robert Selna Special To The Examiner 1998 San Francisco Examiner

OAKLAND DEPUTIZES MEDICAL POT CLUB

Oakland has become the first city in the nation to name a pot
distributor an official arm of the city, opening a new front in the
legal battle over medicinal marijuana.

"We felt like we needed to be out on the frontier to make sure that
Proposition 215 can be implemented," City Council member Nate Miley said
Thursday at a brief City Hall ceremony.

Prop. 215 is the controversial 1996 state initiative that under certain
conditions legalized distribution of medical marijuana in California,
but has run into roadblocks from state and federal prosecutors.

Thursday, city officials and a team of attorneys announced that a new
city ordinance will permit volunteers and employees at the Oakland
Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative to distribute marijuana for medicinal
purposes without threat of arrest.

City officials are trying to take advantage of a section of the Federal
Controlled Substance Act that was originally intended to protect
undercover police officers who use or transport illegal drugs to
maintain their cover.

The provision says that any officer of a city who is enforcing drug laws
has immunity from prosecution under those laws.

"Designating these officers will blow a hole through the controlled
substances act," said Robert Raich, the attorney who led the effort to
create the ordinance. "An agent of the city has the duty to enforce the
ordinance and is immune under the federal law."

But in the U.S. attorney's office, news of the ordinance drew a cautious
response Thursday.

"All I'm going to say is that we are aware of Oakland's decision and
looking at it very carefully," said spokesman Gregory King.

But the state attorney general's office said the operators of the
Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative will still be violating state law.

"Our reading of the law and the appellate court's decision found
cannabis clubs cannot operate," said Matt Ross, spokesman for Attorney
General Dan Lungren.

Despite the passage of Prop. 215 by 56 percent of California voters,
Lungren, federal prosecutors and the courts have refused to consider the
clubs as caregivers.

The law allows a patient or "primary care-giver" to possess and use
marijuana if recommended by a physician for the treatment of an illness.

But in recent months, cooperatives in San Francisco, San Jose and
elsewhere have been forced to shut down on the basis that the clubs
violated federal law prohibiting the distribution of controlled
substances.

In May, the federal government won a preliminary injunction against the
Oakland cooperative, which the cooperative chose to ignore.

On July 9, Oakland passed the most permissive medical marijuana
guidelines in the state, permitting medical marijuana users to maintain
a cache of 1=93 pounds -- or 10 cigarettes per day -- without fear of
arrest.

The city broke new ground again July 28 when the council unanimously
passed an ordinance designating marijuana retailers "officers of the
city."

Thursday was the official launching of the ordinance.

"It is important for humanitarian reasons to shield the club which
provides this substance to people who are less fortunate, suffering and
needy," Miley said. "We see this as a public health issue."

Friday, Raich was to file a motion with U.S. District Judge Charles
Breyer seeking immunity from the May preliminary injunction that
directed the cooperative to close its operations.

In the motion, Raich will employ the new ordinance as the cooperative's
defense against closure.

While medical cannabis advocates seemed confident in their case, some
experts doubted the strength of their legal argument.

"They have to overcome a 500-pound gorilla called the supremacy clause,"
said law professor Franklin Zimring of UC-Berkeley's Boalt Hall School
of Law. "Any conflict between local and federal law and federal law
wins."

Zimring, a criminal justice expert, said the controlled substance act
was originally set up to stop the sale of drugs by using undercover
officers, and the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative is attempting to
use the act to sell drugs.

"The judge will have to be a pretty big fan of that approach to buy it
because it seems to be a bit of a stretch," Zimring said.

Backers of the ordinance said Thursday they chose the cooperative as the
city's official medical pot seller because the organization has had a
good track record.

"So far, there have been no complaints. It has been run in a very
businesslike and professional manner," Miley said.

The Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative operates out of a nondescript
office building in downtown Oakland. The club dispenses marijuana plants
and processed marijuana to its 1,800 members from the same type of glass
case found in a jewelry shop. It also offers courses on growing the
drug, massage therapy and a buffet.

Cooperative Executive Director Jeff Jones said his operation is a
tightly run ship.

"We have a small number of members, everyone must have a verifiable
letter of recommendation from a doctor, and we have video surveillance
and a private security firm to check members' identification," said
Jones, who started the cooperative in 1996 after his father died of
cancer.

While Miley admitted there was no specific plan in place to monitor the
cooperative, he said the city manager's office has done a thorough
safety and financial review and that the ordinance excluded the city
from any liability claims arising from the pot distribution operation.
Examiner news services contributed to this report.

1998 San Francisco Examiner

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

Oakland Club To Distribute Pot On City's Behalf ('The Los Angeles Times'
Version)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:00:56 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Organization: BlueDot
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Oakland Club To Distribute Pot On City'S Behalf
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Pudate: 14 Aug 1998
Fax: 213-237-4712
Author: Mary Curtius, Times Staff Writer

OAKLAND CLUB TO DISTRIBUTE POT ON CITY'S BEHALF

OAKLAND--The city of Oakland on Thursday became the first city in the
United States to begin distributing marijuana to ease the symptoms of
the chronically ill.

In an action that City Councilman Nate Miley portrayed as an act of
moral courage, the city named operators of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers
Cooperative as officers of the city and said they will distribute
marijuana at their cooperative on the city's behalf.

Miley said the city hopes the action will shield the club from the U.S.
Justice Department's efforts to shut it down.

The city is counting on the Federal Controlled Substance Act--the same
act the federal government is using in its attempt to close the club--to
keep it open. A provision of the act says that officers enforcing local
drug ordinances are immune from prosecution for possessing, buying and
selling illegal drugs in the course of their police work.

Now that the cannabis club's members are "officers" of the city of
Oakland, the city hopes, they too will be considered immune from
prosecution.

However, the state attorney general's office said the action is probably
illegal, and even Miley acknowledged that the city is taking a risk.

"The city could be subject to civil and criminal prosecution" for the
program, Miley said, "but it's a risk we take...There are just moments
that demand that people come forward and do the right thing." He said
the city also will consider ways to directly distribute marijuana.

"We're aware of the Oakland decision and we're carefully reviewing it,"
said Gregory King, a spokesman for the Justice Department in Washington.

Oakland, a liberal city where former Gov. Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. is
scheduled to take office as mayor in January, has gone out on a limb
before. The city found itself in the midst of a national debate about
race, education and language in 1996 after the school board voted to
officially recognize black dialect, or "Ebonics," as a separate
language.

At the time, board members said their action was meant to save black
children by encouraging them to stay in school. On Thursday, Miley said
the city was interested in saving lives.

"We needed to be out on the frontier, to ensure that Proposition 215 can
be implemented," Miley said. "There are people in a lot of pain, who are
suffering and dying." Calling the club "a very important element in our
community," Miley said that the city "will do everything we can do legally
. . . to ensure that the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club continues to operate."
Medical marijuana advocates say the drug eases the symptoms of a wide
range of illnesses and can control nausea and pain suffered by some
chronically ill patients.

Voters passed Proposition 215, the medical marijuana initiative, in
November 1996. Since then, state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren and the Justice
Department have sought, in separate court actions, to close California's
marijuana clubs. More than two dozen clubs, some of which had operated
underground, emerged across the state soon after the law passed.

All but a handful have since closed--some as a result of state and
federal actions, others because their officials were arrested by local
police departments for allegedly selling marijuana to people without a
doctor's recommendation.

Three Clubs Defied Order to Close In May

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ordered six Northern California clubs to
close. Ruling in a civil suit brought by the U.S. attorney for the Northern
District, Breyer said that federal law, which prohibits any sale of marijuana
because it is a controlled substance, supersedes Proposition 215.

Three clubs--the Oakland club, one in Marin and one in Ukiah--chose to
defy Breyer's ruling and continue operating. Of those three, Oakland is
by far the largest, with about 1,800 members.

The Justice Department has asked Breyer to find the three clubs in
contempt of court and asked that federal marshals be allowed to shut
them down. A hearing on those motions is scheduled for Aug.
31 in San Francisco.

Seeking to head off a contempt ruling, the Oakland City Council took two
actions last month. It instructed its Police Department not to arrest
residents who possessed 1 1/2 pounds of marijuana or less for medical
purposes, several times the amount Lungren has said is allowable. The
council also passed an ordinance establishing the medical marijuana
distribution system, designating the Oakland cannabis club as the city's
distributor.

At an Oakland city hall news conference Thursday, Oakland Cannabis Club
director Jeff Jones--a clean-cut 24-year-old who says he became
committed to the cause of providing medical marijuana to patients after
watching his father die a painful death from cancer--and his staff were
publicly designated as officers of the city of Oakland.

Deputy City Manager Mike Nisperos said that the club's members all are
designated as officers. He said the designation does not put them on the
city's payroll or provide them with city benefits. It merely says that
they are acting on behalf of the city to enforce a city ordinance.

Attorneys for the cannabis club said that they will file a motion today
seeking to dismiss the federal case on the basis of the city's action.

"This designation will permit the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
staff to distribute medical cannabis within federal law," said Gerald
Uelmen, a University of Santa Clara law professor who helped represent
O.J. Simpson in his criminal case.

Uelmen was joined by prominent criminal defense lawyer James Brosnahan.

Uelmen said that the 1970 Federal Controlled Substances Act contains a
provision saying any officer of a city who is enforcing an ordinance on
controlled substances is immune from liability for civil or criminal
prosecution under the act.

The provision normally applies to drug agents, protecting them from
prosecution when they are buying or selling drugs in order to make
arrests. But Uelmen insisted that its wording is broad, and said he is
confident that the courts will rule in Oakland's favor.

"We are blowing a hole in the act," said Robert Raich, another attorney
representing the club. Raich said that any city in the nation could
similarly pass an ordinance allowing for the distribution of medical
marijuana and designate officers to do that.

"I think that we have moved the availability of medical cannabis to a
much more sure-footed stance all over this state, all over this
country," Raich told The Times in an interview before Thursday's news
conference.

Lungren Spokesman Calls Actions Illegal

But a spokesman for Lungren expressed skepticism at the attorneys' legal
reasoning, saying he thought Oakland's actions are illegal under state and
federal law.

"Proposition 215 allows for three things," said spokesman Matt Ross.
"For a doctor to recommend the use of medical marijuana to a patient,
for a patient to use or grow marijuana for medical use, and for a
primary caregiver to provide it." A primary caregiver, Ross said, is
"someone who takes care of all of your needs, not just the need for
marijuana." "Today's actions by the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club and the
city of Oakland," he said, "don't seem to meet any of those three
options." But Ross said Lungren's office has no plan to move against
Oakland or the cannabis club. It is up to the Alameda County district
attorney's office to do that, he said.

Alameda County Deputy Dist. Atty. Jeff Rubin said Wednesday that the
office would not get involved with the Oakland club unless law
enforcement officials found evidence of crimes being committed.

Lungren has maintained that the law never intended to legalize clubs
that sell marijuana to hundreds, even thousands of patients.

The state Supreme Court upheld that view, letting stand a lower court
ruling in a suit Lungren brought against the San Francisco Cannabis
Buyers Club, that the club could not be considered a caregiver under
Proposition 215.

In addition, Lungren has said that his office would consider patients
who grow marijuana themselves to be violating Proposition 215 if they
possess more than an ounce a month of processed marijuana, or the number
of plants needed to produce that amount.

Club operators and many patients argue that it is unrealistic to expect
every patient to be able to cultivate marijuana plants at home. They say
the clubs can ensure a safe supply and a safe delivery system at a
reasonable cost.

In May, Lungren won his battle to shut down the San Francisco Cannabis
Buyers Club, when Superior Court Judge William Cahill ruled it a public
nuisance and state drug enforcement agents padlocked it. The club
claimed to be serving about 9,000 patients, many of them suffering from
AIDS.

Copyright 1998 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved

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

Oakland Begins Providing Marijuana To Ease Pain ('The Seattle Times' Version)

From: "W.H.E.N. - Bob Owen - Olympia" (when@olywa.net)
To: "-News" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: 3- Articles - Oakland, CA to provide pot
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:21:12 -0700
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net

Copyright (c) 1998 The Seattle Times Company

Posted at 06:58 a.m. PDT; Friday, August 14, 1998

Oakland begins providing marijuana to ease pain

by Mary Curtius

Los Angeles Times

OAKLAND, Calif. - The city of Oakland yesterday became the first city in the
United States to begin distributing marijuana to ease the symptoms of the
chronically ill.

In an action that City Councilman Nate Miley portrayed as an act of moral
courage, the city named operators of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative
as officers of the city and said they will distribute marijuana at their
cooperative on the city's behalf.

Miley said the city hopes the action will shield the club from the federal
Justice Department's efforts to shut it down.

The city is counting on the Federal Controlled Substance Act - the same act
the federal government is using in its attempt to close the club - to keep
it open.

A provision of the act says that officers enforcing local drug ordinances
are immune from prosecution for possessing, buying and selling illegal drugs
in the course of their police work.

The provision normally applies to drug agents, protecting them from
prosecution when they are buying or selling drugs in order to make arrests.

Now that the cannabis club's members are "officers" of the city of Oakland,
the city hopes, they too will be considered immune from prosecution. Miley
acknowledged, however, that the city is taking a risk.

"The city could be subject to civil and criminal prosecution" for the
program, Miley said, "but it's a risk we take. . . . There are just moments
that demand that people come forward and do the right thing."

He said the city also will consider ways to distribute marijuana directly to
patients.

"We're aware of the Oakland decision, and we're carefully reviewing it,"
said Gregory King, a spokesman for the Justice Department in Washington.

Oakland, a liberal city where California's former governor, Jerry Brown, is
scheduled to take office as mayor in January, has gone out on a limb before.
The city found itself in the midst of a national debate about race,
education and language in 1996 after the school board voted to officially
recognize black dialect, or "Ebonics," as a separate language.

`A very important element'

Calling the club "a very important element in our community," Miley said the
city "will do everything we can do legally . . . to ensure that the Oakland
Cannabis Buyers Club continues to operate."

Medical-marijuana advocates say the drug eases the symptoms of a wide range
of illnesses and can control nausea and pain suffered by some chronically
ill patients.

California voters passed Proposition 215, the medical-marijuana initiative,
in November 1996. Since then, state Attorney General Dan Lungren and the
Justice Department have sought, in separate court actions, to close
California's marijuana clubs.

More than two dozen clubs, some of which had operated underground, emerged
across the state soon after the law passed.

All but a handful have since closed - some as a result of state and federal
actions, others because their officials were arrested by local police
departments for allegedly selling marijuana to people without a doctor's
recommendation.

In May, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ordered six Northern California
clubs to close, saying that federal law, which prohibits any sale of
marijuana because it is a controlled substance, supersedes Proposition 215.

Three clubs - the Oakland club, one in Marin County and one in Ukiah - chose
to defy Breyer's ruling and continue operating.

Of those three, Oakland is by far the largest, with about 1,800 members.

Heading off a contempt ruling

Seeking to head off a contempt ruling, the Oakland City Council took two
actions last month. It instructed its police department not to arrest city
residents who possessed 1 1/2 pounds of marijuana or less for medical
purposes, several times the amount Lungren has said is allowable.

The council also passed an ordinance establishing the medical-marijuana
distribution system, designating the Oakland cannabis club as the city's
distributor.

At an Oakland city hall news conference yesterday, Oakland Cannabis Club
director Jeff Jones - a 24-year-old who says he became committed to the
cause of providing medical marijuana to patients after watching his father
die a painful death from cancer - and his staff were publicly designated as
officers of the city of Oakland.

Deputy City Manager Mike Nisperos said the club's members all are designated
as officers. He said the designation does not put them on the city's payroll
or provide them with city benefits.

It merely says they are acting on behalf of the city to enforce a city
ordinance.

Attorneys for the cannabis club said they would file a motion today seeking
to dismiss the federal case on the basis of the city's action.

But Matt Ross, a spokesman for Lungren, said Lungren's office has no plan to
move against Oakland or the cannabis club. It is up to the Alameda district
attorney's office to do that, he said.

Alameda County Deputy District Attorney Jeff Rubin said Wednesday the office
would not get involved with the Oakland club unless law-enforcement
officials found evidence of crimes being committed there.

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

Oakland Deputizes Pot Club ('The San Francisco Chronicle' Version
Incorrectly Says 'State Law Allows' Medical Marijuana Patients To Possess
Only One Ounce Of Medicine, The Interpretation Of California Attorney General
Dan Lungren, Nemesis Of Proposition 215)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:24:14 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US CA: Oakland Deputizes Pot Club
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: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Contact: chronletters@sfgate.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Pubdate: Fri, 14 Aug 1998
Author: Thaai Walker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Section: Page A1

Oakland Deputizes Pot Club
Move uses federal law exempting city agents

Thaai Walker
Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, August 14, 1998

Oakland declared a medical marijuana club a city agency yesterday, becoming
the first city in the country to officially distribute pot for medicinal
use.

The novel tactic steps up the counterattack against the federal government's
continuing efforts to shut down Northern California pot clubs. It uses the
government's own law in an attempt to give club members immunity from civil
or criminal liability.

In a ceremony at City Hall, city officials designated the staff, volunteers
and board of directors of the Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative as
officers of the city.

The Oakland club, which serves almost 1,800 chronically ill people from its
downtown office, has been operating since the passage of Proposition 215 in
1996. That initiative legalized marijuana for medical uses. The Oakland club
is one of three Northern California pot clubs that federal authorities are
trying to shut down by the end of this month.

A Justice Department spokesman warned that the battle is not over. ``I would
discourage them from jumping to any premature conclusions,'' said spokesman
Gregory King. He added only that his department is reviewing Oakland's
action.

Nonetheless, directors of the other two Northern California marijuana clubs,
in Fairfax and Ukiah, were encouraged by the news and said they plan to try
to gain the same status in their cities.

``This is wonderful news,'' said Marvin Lehrman, director of the Ukiah
Cannabis Buyer's Club, which serves 200 patients. ``Oakland has made a
pioneering step here.''

Making marijuana club workers deputies of the city is Oakland's latest move
since a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in May ordering the
Oakland club and five others to close. Three have since shut down, but the
other three have defied the order, saying they have not violated federal
law.

City leaders and medical marijuana advocates have expressed hope that their
new strategy, made possible by the passage of an Oakland ordinance approved
last month, will help them outmaneuver the federal government.

``This designation will permit the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative to
distribute medical cannabis within federal law,'' said Gerald Uelmen, a
prominent Santa Clara attorney representing the club. Uelmen is best-known
as a member of the O.J. Simpson ``dream team.''

``That means the federal government has no case,'' he said.

Federal law, which supersedes state law, says marijuana used for any
purposes is illegal.

Using the federal law to make their case, attorneys for the club said that
by a section of the Federal Controlled Substances Act, the club is now
immune from federal criminal and civil liability. The section states that
any officer of a city who is enforcing an ordinance relating to controlled
substances cannot be prosecuted under the act.

The federal government's legal actions have been aimed at the Oakland, Marin
and Ukiah clubs and three others that have since closed -- two in San
Francisco, including Dennis Peron's Cannabis Healing Center on Market
Street, and one in Santa Cruz.

On August 31, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer will decide whether to
strengthen his previous order by allowing federal agents to shut down the
clubs. Attorneys for the Oakland club plan to file a motion today asking the
judge to dismiss the federal petition in light of the city's new ordinance.

Inside the cooperative's simple, well-lighted offices yesterday, defiant
club members and staff breathed a sigh of relief. To them, the city's
sanction of their program is a sign that they will survive.

``We're not going to go away,'' said Jim McClelland, the club's business
manager.

Scott Imler, director of the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center in West
Hollywood, called Oakland's actions an ``innovative idea'' and said he
thought it ``ironic'' that a loophole in the Controlled Substances Act that
was established to allow ``narcs to set people up in drug stings could be
turned around like that on the federal government.''

But he said he is not sure the tactic will prevent the club from being shut
down.

Imler said the federal government took actions to close down the Northern
California clubs because undercover agents were able to gain access to them
with phony documentation.

``I don't know if after-the-fact designation will be enough to stave off the
injunction already issued,'' Imler said. ``The cow may be out of the barn
before the door got closed.''

Robert Raich, an attorney representing the Oakland club, said the undercover
agents used ``lies and deceit.'' That they gained access does not indicate
the club is careless, he said.

``They had a sophisticated operation,'' he said. ``(The club's) procedures
were not lax.''

City officials also said yesterday that they are confident that the club is
run in a professional manner. The city reviewed the club's licensing and tax
status, security measures and insurance coverage before going forward with
the designation.

Medical marijuana advocates were upbeat.

``This gives me hope,'' said Lynnette Shaw, who runs Marin Alliance for
Medical Marijuana in Fairfax. ``We've been waiting to see what happened in
Oakland before moving forward.''

Fairfax Town Council member Frank Egger said town officials are supportive
of the Fairfax pot club, but he said he will contact Oakland's city attorney
to find out more about liability issues associated with the city's action.

Oakland Councilman Nate Miley, an ardent advocate of the use of medicinal
marijuana, acknowledged yesterday that the city could be subject to state
and federal criminal and civil prosecution, but he said the city is willing
to take that risk.

``If the federal government wants to prosecute me or my colleagues, then
prosecute. Bring it on,'' he said.

The battle over medicinal marijuana has intensified since California voters
overwhelmingly passed Proposition 215.

Oakland has pushed to the forefront of the issue. In addition to its latest
maneuver, it has approved a policy allowing medical marijuana users to store
up to 1 1/2 pounds of the drug -- 24 times more than state law allows.

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

Oakland Seeks To Shield Sellers Of Medicinal Pot
('The Orange County Register' Version)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:18:22 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US CA: Oakland Seeks To Sheild Sellers Of Medicinal Pot
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John W. Black
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Pubdate: 14 Aug 1998

OAKLAND SEEKS TO SHEILD SELLERS OF MEDICINAL POT

Oakland officials leaped to the forefront of the medical marijuana movement
Thursday, designating the staff of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
as city agents.

The move is designed to shield them from criminal prosecution. Robert
Raich, an attorney for the club, said designating staff as city agents will
protect them under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which gives
immunity from federal and criminal liability to agents enforcing an
ordinance relating to controlled substances.

Federal prosecutors are moving to shut down the Oakland club, along with
several others which sprang up after voters approved Proposition 215, the
medical marijuana initiative, in 1996. A federal judge later ruled the
initiative did not override federal law against distributing marijuana.

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

Marijuana Club Given Official Role In Oakland ('The Chicago Tribune' Version)

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 10:20:27 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US CA: Marijuana Club Given Official Role in Oakland
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Steve Young (theyoungfamily@worldnet.att.net)
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: tribletter@aol.com
Website: http://www.chicago.tribune.com/
Pubdate: Fri, 14 Aug 1998
Author: V. Dion Haynes
Section: Sec. 1, p. 1

MARIJUANA CLUB GIVEN OFFICIAL ROLE IN OAKLAND

LOS ANGELES -- Opening a new front in the legal battle over medicinal
marijuana, Oakland leaders Thursday designated the outlawed Oakland
Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative an official arm of the city, thereby becoming
the first municipal government to dispense the drug to seriously ill
patients.

In its new partnership, Oakland is attempting to find its own solution to
the unresolved issue of medicinal marijuana use in California. Though
voters in November 1996 approved a statewide ballot measure allowing
patients to grow and smoke marijuana under certain conditions, the law has
faced repeated challenges from the California attorney general and the U.S.
Justice Department.

Last spring, a federal judge, responding to a Justice Department lawsuit,
issued an injunction ordering the Oakland cannabis cooperative and five
other clubs in northern California to stop distributing marijuana. Three
clubs, including the Oakland cooperative, have defied the order.

By making the Oakland cannabis club an "agent of the city," Oakland leaders
are seeking the shield of a provision of the Federal Controlled Substances
Act that protects undercover drug agents from federal prosecution. Section
885 (d) of the act provides that an "officer of a city" in enforcing
controlled-substances ordinances "has civil and criminal immunity" under
federal law.

"All the documentation I've seen shows that medical marijuana helps reduce
pain and suffering for certain patients-- those with glaucoma and cancer,"
said Nate Miley, an Oakland city councilman who helped launch the effort.

"What we're doing is historic," he said, adding that he expects federal and
state officials to challenge the partnership.

"We're putting ourselves out on a limb because we feel it's a moral issue
and we have to demonstrate support" for a patient's right to the drug.

Gerald Uelmen, a law professor at Santa Clara University who advises the
Oakland cannabis club, said the arrangement makes sense for law-enforcement
officials too.

"If you recognize the right of people to have (medicinal marijuana) but
don't supply a clear, secure environment to get it, patients will acquire
it from illicit dealers," Uelmen said. "Patients would prefer to have one
central location--a clean, well-lighted place. This simplifies the
(police's) responsibility to make sure the law is obeyed."

Justice Department officials are reviewing the Oakland action.

Besides California, Arizona also had a ballot-initiated medicinal marijuana
law. The state's legislature struck it down shortly after it was passed in
1996. The proposition will be back on the ballot in November, along with
another measure that would prohibit state lawmakers from invalidating
ballot measures.

In November, several other states, including Alaska, Oregon and Nevada,
will have ballot measures asking voters if they want to legalize medicinal
marijuana.

Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act, was approved by 56 percent
of California's voters. The law allows a patient or "primary caregiver" to
possess and use marijuana if recommended by a physician for the treatment
of an illness.

For the last few years, Oakland officials have been aggressive in
attempting to counter state and federal opposition to medicinal marijuana.
The council in 1996 issued two resolutions endorsing Proposition 215 and
agreed not to stop the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, which had been
operating about a year before the law went into effect.

Last month, the council voted to allow residents to possess 1 1/2 pounds of
medicinal marijuana. The amount is based on medical estimates of what a
patient would use in three months.

The council's action last month was aimed at Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren's
declaration shortly after the law went into effect that the state would
attempt to prosecute anyone possessing more than an ounce of medicinal
marijuana.

From the beginning, Lungren and the cannabis clubs have been at odds over
how Proposition 215 should be carried out.

Under Lungren's interpretation, patients with a doctor's recommendation can
grow and smoke the medicinal marijuana. The patient also can obtain the
drug from a "primary caregiver."

The point of contention is over who is a primary caregiver. The clubs
consider themselves primary caregivers, but Lungren defines them as
doctors, nurses, friends and relatives.

"A primary caregiver is someone who looks after all your needs on a
consistent basis," said Matt Ross, Lungren's spokesman, adding that the
interpretation was supported by an appeals court ruling in December 1997.
"All a cannabis club does is provide marijuana."

The Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative operates out of a nondescript
office building in downtown Oakland. The club dispenses marijuana plants
and processed marijuana to its 1,800 members from the same type of glass
case found in a jewelry shop.

Club officials say they check the veracity of all doctors' notes from
patients. They attempt to keep track of the amounts given to patients and
investigate when the requests exceed the recommended dosage.

"We are diligent to make sure no abuses occur," said Jeff Jones, executive
director of the cannabis club.

Thursday's action essentially makes the club a consultant for the city,
although it receives no money. In fact, the club had to pay more under the
deal to purchase additional liability insurance indemnifying the City
Council, city attorney and city manager.

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

Oakland To Supply Marijuana Officially ('The Boston Gobe' Version)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:58:49 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US: Oakland To Supply Marijuana Officially
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)
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Contact: letters@globe.com
Website: http://www.boston.com/globe
Pubdate: 14 Aug 1998

OAKLAND TO SUPPLY MARIJUANA OFFICIALLY

AIM IS A DEFENSE FROM PROSECUTION

OAKLAND, Calif. - The City of Oakland named the first ``official''
marijuana supply agency in the country yesterday, breaking new ground in
the legal battle over California's 1996 medical marijuana law. At a
ceremony at Oakland City Hall, officials proclaimed staff of the Oakland
Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative to be ``officers of the city.'' This move is
intended to shield them from federal prosecution, although its legal
foundations were not clear.

Oakland officials said the new designation should thwart federal efforts to
close the club. California voters passed a state law in 1996 legalizing
medical marijuana use, but federal prosecutors have sued to close the
clubs, saying their operations violate federal narcotics laws. While a
number of northern California medical marijuana clubs have folded under the
legal pressure, Oakland's cannabis cooperative has continued to operate,
distributing the drug to 1,800 people to treat symptoms of AIDS, cancer and
other serious illnesses.

``The Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative runs a clean, legitimate
business, contributes to Oakland's downtown revitalization, and prevents
seriously ill people from turning to the streets to buy their medicine,''
said Vice Mayor Nate Miley, who chairs the city council's Public Safety
Committee. ``We're delighted to offer the cooperative all the support we
can, and hope that other cities will follow suit.'' While the new ``city
officer'' designation does not mean the club members are now city
employees, it does extend potentially powerful legal protection to them.
Under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, ``city officers,'' a term
usually taken to mean undercover law enforcement agents, cannot be
prosecuted for selling controlled drugs within the scope of their official
duties. Now, city officials hope, that designation will allow the cannabis
club to distribute marijuana to critically ill patients from its tidy,
pharmacy-like downtown offices.

``This designation will permit the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative to
distribute medical cannabis within federal law,'' said Professor Gerald
Uelmen of the University of Santa Clara School of Law, who has served as a
legal adviser to the club.

``That means the federal government has no case. The lawsuit against the
cooperative should be dropped today.'' Federal officials had no immediate
comment on Oakland's move, the first by any city in the country to name
what amounts to an official marijuana supply agency. ``We're aware of the
decision, and we are in the process of reviewing it. Any comment that we
might have would be made in court,'' said Gregory King, a spokesman for the
Justice Department.

Oakland officials, said, however, that they were aware that the city's
effort to protect the cannabis club might not stop the federal suit. City
lawyers will ask that it be dismissed on Friday.

``What we are trying to do is basically, as a city, set up a system to
distribute medical marijuana to those in need,'' said Joe de Vries, an aide
to Miley. ``If that's not good enough, we'll go the next step. And maybe
then everybody at the club will receive a City of Oakland paycheck.''

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

Oakland Tries To Protect Medical Sales Of Marijuana ('The New York Times'
Version)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:58:42 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US: Oakland Tries To Protect Medical Sales Of Marijuana
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)
Source: New York Times (NY)
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Pubdate: 14 Aug 1998

OAKLAND TRIES TO PROTECT MEDICAL SALES OF MARIJUANA

OAKLAND, Calif. -- The City Council on Thursday designated the Oakland
Marijuana Buyers' Cooperative as officers of the city, an effort to shield
the group from federal civil and criminal prosecution. The U.S. Justice
Department had won a temporary restraining order in May against the Oakland
cooperative and five other medical marijuana providers in Northern
California, claiming that they were in violation of federal narcotics laws.
Three of cooperatives shut down voluntarily, while the others, including
the one in Oakland, have defied the U.S. District Court ruling. Oakland
officials and the cooperative had worked together since the passage of a
1996 state initiative that allowed medically prescribed marijuana to be
distributed to any "seriously ill" Californian.

In July, the council voted to allow each medical marijuana user up to a
pound and a half of prescribed cannabis, which the council views as a
three-month supply.

"We decided we needed to be out on the frontier, to ease the suffering of
those in need," said Councilman Nate Miley at a brief ceremony in Oakland's
city hall. "We're delighted to offer the cooperative all the support we
can, and hope that other cities will follow suit."

Jeff Jones, the executive director of the cooperative, accepted the
designation on behalf of his group, which distributes the drug to more than
1,500 people to treat the effects of illnesses like cancer and AIDS. "This
is a great day for our patients and a great day for Oakland," Jones said.
Justice Department spokesman Gregory King said the decision by Oakland
officials was under review.

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

A Clockwork Orange - Judge Dredd Goes on Vacation ('OC Weekly'
Notes Marvin Chavez, The Medical Marijuana Patient And Co-Founder
Of The Orange County Patient, Doctor, Nurse Support Group, Has A New Judge
In His Trial - Superior Court Judge Robert Fitzgerald, Whose Chambers
Boast A Poster Of The Sly Stallone Sci-Fi Flick, 'Judge Dredd,' Was Replaced
By Judge Franklin Fasel, Who May Reverse Fitzgerald's Decision
Not To Allow Chavez A Proposition 215 Defense)

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 08:41:21 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US CA: A Clockwork Orange: Judge Dredd Goes on Vacation
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: OC Weekly
Contact: speakout@ptconnect.infi.net
Website: http://www.ocweekly.com/
Pubdate: Friday, 14 August 1998
Author: Nick Schou

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE: JUDGE DREDD GOES ON VACATION

The timing couldn't have been better for Marvin Chavez, the
medical-cannabis advocate who faces several years in state prison if
convicted on 10 counts of felony pot distribution.

On Aug. 4, Chavez rejected an offer by Deputy District Attorney Carl
Armbrust that would have given him five years of probation-and no jail
time-in return for a promise not to distribute pot to members of his
organization (read: sick people). It seemed like a good deal, but just 24
hours later, Superior Court Judge Robert Fitzgerald, who the previous week
had ruled that Chavez could not use Proposition 215-the state's
medicinal-marijuana initiative-as a legal defense in his upcoming trial,
removed himself from the case so he could go on vacation.

A similar anti- Prop. 215 ruling helped convict Chavez's cohort, David Lee
Herrick. That ruling sent the former San Bernardino County sheriff's
deputy to the Wasco state prison for four years.

Fitzgerald, whose chambers boast a poster of the Sly Stallone sci-fi flick
Judge Dredd, was replaced by Judge Franklin Fasel, who told a seemingly
disappointed Armbrust that he plans to hold a special pretrial hearing on
whether to reverse Fitzgerald's decision. Trial for Chavez starts on Aug. 14.

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

Gherkin Behind A Mask (A Letter To The Editor
Of 'The San Francisco Chronicle' Reminds Voters That Dan Lungren
Shouldn't Be Elected Governor Of California Because He Defied The Will
Of Voters In Thwarting Proposition 215)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:13:39 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Organization: BlueDot
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: PUB LTE: Gherkin Behind A Mask
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: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Contact: chronletters@sfgate.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Pubdate: 14 Aug 1998

GHERKIN BEHIND A MASK

Editor -- Dan Lungren is a sugar-coated pickle, sweet on the outside,
but sourer than any dill on the inside. The people of California had a
good look at Lungren's true nature with his behavior toward medical
marijuana users.

For the past two years Lungren has defied the will of the people with
an all-out assault on Proposition 215. Instead of supporting the
democratic will of the majority, this sour gherkin has not hesitated
to attack the sick and dying.

Whatever Lungren's glib vision for California may be, we already know
that this man has no compassion and no respect for the majority will.
Lungren violated his oath of office by attempting to veto Proposition
215 with the attorney general's office and he will betray the trust of
the people again if elected governor.

California cannot afford a mean-spirited sour pickle like Dan Lungren
who hides behind a cotton-candy mask.

ROBIN GIVENS
San Francisco

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

Davis And Lungren Pandering On Crime (Another Letter To The Editor
Of 'The San Francisco Chronicle' Rejects The Traditional Bidding War
To See Who Is 'Tougher On Crime' Waged By The Two Leading
California Gubernatorial Candidates)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:13:54 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Organization: BlueDot
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: PUB LTE: Davis And Lungren Pandering On Crime
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: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Contact: chronletters@sfgate.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Pubdate: 14 Aug 1998

DAVIS AND LUNGREN PANDERING ON CRIME

Editor -- After watching the Lungren-Davis debate, I am now more worried
than ever about the state of California's politics. To watch two
intelligent, articulate men try to gain favor by promising to kill more
of our population than the other was downright silly.

Even more disgusting was the suggestion of Mr. Davis that ``Singapore is
a good place to start'' from a law enforcement perspective. I, for one,
do not want to live in a place where one is arrested for having chewing
gum or spitting in the street. Where people are publicly beaten for
things such as petty vandalism. No, thank you.

Mr. Lungren promises to step up the war on drugs, but after his Omnibus
Crime Prevention Act of 1984 (which introduced the country to no-knock
searches, anonymous informants, pretrial asset seizure and greatly
increased wiretaps and other practices) I'm afraid to ask what he means.
So please, gentleman. Why don't you worry about helping the people, not
jailing them?

JASON RUBADEAU
Calistoga

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

Bail Denied For Man Accused Of Smuggling ('The Orange County Register'
Says A Man Suspected Of Smuggling 550 Pounds Of Cocaine
Across The Mexican Border In A Twin-Engine Cessna 320 Was Denied Bail
Thursday When He Appeared In Federal Court In Los Angeles)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:20:09 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US CA: Bail Denied For Man Accused Of Smuggling
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John W. Black
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Pubdate: 14 Aug 1998

BAIL DENIED FOR MAN ACCUSED OF SMUGGLING

A man suspected of smuggling 550 pounds of cocaine across the Mexican
border in a twin-engine Cessna 320 was denied bail Thursday when he
appeared in federal court in Los Angeles.

"The government requested that Daniel Wesley Allen be detained and that was
granted," said Jeff Alabaso, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office. A
preliminary hearing for Allen was set for Aug. 27 with an arraignment Aug.
31, Alabaso said.

Allen was arrested Wednesday morning after authorities tracked his plane as
it approached the California-Mexico border with its transponder off, said
Customs spokesman Mike Fleming. The plane eventually landed at the Santa
Paula airport, Fleming said. Authorities met Allen there and found 14
duffel bags loaded with 550 pounds of cocaine and three loaded handguns on
the plane.

Customs officials said Allen is a U.S. citizen, but his age and hometown
were not immediately available.

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

Alaska Will Vote In '98 (Dave Fratello Of Americans For Medical Rights
Confirms AMR Collected Enough Signatures For Its Alaskan
Medical Marijuana Initiative)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 01:26:05 GMT
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: Dave Fratello (amr@lainet.com)
Subject: Alaska will vote in '98
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

On Sat, 08 Aug 1998 08:30:05 -0400, Paul Wolf (paulwolf@icdc.com) wrote:

>In Alaska, Charles Rollins blocked the AMR bill in court and I don't think
>that one will be on the ballot either.

On August 10, Superior Court Judge Niesje J. Steinkruger (Fourth District
of Alaska) issued an order denying Charles Rollins' motion for a
preliminary injunction to block the Alaskans for Medical Rights initiative
from the November 1998 ballot.

Because the measure has already been certified for the ballot, and this
legal maneuver was unsuccessful, the initiative will come before voters as
expected November 3 this year.

- Dave Fratello
Americans for Medical Rights

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

The DARE Debate - Austin Police Kick Drug Prevention Program
('The Austin Chronicle' Notes The City Of Austin, Texas, Has Become
The Latest In A Series Of Large Cities - Including Seattle, Washington,
And Oakland, California - To Ditch The Government's Favorite Drug
Education Program, Administered Across The United States At A Cost
Of About $750 Million Annually, Despite Its Proven Ineffectiveness)

From: BulldogUSA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 16:16:24 EDT
To: dpfca@drugsense.org
Subject: DPFCA: Fwd: Austin Chron: The DARE Debate -
Austin Police Kick Drug
Sender: owner-dpfca@drugsense.org
Reply-To: dpfca@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/
Newshawk: Art Smart (ArtSmart@neosoft.com)
Pubdate: Fri, 14 Aug 1998
Source: Austin Chronicle, pages 28-29
Contact: mail@auschron.com
http://www.auschron.com/current/pols.dare.html

Austin Police Kick Drug Prevention Program

The DARE Debate

by Erica C. Barnett

DARE, the world's most popular drug prevention program, just
lost another customer. The city of Austin is the latest in a
series of large cities -- including Seattle, Washington, and
Oakland, California -- to ditch the high-dollar program,
which costs about $750 million annually to administer across
the United States. Although DARE's bumper stickers, t-
shirts, and gimme caps (dubbed "DARE-aphernalia" by
detractors) will long remain ubiquitous in Austin, the
police department will eliminate its program starting this
school year -- a victim, depending on who you talk to, of
resource problems, or its own ineffectiveness.

From a manpower perspective, growing numbers of vacancies in
the Austin Police Department ranks led to a reassessment of
the program, to which the city allocated $500,000 in 1997.
Austin has not received federal funding for the program in
the last two years.

"Obviously, [DARE] takes officers off the streets," says
Assistant Police Chief Bruce Mills. "We don't mind [putting
officers in schools] when we can afford to ... but given the
number of vacancies, we can't find the officers." In
addition, Mills says, the nationally standardized curriculum
is too rigid, requiring officers to stick to a single,
invariant script. "DARE has very limited curriculum
requirements," he says. "We are looking for something you
can specialize for a certain district or a certain class."
At the same time, Mills says, his department is aware of
nagging concerns about DARE's effectiveness. "If you ask,
`Is there a better way to impart knowledge about drugs?' the
answer is, `We don't know.' ... The feeling is that [DARE]
is not the panacea for drug education."

DARE's defenders say that critics are too quick to point
fingers at the program for failing to prevent teen drug use.
Instead, they say, detractors should look to the world
outside the classroom, where popular culture, advertising,
and increasing drug availability make a utopian world
without gangs or drugs impossible. "DARE is just a piece of
the puzzle," says six-year DARE veteran Mike Alexander, an
A.P.D. sergeant. "It works only for a moment. If the kids go
out and there is nothing to combat everything they hear,
they lose it."

Daryl Gates' Brainchild

Started in 1983 by the Los Angeles Police Department as a
pet project of former police chief Daryl Gates, DARE has
since spread like kudzu across the United States. The
program's 17-week core curriculum, whose lessons have titles
such as "Building Self-Esteem" and "Learning Assertiveness,"
is firmly entrenched in some 75% of school districts
nationwide, and 44 foreign countries have versions of DARE
in place. Although several cities have dropped the program,
others have rushed in as if to fill a vacuum, with New York
City the most widely publicized new addition. The program,
in which trained officers take over the classroom once a
week to teach fifth and sixth graders how to resist drugs
and violence, has proved virtually resistant to criticism,
at least on a national scale. Since 1988, one day per year
has been set aside by presidential decree as "National DARE
Day," an event at which public servants typically herald
DARE's overwhelming success in hurtling itself into school
districts and public consciousness.

But the obvious question -- does DARE work? -- is seldom if
ever whispered in the halls of power where budgets are made
and presidential orders decreed. Several studies --
including one commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice
and later discarded as "methodologically unsound" -- have
indicated that it does not. The most often-cited study, a
statistical analysis of all known DARE research conducted by
North Carolina's Research Triangle Institute in 1994,
concluded that "DARE's limited influence on adolescent drug
use behavior contrasts with the program's popularity and
prevalence."

Closer to home, an Austin municipal audit the same year
concluded that DARE had no effect in preventing drug-related
crimes by juvenile offenders. Meanwhile, juvenile drug use
has continued to rise, with 25% of high school students
reporting monthly use of illegal drugs in 1996-1997 -- up 2%
from the previous year. With 75% of all American children
receiving some form of DARE in their education diet, it
appears that school districts and police departments are
spending more and getting less than ever.

Although DARE literature asserts that the program "supplies
the young students with the skills necessary to resist" such
cultural pressures, its defenders says that no 17-week
program will prevent drug use three or five years down the
line.

But if that's the case, why not start DARE, say, in junior
high, when kids are at their most impressionable? Charlie
Parsons, director of DARE America, which distributes DARE
curriculum, workbooks, and those omnipresent bumper
stickers, says that the program "was designed to try to get
to children before they had experimented. The easiest way to
quit is never to start."

David Williams, state coordinator with the Texas DARE
Institute in San Marcos, which administers the DARE program
statewide, adds that school districts themselves may be to
blame. DARE's full 13-year program, which focuses on fifth
or sixth grade but puts cops in classrooms from kindergarten
on, must be implemented in its entirety to be effective, he
says. "Reinforcement is what makes all programs effective,"
he says. "When DARE is put in place properly and implemented
and reinforced properly, it is effective."

Few studies exist to back up Williams' claim, in large part
because few school districts have adopted DARE's longer,
more costly, program. But short-term studies, which
typically examine behavior patterns of DARE "graduates"
three to seven years after they complete the program,
indicate that the number of these students who go on to
experiment with drugs is comparable to the number of non-
DARE students who do so.

Poor Success Rate

David Springer, a researcher with the University of Texas'
School of Social Work who has published several papers on
drug treatment strategies, says that DARE's phenomenal
popularity belies its less-than-inspiring success rate. If
the goal of school districts is keeping kids off drugs, he
says, "Why would you spend that much money on a program
that's about as effective as the flip of a coin? The only
reason it hasn't been cut despite the research is because,
politically, it's very popular."

Indeed, DARE's greatest success appears to be as a public
relations campaign. On a national level, DARE gives
politicians an easy way to demonstrate that they are serious
about getting tough on drugs; locally, police departments
see DARE as visible community outreach, a tangible sign that
they are not just policing the community, but helping to
improve it. Additionally, DARE makes officers more
accessible and less intimidating to children who may be at
risk for drug use or gang influence, says Assistant A.P.D.
Chief Mills. "There's great interaction between the officers
and students," he says. "It's an excellent example of
officers forming relationships with kids."

As trusted confidantes, however, DARE officers must operate
in two conflicting worlds. As teachers, they must serve as
approachable role models to whom students can confide about
drug- and gang-related problems; but as police officers,
they can never forget that their foremost duty is to enforce
the law. The result of these conflicting aims, critics say,
is a confusing and unrealistic "no-use" policy which, a
Department of Justice study has found, students
overwhelmingly reject.

"Zero tolerance is one of the worst campaigns we've tried to
pull off in the war on drugs," says UT's Springer. "As a
nation, maybe we need to move toward a harm-reduction
approach ... because kids are going to continue to
experiment." But DARE, whose curriculum has been widely
criticized for blurring distinctions between "hard" and
"soft" drugs and exaggerating the effects of marijuana and
alcohol, recognizes no such possibility. Its curriculum
equates drug use with drug abuse in the second lesson,
telling students flatly that "no use of any substance is
acceptable."

Although the jury is out on whether such tactics make
students less likely to confide in police, many teachers
feel that the job of educating kids ought to fall to parents
and educators, not armed law enforcement officials. Lance
Miles, a former fifth-grade teacher whose students took DARE
classes weekly, says that although the DARE officers he
dealt with genuinely tried to relate to the kids in his
classes, they varied widely in their teaching ability. While
the officers did bring up issues -- such as alcoholism and
family drug abuse -- which are not addressed by the
district's health book, Miles wonders if any program can
substitute for positive parental influence. "A lot of
parents aren't doing their jobs, and we're left to do that
job [at school], telling them things they ought to be taught
about at home. ... There's only so much" that teachers and
police officers can do before parents must take over, Miles
says.

But don't expect AISD [Austin Independent School District]
to hand drug education over to parents any time soon.
Currently, according to district spokeswoman Nicole Wright,
the district is considering a number of alternative
programs, including a five-week pilot called "Project Yes,"
targeted at fourth- and sixth-grade classes. In the
meantime, school counselors and health classes are filling
in the gaps in AISD's drug education program.

With Austin kicking the DARE habit, will other area school
districts follow suit? Unlikely, say both DARE
representatives and officials with the Travis County
Sheriff's Department, which administers DARE to districts
outside Austin's city limits. Sgt. Wayne Singleton, of the
department's Community Services division, says he sees no
reason to abandon the program, which has received a "pretty
positive" response from the community. DARE leader Parsons
characterizes the situation in Austin as "man bites dog," an
aberration in a nation moving closer, if anything, toward
universal adoption of DARE. But with drug use on the rise
across America, and DARE under increasing scrutiny by school
districts looking for more than an expensive PR campaign,
it's almost certain that more districts will take a long
look at DARE and choose to "just say no."

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

Death Payoff Won't Fix Border Control Policy ('Dallas Morning News' Columnist
Richard Estrada Says The United States' Agreement To Pay $1.9 Million
To The Survivors Of Esequiel Hernández Jr., The 18-Year-Old Shot To Death
On His Family's Ranch By US Marines Patrolling The Texas-Mexico Border,
Won't Camouflage A Border Control Policy That Continues To Drift)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:22:17 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US TX: OPED: Death Payoff Won't Fix Border Control Policy
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: adbryan@onramp.net
Source: Dallas Morning News
Contact: letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com
Website: http://www.dallasnews.com/
Pubdate: Fri, 14 Aug 1998
Author: Richard Estrada (restrada@dallasnews.com) The Dallas Morning News

DEATH PAYOFF WON'T FIX BORDER CONTROL POLICY

Nearly $2 million is a lot of money, but it won't bring back Esequiel
Hernandez Jr. And neither will it camouflage a border control policy that
continues to drift, as the federal government implements one stopgap
measure after another in the fight against drug smuggling and illegal
immigration.

According to attorneys for the family of the deceased, the United States
has agreed to pay the hefty sum of $1.9 million to the survivors of young
Mr. Hernández. He was the 18-year-old American of Mexican descent who was
shot to death by U.S. Marines patrolling the Texas-Mexico border nearly two
years ago.

No evidence has been uncovered that Mr. Hernández, who was armed with a
small-caliber rifle at the time of his death, knew he had fired on the
Marines. Many people believe he was hunting or target practicing -
"plinking" being the term of art.

In the aftermath of the young man's death, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio,
one of Congress' most ardent advocates for greater border control, has been
in the vanguard of those calling for more answers in the tragedy. His
spokesman, Alan Kay, says the congressman is committed to providing the
American people with a full public accounting of the incident.

Under the Military Claims Act, the military components of the federal
government are authorized to settle claims related to U.S. military
activities without a showing of fault by military personnel. Such claims
can be settled only if the injured parties weren't themselves to blame.

But just try to uncover the fine points of the deal. The Immigration and
Naturalization Service, which oversees the Border Patrol, says it isn't
handling media inquiries into the case. A spokesman at the Justice
Department proceeded to inform me that the department is indeed handling
media questions but that it is barred by law from discussing the specifics
of the settlement.

Fine. While the settlement itself is an interesting issue, a lack of
discussion surrounding the greater issue of cross-border illegality hardly
serves to prevent the instability that can lead to similar tragedies.

To think that a teenage goatherd, working on his parents' property, could
be shot to death by Marines on an official mission is incomprehensible to
most people - even if the Marines involved in the death have been absolved
of wrongdoing. (Within the past week, a grand jury on the Texas-Mexico
border refused to indict one of the Marines for the murder - the second
refusal to indict in the case.)

Yet, as a wave of drug-related violence continues to plague both sides of
the border, a failure to implement a more coherent, thoughtful and
consistent strategy may be contributing to the problem. Only belatedly, in
the aftermath of the Hernández shooting, did the government suspend
operations entailing military cooperation with the Border Patrol.

The decision was a de facto admission that the military has no business in
that line of work. Military personnel are trained to do a different job
than the Border Patrol. Troops engage the enemy in combat; the Border
Patrol enforces the law.

And yet the irony is that the government's inability to confront extensive
violations of our territorial sovereignty at the border has resulted in the
House passing a provision in June authored by Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio,
that authorizes the deployment of up to 10,000 troops on the border. The
Senate has yet to take up the measure.

In truth, the Clinton administration has begun to beef up the border with
traditional guards. A recent proposal by drug czar Barry McCaffrey to
establish a border czar responsible for coordinating federal law
enforcement initiatives along the border also holds promise. But will there
be follow-through in terms of the sufficient and efficient deployment of
resources? Not if a record of showing indifference or going for quick fixes
is any guide.

As justifiable as the Hernández settlement was, what kind of compensation
does the government have in mind for a nation that is placed at risk by a
border control policy that flies this way and that?

Whatever young Mr. Hernandez may have been shooting at on the day of his
tragic death, it is worth identifying the major shortcoming of those in
charge of America's border control policies: They continue to take shots in
the dark.

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

Pine Ridge Eyeing Hemp As Cash Crop (A Lengthier 'Associated Press' Version
In South Dakota's 'Rapid City Journal')

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:57:43 -0400
To: MAP News (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US SD: Pine Ridge Eyeing Hemp As Cash Crop
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Joe Hickey (agfuture@kih.net)
Pubdate: August 14, 1998
Source: The Rapid City Journal (SD)
Mail: 507 Main Street, Rapid City, SD 57701
Fax: (605) 394-8462
Author: Associated Press Writer Angela K. Brown

PINE RIDGE EYEING HEMP AS CASH CROP

Some Reservation Officials Are Eager To Produce Commercial Products From
Plant Related To Marijuana.

PINE RIDGE - Some members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe are moving forward with
plans to cultivate hemp, even if they have to take the Drug Enforcement
Administration to federal court.

Hemp has grown in the wild for decades on the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation, despite the DEA's repeated attempts - spraying and dousing
with chemicals, setting fields on fire - to wipe it out. Growing hemp,
which is a cousin to marijuana, is illegal.

The Land-Use Association, a group of tribal members in the small
reservation town of Slim Bittes, wants to turn the tall hemp stalks into
paper, mats, construction blocks for housing and other products. The group
says the money-making venture would create jobs and homes in the
impoverished area.

Milo Yellow Hair, the tribe's vice president, said the reservation has
struggled with the issue for at least two years and finally decided to
proceed with the hemp project after other economic development initiatives
failed.

"Now we are left to tackle the so-called gray area initiatives," he said.
"When they hear the word hemp, they think marijuana. Then they think drug
use, and then they think police state. But that's not what we want to do."

Hemp and marijuana are both varieties of the cannabis sativa plant, but
hemp typically contains less than 1 percent of the narcotic chemical THC.
Marijuana plants contain 10 percent to 20 percent THC, which makes pot
smokers high.

Two weeks ago, the Oglala Sioux Tribal Council changed a tribal law to
allow for making products out of hemp. The revised code says a plant with
less than 1 percent of THC is considered industrial hemp and is legal.

But according to federal law, growing hemp - no matter how low its THC
content - is the same as growing marijuana. And the same criminal penalties
apply to people growing either plant.

Anyone who wants to grow hemp plants legally for industrial use must get
permission from the DEA, said Karen Schreier, U.S. attorney for South
Dakota. "The same rules apply on and off the reservation," she said.

Yellow Hair said the tribe will apply for a DEA certificate of registration
to grow the hemp, but the process is not that easy.

Schreier said she does not think the DEA has ever approved an application
to grow hemp plants. Larry Johnson, resident agent-in-charge of the DEA
office in Sioux Falls, said the tribe's chances are not good.

"I seriously doubt that they will be able to meet the requirements," he said.

Tom Cook, who is in charge of the Land-Use Association's hemp project, said
asking the DEA for permission would be a "useless endeavor." For now, the
tribal group plans to proceed without breaking the law.

He said members can do that by touching only the hemp stalks, which do not
contain THC, and by avoiding the leaves and seeds, which do contain the
chemical. The stalks are the parts needed to make paper and other products.

Although federal law considers that action illegal, the land-use group is
following the recently revised tribal law, Cook said. The only way to
resolve the dispute between the federal and tribal laws is going to court,
he said.

"At some point the tribe will be before a federal judge filing and
injunction against the DEA," he said. The question is whether the tribe has
sovereignty over its own land."

Cook said the 1868 treaty between the tribe and federal government allows
the reservation to grow food and clothing for its members. Growing hemp is
"an expressed intention" of that agreement, he said.

Yellow Hair said most reservation residents oppose illegal drugs and were
hesitant when they first heard about the issue. But they now understand the
differences between marijuana and hemp and have an open mind about the
project, he said.

"It's a tough cookie to crack, no matter how you look at it," he said.

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

Hemp - Hope For The Future (Another Version In The Rapid City,
South Dakota 'Indian Country Today')

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 11:01:53 -0400
To: MAP News (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US SD: Hemp - Hope For The Future
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Joe Hickey (agfuture@kih.net)
Pubdate: August 14, 1998
Source: Indian Country Today
Mail: 1920 Lombardy Drive, Rapid City, SD 57701
Fax: (605) 341-6940
Author: Karen L. Testerman, Today staff writer

HEMP - HOPE FOR THE FUTURE

Sign Of Sovereignty
OST Council Adopts Hemp Ordinance

PINE RIDGE INDIAN RESERVATION, S. D. - The Oglala Sioux Tribe enacted
historic legislation on industrial non-narcotic hemp despite the Drug
Enforcement Administration's warning that cultivating it would violate
federal law.

In a move toward self-determination and economic development, the Oglala
Sioux Tribal Council passed an ordinance amending the tribe's penal code
relating to industrial hemp and marijuana on July 28, redefining the legal
distinction between the plants. This move may provide the tribe and its
members the opportunity to use industrial hemp as a viable and profitable
crop. The Drug Enforcement Administration said it will prosecute anyone
cultivating hemp in South Dakota without a valid DEA Certificate of
Registration.

Industrial hemp and marijuana are amongst a large variety of the Cannabis
sativa plant, which have varying amounts of the narcotic chemical
tetrahydrocannabinol or THC.

The DEA contends that any cultivation of hemp falls into the category of
marijuana cultivation, a schedule 1 controlled substance considered illegal.

The tribal council's amendment classifies the difference between illegal
"marijuana" as having one percent or more concentration of THC by weight.
The DEA' definition of marijuana doesn't provide exemptions for low or no
THC plants.

At the request of Oglala Sioux Tribal President John Yellowbird Steele,
U.S. Attorney Karen E. Schreier inquired about the official legal position
of the DEA whether the cultivation of hemp on American Indian tribal lands
is a violation of federal law.

DEA Acting Associate Chief Counsel Mary Kate Whaelen wrote that the
Controlled Substances Act is applicable to activities conducted on American
Indian land. "The manufacture of hemp constitutes the manufacture of
marijuana, which can only be done legally if the idividuals who wish to
cultivate marijuana for industrial use obtain a DEA Certificate of
Registration."

OST Vice President Milo Yellow Hair said the vote reflects the interest the
council has in supporting self-determination and the quest for jobs and
industry on the reservation.

In response to the DEA's letter, Mr. Yellow Hair said, "The U.S. government
confiscated the Black Hills because 'they needed it' for their economic
expansion. It is really no different in this case. The language is the
same. The reasoning is the same."

Spokesman for the Ordinance, Joe American Horse, told the council
"Sovereignty over our own land and scientific language regarding the hemp
plant are the issues involved."

Land-Use Association Attorney Thomas J. Ballanco, a West Point graduate
said,"Asking the DEA for advice about industrial hemp is like asking Donald
Trump for advice about Indian gaming issues."

For the last two years, the Land-Use Association, based in Slim Buttes,
S.D., have spearheaded the hemp project by sponsoring and promoting the
recognition of industrial hemp as an economical advancement for the tribe
and its members.

Mr. American Horse, Oglala Lakota, said the vote to adopt the amendment
sets the stage for land-based economic development on the reservation, but
may also involve a legal challenge by the tribe in federal court.

The tribal council reinforced its position that treaties signed between the
Oglala Sioux Tribe and the United States government acknowledge that
the tribe retains the right to grow food and fiber crops.

In addition, the tribal council cited a paragraph of the Ordinance that
international treaties and trade agreements including the 1961 Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade specifically classify industrial
hemp as a commodity that is separate and distinct from any narcotic.

Ironically, industrial hemp is already growing wild on the Pine Ridge
Reservation.

"The mere fact that hemp is growing wild is an inescapable reminder that
industrial hemp was once a cornerstone of agriculture in America," Mr.
Ballanco said.

Supporters of industrial hemp cited a study by the Vermont state
legislature that revealed in 1997 more than 99 percent of the "marijuana"
located and destroyed by the DEA, at the cost of approximately $500
million, is actually industrial hemp that has extremely low levels of THC
(the active ingredient in marijuana) and no psychoactive potential.

LUA Project Director Tom Cook, Mohawk, said now the Ordinance is in place,
the association and the tribe will move foward within the legal realms of
the law.

"We're concerned to proceed in a civil matter rather than a criminal
matter." Mr. Cook said. "Our interests are to preserve the natural resource
that is growing right now on the reservation," Mr. Cook said.

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

Urine Test Traps 'Pregnant' Male Thief ('The Toronto Star'
Notes An Ohio Man Whose Second Urine Test Came Up Positive
For Cocaine, After His First Test Was Disallowed, Was Sentenced
To One Year In Prison, Even Though He Was Eligible To Receive
Only Probation For His Original Charge Of Theft)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:03:01 -0400
To: mattalk@islandnet.com
From: Dave Haans (haans@chass.utoronto.ca)
Subject: TorStar: Urine test traps 'pregnant' male thief
Newshawk: Dave Haans
Source: The Toronto Star (Canada)
Pubdate: Friday, August 14, 1998
Page: A2
Website: http://www.thestar.com
Contact: lettertoed@thestar.com

Urine test traps 'pregnant' male thief

PAINSVILLE, Ohio (AP) -- John Issa's court-ordered urine test came back
positive. For pregnancy.

About the only thing he's expecting now is a year in prison.

"It was obviously not his urine," prosecutor Werner Barthol said.

Issa, 20, had to submit a urine sample before being sentenced for stealing
Christmas gifts off doorsteps. But, the urine seemed cold. Then the test
showed the donor was pregnant.

Issa was ordered to produce a second sample, which was positive for cocaine.

Investigators aren't certain whose urine Issa first gave them, but his
wife, who accompanied him to the testing, is pregnant.

Although Issa was eligible to receive only probation for the thefts, he got
a year behind bars Wednesday.

"I'm sure the judge took the tests into consideration," Barthol said.

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

Sheriffs May Sue Over Jail Crowding
(According To 'The The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,' Georgia Sheriffs
Say They Will Sue The State If The Next Legislature And Governor
Do Not Take Action To Ease The Pressure On Crowded Prisons)

From: "Bob Owen @ WHEN, Olympia" (when@olywa.net)
To: "-News" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: GA Sheriffs may sue over jail crowding
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 19:47:49 -0700
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net

August 14, 1998
By Rhonda Cook, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Sheriffs may sue over jail crowding

Concerned that they are not being taken seriously, Georgia sheriffs say they
will sue the state if the next Legislature and governor do not take action
to ease the pressure of a crowded prison system.

Early County Sheriff Jimmie Murkerson, past president of the Georgia
Sheriffs' Association, said county government officials had written about
their fears to gubernatorial candidates.

"We're going to have to give our new governor a chance and see what he's
going to do about this problem," Murkerson said. "But if the new leadership
fails to act on this problem, we will have to (bring) . . . a class-action
lawsuit. It's a state problem, not just a local problem."

It was such a threat from the sheriffs 10 years ago that forced the 1989
Legislature to raise the sales tax to fund construction of 9,400 beds. The
last of those new prisons opened four years ago. The state has since made
only incremental increases at various prisons to provide room for 38,000
convicts. With three medium-security private prisons opening in southern
Georgia, the state will be able to incarcerate 42,100 inmates by spring.

Still, the prisons are at capacity now, and candidates for statewide races
have called for longer prison sentences and the abolition of parole. The
state Board of Pardons and Paroles has warned that the prison and jail
crowding will get worse even if parole is not abolished. The board said last
month Georgia must build 14,000 prison beds within five years or the county
and state systems will be crushed.

Space in county jails has tripled to more than 27,000 beds and there are 35
ongoing jail construction projects, but state prisoners continue to take up
more and more space as they await space in the state system.

"Somebody's got to manage the bed space," said Jerry Griffin, executive
director of the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia.

Department of Corrections Commissioner Wayne Garner dismisses dire
predictions as politically motivated by board members trying to protect
their jobs. Garner says state prisons are not crowded, but his own agency's
records contradict him.

An analysis presented to sheriffs meeting on Wednesday showed most county
jails would need to double in size to accommodate the additional state
inmates for whom there would have been no room in a state prison if the
parole had been abolished in 1994. Instead of 28,000 inmates in county jails
today, there would be more than 46,000.

Rural jails such as the Baker County Jail in southwest Georgia would have a
hard time. The jail designed for four prisoners would have 30 inmates. The
Telfair County jail in southeast Georgia is designed to hold 28 inmates but
would be faced with housing 111--99 sentenced to prison--if parole had been
abolished in 1994.

Clayton County now has 1,175 prisoners crammed into space designed to hold
760, so it already is planning to build a new jail. But if parole had been
abolished, that jail would have 2,171 prisoners--1131 bound for a state
prison.

The hypothetical, said consultanting firm attorney Randall Duncan, "goes to
show the impact at the local level. Parole abolition becomes like an
iceberg. . . . The tip of the iceberg is not considered that threatening,
but there's more to this. If I were a county commission, I'd want somebody
up in that crow's nest, looking for those icebergs."

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

CDC - One In Five Teen-Agers Carries A Weapon Or Drives After Drinking
('The Associated Press' Says A New Survey Of 16,262 High School Students
Nationwide, Released Thursday By The Centers For Disease Control
And Prevention, Suggests One In Three Teen-Agers Gets Into Fights,
Almost One In Every Five Carries A Weapon Or Drives After Drinking,
And Almost One In 10 Attempts Suicide - Black And Hispanic
High School Students Are More Likely Than Their White Counterparts
To Be A Threat To Others By Carrying Weapons Or Fighting, But Whites
Are More Likely To Hurt Themselves By Driving After Drinking Alcohol
And White Teen-Agers Were Nearly Twice As Likely As Hispanics To Smoke
Frequently Or Chew Tobacco)

From: "W.H.E.N. - Bob Owen - Olympia" (when@olywa.net)
To: "-News" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: 20% of teens carries weapon or drinks & drives
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:20:46 -0700
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net

CDC: One in five teen-agers carries a weapon or drives after drinking

By Karen Hill, Associated Press, 08/14/98 03:34

ATLANTA (AP) - Black and Hispanic high school students are more likely than
their white counterparts to be a threat to others by carrying weapons or
fighting, while whites are more likely to hurt themselves by driving after
drinking alcohol, a government study found.

The similarities among teen-agers were equally stark: About one in three are
involved in fights. Almost one of every five carries a weapon or drives
after drinking. Almost one in 10 attempts suicide.

The findings, based on a survey of 16,262 high school students nationwide,
were released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

``The lesson here is that too many youth continue to practice behaviors that
put them at risk - for injury or death now and chronic disease later,'' said
Laura Kann, a chief researcher for the CDC's National Center for Chronic
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

The 1997 survey looked at behavior leading to injury, and surveyed
teen-agers' use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs, and their sexual and physical
activity.

Hispanic high school students were most likely to arm themselves, with 23
percent carrying a gun, knife or club, compared with 22 percent of blacks
and 17 percent of whites.

Blacks were most likely to have fought in the previous year, at 43 percent
vs. 41 percent for Hispanics and 34 percent for whites.

Whites were most likely to have drunk five or more glasses of alcohol on at
least one of the 30 days before the survey: 38 percent of whites said they
had, compared with 35 percent of Hispanics and 16 percent of blacks.

Blacks were least likely to mix alcohol and driving. Nine percent drove
after drinking, compared with 19 percent of whites and 18 percent of
Hispanics.

The differences could be ``a marker for socioeconomic status'' and urban
living, Ms. Kann said.

White teen-agers were nearly twice as likely as Hispanics to smoke
frequently or chew tobacco, with 20 percent of whites saying they smoked
frequently, compared with 11 percent of Hispanics. Among blacks, 7 percent
smoked frequently and 2 percent chewed tobacco.

Six percent of Hispanics had used cocaine in the 30 days before the survey,
double the number of whites and nine times the number of blacks. Hispanics
also were more likely to have used steroids or injected drugs.

Nineteen percent of whites and 18 percent of Hispanics had tried other
illegal drugs such as LSD, PCP, Ecstasy, mushrooms, speed, methamphetamines
or heroin. Only 3 percent of blacks had.

Asked whether they ate the minimum five daily servings of fruits and
vegetables recommended for good health, only 29 percent of whites and 28
percent of Hispanics and blacks said they did.

Teen-agers at 151 schools filled out confidential questionnaires for the
survey. The margin of error, which differed for each question, was as high
as 4 percentage points.

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

Many Teens Live On The Edge, Study Finds ('The Chicago Tribune' Version)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:33:00 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US: Many Teens Live On The Edge, Study Finds
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Steve Young 
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: tribletter@aol.com
Website: http://www.chicago.tribune.com/
Pubdate: 14 Aug 1998
Author: From Tribune Wire Services
Section: Sec. 1, p. 8

MANY TEENS LIVE ON THE EDGE, STUDY FINDS

ATLANTA, GEORGIA -- White high school students are more likely than blacks
and Hispanics to hurt themselves with tobacco or drugs, while blacks and
Hispanics are more likely to be a threat to others by carrying weapons or
fighting, a government study has found.

The 1997 study, results of which were released Thursday by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, also found that roughly one in five
teenagers carries a weapon or drives after drinking and one in 10 has
attempted suicide.

"The lesson here is that too many youth continue to practice behaviors that
put them at risk--for injury or death now and chronic disease later," said
Laura Kann, a chief researcher for the National Center for Chronic Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion.

The survey of 16,262 teenagers looked at behavior leading to injury and
surveyed their use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs; their sexual activity;
and their physical activity.

Teens at 151 schools nationwide filled out confidential questionnaires.

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

Congress, Your Hypocrisy Is Showing - Plan To Drug-Test Politicians Is Killed
(A News Release On The Same Issue From The Libertarian Party Headquarters
In Washington, DC)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 98 07:30:33 PDT
From: announce@lp.org
Subject: Release: drug testing
Sender: announce-request@lp.org
Reply-To: announce@lp.org
To: announce@lp.org (Libertarian Party announcements)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037

For release: August 14, 1998

For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: 76214.3676@Compuserve.com

***

Congress, your hypocrisy is showing:
Plan to drug-test politicians is killed

WASHINGTON, DC -- If federally mandated drug testing is such a
good idea for high school students, public-housing residents, and bus
drivers, why isn't it good enough for Congressmen?

That's what Libertarians are asking after the Republican House
leadership quietly torpedoed an effort to mandate drug testing for
every member of Congress.

"These Congressmen must be getting high on hypocrisy," said
Libertarian Party National Director Ron Crickenberger. "Why else would
they wage a War on Drugs on the rest of us, but declare a drug-testing
truce in the halls of Congress?"

Last week, Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) said the House was
too "busy, busy, busy" to consider a proposal that would have required
all 435 House members and their staffs to take random tests for illegal
drug use.

Armey and other Republican leaders discreetly declined to set a
date for a vote on the motion, effectively killing it for the year.

The decision to quash the drug-testing plan has Libertarians
unsure whether to applaud Congressmen for their wisdom or jeer them for
their hypocrisy, admitted Crickenberger. For example...

* One of the reasons Congress was too "busy, busy, busy" to
debate the drug-testing proposal was because it was "busy, busy, busy"
passing new legislation to ratchet up the Drug War.

"So far this term, Congress passed a $17 billion drug war
budget; approved stationing U.S. troops on our borders to fight drug
smuggling; killed a bill that would have curbed asset forfeiture
abuses; and voted to spend $2 billion for a five-year anti-drug
advertising campaign," said Crickenberger. "In addition, Republican
leaders vowed to launch a World War II-style blitzkrieg to wipe out
drug abuse. Does this seem just a little hypocritical?"

* Even more ironic: News reports indicated that many lawmakers
had quietly opposed the measure because drug testing was "unnecessary
and insulting" and "undignified."

"To those Congressmen, we say: Welcome to the Drug War," said
Crickenberger. "Too bad 270 million other Americans will continue to
endure those same unnecessary, insulting, and undignified violations of
their Constitutional rights. Why is there one set of standards for
politicians who make the laws, and another for ordinary Americans who
suffer under them?"

* Despite the draconian punishments that Congress has mandated
for drug offenses, the proposed drug-testing measure would have merely
required that any House member who tested positive be reported to the
Ethics Committee.

"If Congressmen want to play Drug Warriors, shouldn't all the
rules of the game apply to them?" asked Crickenberger. "If they tested
positive for illegal drugs, shouldn't they be immediately arrested? Be
subjected to mandatory-minimum jail terms? Face a death sentence if
they are declared Drug Kingpins? Have their assets seized? If these
harsh punishments are really needed to fight drugs, isn't it only fair
that they apply to Congressmen, too?"

* Finally, proponents of the drug-testing plan had argued that
the House needs to "set a good example" for the nation, since so many
Americans -- including air-traffic controllers, high school athletes,
public-housing residents, and bus drivers -- are subject to
government-required drug testing.

"Actually, the House set a good example by rejecting this
plan," countered Crickenberger. "Now maybe it will set an even better
example by protecting every other American from the horrors of the War
on Drugs. After all, Congressmen finally summoned the courage to stand
up for their own Constitutional rights. When will they start standing
up for ours?"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBNdRIW9CSe1KnQG7RAQFWIQQAv00NP6ZZuaWTGhApu7UckfcHqmLOpFU2
fPKHL7Y8A4w+0W1cj792MrMfQcbqg7xAtK7RjWWPiU+BWhbl3pDdBy1pAeMuUvPZ
DxmskR7nvixgwjDYsNsOFNXuJapQmwx84tBnxz4vI5zoHa3ixhz8grAPWATWzgxI
MO0C0SRNAQk=
=xGLO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

The Libertarian Party
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
http://www.lp.org/
voice: 202-333-0008
fax: 202-333-0072

For subscription changes, please mail to  with the
word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line -- or use the WWW form.

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

Court Reverses Landmark Tobacco Ruling ('Reuters' Says A Three-Judge Panel
Of The US Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals, With One Judge Dissenting,
Ruled In Richmond, Virginia, Friday That Congress Did Not Give
The US Food And Drug Administration Regulatory Jurisdiction
Over Tobacco Products)

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 19:28:12 -0400
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US: Wire: Court Reverses Landmark Tobacco Ruling
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn)
Source: Reuters
Pubdate: 14 Aug 1998

COURT REVERSES LANDMARK TOBACCO RULING

RICHMOND, Va. (Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that
Congress did not give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulatory
jurisdiction over tobacco products, reversing a landmark lower court decision.

``We are thus of the opinion that Congress did not intend to delegate
jurisdiction over tobacco products to the FDA. Accordingly, the decision of
the district court is reversed,'' the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
said. A three-judge panel of the appeals court, with one judge dissenting,
said the case was not about regulating youth smoking and the health effects
of smoking, but instead centered on ``who has the power to make this type
of major policy decision.''

``The FDA has exceeded the authority granted to it by Congress, and its
rule-making action cannot stand,'' the judges said.

The appeals court, which sits here, reversed a controversial ruling by a
North Carolina judge that the FDA had authority to regulate nicotine as a
drug and tobacco products as drug-delivery devices, but had no authority to
restrict tobacco advertising.

In August 1996 the FDA issued sweeping regulations restricting the sale and
distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to minors and limiting the
advertising and promotion of tobacco products.

Copyright 1998 Reuters Limited.

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

Go Beyond The Surface Of Drug Debate (A Letter To The Editor
Of 'The Weekend Edition' In Victoria, British Columbia,
Critiques The Reasoning Of Government Officials
Opposed To Instituting Heroin Maintenance Programs)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:37:42 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: Canada: PUB LTE: Go Beyond The Surface Of Drug Debate
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Alan Randell
Source: Weekend Edition (Victoria, B.C., Canada)
Contact: vicnews@pinc.com
Pubdate: August 14, 1998

GO BEYOND THE SURFACE OF DRUG DEBATE

It's so frustrating to read a story that allows the bureaucrat or
politician a platform to spread his or her ignorance and to avoid the
important issues.

To show you what gives rise to my frustration, let's take Bev Wakes' July
31 Weekend Edition article, "Government wary of changing heroin treatment"
and insert the questions I think should have been asked in response to the
various uninformed, if not fatuous, statements about drugs that she
elucidated from various bureaucrats and politicians she interviewed.

Uninformed statement # 1.

Ministry of Health spokesperson Jeff Gaulin, "We do not support it
(prescribing heroin). Harm reduction is the way to do, not heroin
prescription."

Suggested response.

But isn't prescribing heroin usually regarded as part of a harm reduction
approach? In his 1994 narcotic overdose death report, didn't BC Chief's
Coroner suggest that heroin be supplied to users?

Uninformed statement # 2.

Again, Jeff Gaulin. "(The number of methadone users) would have to double
before the Ministry of Health would even consider allowing doctors to
prescribe heroin."

Suggested response.

Why would a large increase in the number of people enrolled in the
methadone program mean that a heroin program should be initiated. Surely
the more successful the methadone program is, the LESS we need a heroin
program.

Uninformed statement # 3.

One more from Jeff Gaulin, "Methadone is a substitute and heroin is an
illegal street drug."

Suggested response.

What is your point? Heroin and methadone are both illegal street drugs.
Doesn't the fact that these drugs are illegal cause user deaths and the
spread of disease? Didn't bathtub gin and other adulterated potions spawned
by prohibition kill thousands of users.

Uninformed statement # 4.

Even though heroin prescription has been shown to be effective elsewhere,
Dr. Stanwick said, " (I don't) feel that the prescription of heroin will
solve B.C.'s drug problems.

Suggested response.

Not even a little bit? Why not? It wouldn't hurt, would it?

Uninformed statement # 6. (Note: They removed a paragraph and forgot to
re-number!)

Attorney General Ujjal Dosanjh, "(I'm not) convinced that the legalization
of heroin and cocaine will work unless it's tightly controlled."

Suggested response.

The two drugs you mentioned were legal before the early years of the 20th
century. What problems did that cause? Is it not true that Canada's
narcotics laws, like parallel United States' efforts, were enacted not for
public safety but to impede Chinese immigration, repress oriental culture,
protect white manufacturers and grant special privileges to medical
professionals?

Finally, a question that should be asked of all government representatives
defending this demented "war on drugs":

How on earth did you come to the conclusion that a government has the right
to tell its citizens what they may, or may not, ingest? Perhaps doctors
should prescribe food too?

Alan Randell

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

Airport Seizure Of Cocaine Was Unlawful, Court Rules ('The Toronto Star'
Says Mr. Justice Terrance O'Connor Issued A Ruling Thursday In Ontario
That Canadian Customs Officers Can Only Search Passengers, Not Detain Them,
And Compelling Urine Samples Or Bowel Movements Was Intrusive)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:53:43 -0400
To: mattalk@islandnet.com
From: Dave Haans (haans@chass.utoronto.ca)
Subject: TorStar: Airport seizure of cocaine was unlawful, court rules
Newshawk: Dave Haans
Source: The Toronto Star (Canada)
Pubdate: Friday, August 14, 1998
Page: B4
Website: http://www.thestar.com
Contact: lettertoed@thestar.com
Author: Wendy Darroch, Staff Reporter

Airport seizure of cocaine was unlawful, court rules

Drugs can't be used against man held by Canada Customs

By Wendy Darroch

Staff Reporter

The 83 grams of cocaine seized from an alleged drug courier at Pearson
International Airport were obtained unlawfully, a court has ruled.

That means the drugs cannot be used in court on a charge against Dominic
Samuel of attempting to smuggle illegal narcotics into Canada. Samuel
arrived at the airport from Jamaica in the early hours of Aug. 26, 1996.

According to a 13-page document released by a Brampton court yesterday,
Canada Customs officer Elizabeth Harrison was told Samuel had been out of
the country for one week and had nothing to declare.

Upon further questioning, he said his mother paid for his ticket, then said
someone named Rankin paid when asked for his mother's phone number.

Harrison said Samuel did not know how much the ticket cost. He had no money
or credit cards, he had no full-time employment and his tongue was white
and pasty with thick film, a symptom exhibited by someone who had swallowed
drugs.

Samuel was strip-searched and detained until stool samples could be
obtained, the document stated.

When it was learned there were cocaine pellets in his stools he was
arrested by the customs officer, taken to Etobicoke General Hospital for a
precautionary examination and turned over to the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police.

He was then charged with importing cocaine into Canada.

Samuel, represented by counsel Colin Browne, claimed that his right to be
secure from unreasonable search and seizure had been violated.

Mr. Justice Terrance O'Connor of the Ontario Court, general division, ruled
that customs officers can only search a passenger, not detain them, under
section 98 of the Canada Customs Act, which Harrison was acting on.

"Section 98 does not authorize the detaining of the traveller until nature
takes its course..." the judge said, citing a precedent.

He added that compelling urine samples and bowel movements was intrusive.

"Ms Harrison did not formally place Mr. Samuel under arrest. She detained
him pursuant to the powers she thought she possessed under section 98 of
the Customs Act," O'Connor said in his judgment.

"To effect a lawful arrest without a warrant, the officer would have to
have reasonable and probable grounds to believe Mr. Samuel had committed an
indictable offence," O'Connor wrote.

He said except for the appearance of his tongue, there was no evidence of
an illegal activity. No drugs were detected during the body search.

O'Connor determined that there were not reasonable and probable grounds to
believe an indictable offence had been committed.

He said the customs and RCMP officers had exceeded their authority when
they detained Samuel until he produced a bowel movement.

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

Premier Softens Law On Cannabis ('The West Australian'
Says The Court Government, In A Big About-Face, Will Relax West Australia's
Cannabis Laws On A One-Year Trial Basis In The Mirrabooka And Bunbury
Police Districts.By Moving To A Cautioning System For First-Time Offenders
Caught With Less Than 50 Grams, Who Will Not Be Charged But Will Be Forced
To Undergo An 'Education Program')

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 06:13:18 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Australia: Premier Softens Law On Cannabis
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Ken Russell
Source: The West Australian
Contact: Fax +61 8 94823830
Pubdate: 14 Aug 1998
Author: Roger Martin

PREMIER SOFTENS LAW ON CANNABIS

THE Court Government will relax WA's cannabis laws by moving to a
cautioning system for first-time offenders in a big about-face on its
stance on drugs.

Cannabis users caught for the first time with less than 5Og of the drug
will no longer face criminal proceedings if they undergo an education program.

Those failing to attend the program within two weeks, or caught with
cannabis a second time, will face criminal proceedings.

But the cautioning system will be introduced only as a one-year trial from
October 1 and be restricted to the Mirrabooka and Bunbury police districts.

Cannabis users caught outside those districts will be dealt with under
present laws which provide criminal sanctions for first offenders.

The Minister responsible for the Government's drug strategy, Rhonda Parker,
said the cautioning system was consistent with the State's strong
opposition to drug abuse.

It would run in conjunction with a public education campaign on the dangers
of cannabis.

"We believed that it was time that we netted the users and brought them in
to deal with some of the health harms of cannabis." she said.

Last month, after the Victorian Government had introduced a cautioning
system. Premier Richard Court said the WA Government would not take a
liberal path on drugs.

Yesterday, he said that he had come to a compromise with Police
Commissioner Bob Falconer, who had supported a two-caution proposal.

"Our main interest is to make sure that those users have access to
education programs that are going to give them a better understanding of
the options facing them," Mr Court said.

"We have had negotiations with the police and we believe that we have a
sensible compromise that will have an emphasis on education for those
people that are caught."

Mr Falconer said the new scheme meant first-time offenders would no longer
be caught up in the criminal justice system. Police resources would also be
freed up.

Opposition health spokesman Jim McGinty said the cautioning system in
Victoria had saved an enormous amount of time and resources in the police
service and the court system.

Such a system would enable police to concentrate on drug dealers, rather
than the victims. National Party MLA Hilda Turnbull said present laws
turned youths experimenting with low level drugs into criminals.

Many small-time drug users given prison terms simply came into greater
contact with criminal elements.

They enter the university of crime where they come out worse than when they
went in," she said.

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

Drugs Cautions 'Not New' ('The West Australian'
Says That, According To The Alcohol And Other Drugs Council Of Australia,
The Government's Announcement That It Would Caution Rather Than Arrest
First-Time Offenders For Possessing Small Amounts Of Cannabis
Would Merely Formalise What Police In West Australia Have Been Doing
For Years)

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 06:21:48 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Australia: Drugs Cautions 'Not New'
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Ken Russell
Source: The West Australian
Contact: Fax +61 8 94823830
Pubdate: 14 Aug 1998
Author: Jennifer Grove

DRUGS CAUTIONS 'NOT NEW'

CAUTIONING first-time offenders for possessing small amounts of cannabis
would merely formalise what the police had been doing for years, according
to the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia.

Chief executive David Crosbie said if the Government tried to lock up all
the people who smoked cannabis jails would be overflowing.

"I don't think the police are particularly active in enforcing this law,"
Mr Crosbie said last night.

"It's a good move but in the context of the fairly hard line the Government
is taking on other drug issues it's a long way from dealing with the drug
problem."

Mr Crosbie said other jurisdictions had already introduced cautioning so
the move was not new and the Government still lacked effective diversion
programs.

"The Government has done better in the last few years but the bottom line
is that drugs are still a fringe area in terms of health expenditure," he
said.

"It's a big community issue and a lot more could be done to support and
treat people with drug problems."

Greens (WA) MLC Christine Sharp congratulated the Government on the move
but said it was not nearly enough.

"It's really positive they have not stopped in a position where they refuse
to budge. It is a positive step," she said.

Dr Sharp said the Greens had been planning to introduce legislation this
session to decriminalise the use of cannabis and that was still likely.

"Decriminalisation of marijuana is a matter of urgency," she said.

The Greens supported the National Party suggestion of heroin trials.

Democrats MLC Noun Kelly supported the move by the Government agreed with
Dr Sharp that more needed to be done and said the Democrats would support
legislation to decriminalise.

"It's a positive step in the right direction but there is a lot further to
go," he said. Mr Kelly said had hoped the lecture would not be a means for
the Government to broadcast its outdated ideas on drugs.

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

Court Red-Faced At Praise For Drugs 'Backdown' ('The Australian'
Says The West Australian Government Appeared Embarrassed Thursday
By Its Surprise Decision To Adopt A Softer Approach To Small-Time
Cannabis Users, With Ministers Refusing To Accept The Praise
Of Reform Groups)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:49:20 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: Australia: Court Red-Faced at Praise for Drugs 'Backdown'
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Ken Russell
Source: The Australian
Contact: ausletr@matp.newsltd.com.au
Website: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/
Pubdate: Fri, 14 Aug 1998

COURT RED-FACED AT PRAISE FOR DRUGS 'BACKDOWN'

THE West Australian Government appeared embarrassed yesterday by its
surprise decision to adopt a softer approach to small-time cannabis users,
with ministers refusing to accept the praise of law reform groups.

Announcing a new cautioning system, whereby first offenders caught with
less than 50 grams would not be charged but forced to attend an education
lecture, Drug Strategy Minister Rhonda Parker said the policy was not
inconsistent with the Government's anti-drug rhetoric.

Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation spokesman Jason Meotti said: "It is
good to see the Premier has put aside his personal views in the interests
of attempting to deal with the drug problem more effectively."

Asked whether the Government was happy to accept the praise of law reform
groups for adopting a broad-minded approach to soft drug use, Mrs Parker
said: "Certainly not."

Premier Richard Court last month rejected any softening of cannabis laws,
saying his Government would never "go soft on drugs ... we are not going to
move down a liberal path".

Mr Court was responding to Victoria's decision to caution small-time
marijuana users three times. Repeat offenders will face court under the
West Australian trial.

In 1996, Mr Court described federal Health Minister Michael Wooldridge's
support of decriminalisation as "despicable".

"I would not care if every other State and Territory had moved down a
position of having a softer line on drugs ... we will not go down that
path," he said in the lead-up to the 1996 State election.

Citizens Against Crime spokesman Bob Taylor described Mr Court as a
"hypocrite" on drugs and crime.

"It's totally inconsistent with what he's been saying for years ... I'm
disgusted by the whole thing," Mr Taylor said.

West Australian Police Commissioner Bob Falconer won the argument with
State Cabinet that adopting a more lenient approach to minor drug offenders
would help reduce the pressure on police and court resources.

The State Opposition said two-thirds of teenagers experimented with
cannabis, and applauded the Government for a "worthwhile initiative".

"I hope this major backdown ... signals a new pragmatic approach to the
drug problem by a Government that has had its head in the sand for too
long," spokeswoman Megan Anwyl said.

The trial, initially in two police jurisdictions, begins on October 1 and
will be extended statewide if deemed successful after a year.

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

Court Uncertain On Cannabis Law (A Staff Editorial In 'The West Australian'
About The Limited One-Year Experimental Cautioning System
For First Offenders, Which Begins October 1 In The Mirrabooka And Bunbury
Police Districts Of West Australia, Says The Trial Should Have Covered
The Entire State, And The Government Should Give A Precise Definition
Of The Criteria To Be Used To Judge The Success Or Otherwise Of The Trial)

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 00:07:12 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: Australia: Court Uncertain On Cannabis Law
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Ken Russell
Source: The West Australian
Contact: dtmletr@matp.newsltd.com.au
Pubdate: Friday, August 14, 1998

COURT UNCERTAIN ON CANNABIS LAW

THE Court Government has taken a faltering half-step towards cannabis law
reform by introducing a limited trial of a cautioning system for first
offenders.

Any move towards a more rational law is to be welcomed, even if it is as
timid and uncertain as this one. There is evidence of widespread use of
cannabis in WA - particularly among young people - and criminal sanctions
clearly have not worked as a deterrent.

People who are caught with small amounts of cannabis for personal use run
the risk of criminal prosecution for a first offence. They could end up
with a criminal record, which would damage their career prospects.

Statistics on cannabis use show that it is widely accepted in society and
that the law that would make criminals of first-time users of small amounts
is out of tune with changing community standards. The Government's decision
to hold the trial - despite its previous adamant opposition to any hint of
leniency in its policy on drug abuse - suggests that it has picked up the
mood of the electorate on this issue.

But it is also apparent that it has succumbed, at least partly, to the
urgings of Police Commissioner Rob Falconer who advocates a cautioning
system. Mr Falconer favours cautioning cannabis users the first two times
they are caught and taking them to court the third time.

Mr Falconer's interest is self-evident. The system he wants would release
officers from the time-consuming court process to focus on more serious crime.

Figures on cannabis use show that police have no hope of catching and
prosecuting offenders at anywhere near the rate at which the drug is used
illegally, even if they had the numbers to do so. And if they did, the
courts would be overwhelmed by cannabis-use cases.

Most people would agree that police have more pressing work to do when
anxiety about violent crime has became a major issue in WA.

The Government has been prepared to go only a small part of the way with Mr
Falconer. It will hold a one-year trial from October 1 in the Mirrabooka
and Bunbury. police districts. And cautions will apply only to first offences.

The trial should have covered the whole State. It is wrong in principle to
enforce the law differently on the basis of the region in which an offence
takes place. Law enforcement should be equal to all citizens, regardless of
where they are.

The Government has now agreed to a system under which one first-time
cannabis offender could get a criminal record but another a few metres away
would be let off with a caution. This discrimination will not foster
respect for the law among young people.

First-time cannabis offenders in the trial areas will have to undergo an
education program within two weeks of being caught, or face criminal
proceedings. This is a useful innovation, provided the program is a factual
explanation of the effects of cannabis use.

Such offenders should be fully informed about the effect cannabis use bas
on their health. But this will be available only for offenders in the trial
areas.

By opting for this strictly limited trial, the Government has avoided
making a politically controversial decision for the whole of WA. It should
give a precise definition of the criteria to be used to judge the success
or otherwise of the trial.

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

The Week Online With DRCNet, Issue Number 54
(The Drug Reform Coordination Network's Original News Summary)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:59:30 -0400
To: drc-natl@drcnet.org
From: DRCNet (drcnet@drcnet.org)
Subject: The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue No. 54
Sender: owner-drc-natl@drcnet.org

THE WEEK ONLINE WITH DRCNet, ISSUE No. 54 -- AUGUST 14, 1998

-------- PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE --------

(To sign off this list, mailto: listproc@drcnet.org with the
line "signoff drc-natl" in the body of the message, or

mailto:lists@drcnet.org for assistance. To subscribe to
this list, visit http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html.)

(This issue can be also be read on our web site at
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/054.html.)

E-ail sent to the lists@drcnet.org address last week was
lost due to a system failure. If you wrote to that address
requesting an address change, addition or deletion, or for
any other reason, and have not received a response to your
request, please send it again, and please accept our
apologies for the inconvenience.

DRCNet needs your support! Join the more than a thousand
dues-paying members and cast your vote for reform today!
Use our secure form at http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html to
make a pledge or a credit card donation. BUMPER STICKERS
ARE SENT TO ALL NEW MEMBERS -- check it out at
http://www.drcnet.org/bumpersticker.gif. Help us by
recruiting more e-mail subscribers too -- over 6,400 now,
help us reach 7,000! (But please get their permission
first, before signing them up.) Please note that donations
to DRCNet are not tax-deductible.

You can make tax-deductible donations to the DRCNet
Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. The DRCNet
Foundation will gradually be taking over much of the
educational work currently being carried out by the Drug
Reform Coordination Network. Help us celebrate the
inauguration of the DRCNet Foundation by making a tax-
deductible contribution! Note that the Foundation is not
yet set up for credit cards, only checks or money orders.

Donations by check, tax-deductible to the DRCNet Foundation,
or non-deductible to the Drug Reform Coordination Network
(to support our lobbying work), may be mailed to: DRCNet,
2000 P St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036.

Thanks to the 353 of you who have signed for the eyegive
online fundraising program with DRCNet as your recipient
non-profit, and who collectively are earning us over $17 per
day in much needed revenue. If you haven't signed up yet,
and would like to do so, or just want some more information
please visit http://www.eyegive.com/html/ssi.cfm?CID=1060 to
read more and automatically select DRCNet, or visit the
eyegive home page at http://www.eyegive.com.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Study Comes Out Against Jailing of Women Who Use Drugs
During Pregnancy
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/054.html#rwjfstudy

2. Canadian Member of Parliament to Introduce Motion on
Heroin Trials
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/054.html#davies

3. Australian Families and Friends Groups Hold "Voice Day"
in Queensland, September 1st
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/054.html#voiceday

4. Cannabis Club Staff Designated as Officers of City of
Oakland
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/054.html#oakland

5. NIDA Ignores Own Experts' Advice to Provide Marijuana for
Medical Research
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/054.html#nidastalls

6. Harm Reduction Conference in New Jersey
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/054.html#hrconfnj

7. Conferences Coming Up
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/054.html#conferences

8. EDITORIAL: An Injustice in California
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/054.html#editorial

***

1. Study Comes Out Against Jailing of Women Who Use Drugs
During Pregnancy

A study funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation came
out against the jailing of women who use legal or illegal
drugs during pregnancy. The report, released earlier this
week, was headed by Lawrence Nelson, of the Markkula Center
for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, and Mary Faith
Marshall, of the Medical University of South Carolina.
Nelson, Marshall and other researchers concluded that the
criminalization approach is counterproductive to the needs
of the children themselves, and has been conducted in a
racially biased manner, and often in violation of the U.S.
Constitution.

The report is divided into sections on bioethics and legal
issues. Ethical concerns cited about the criminalization of
perinatal substance abuse were that criminalization has had
no demonstrated effect on improving infant health or
deterrence of substance abuse by pregnant women, and that
such women may forego needed prenatal care or substance
abuse treatment for fear of losing their children or being
arrested; criminalization creates obligations for health
care providers that are legally and ethically untenable; and
the criminalization approach has been tainted with race and
class biases and political opportunism. Criteria
recommended for coercive state intervention were that 1) The
harm to be prevented to the child-to-be must clearly exceed
the harm of the pregnant woman's loss of liberty as well as
other harms to her and her dependents; 2) The intervention
must be expected to be successful in terms of tangible
benefits to the health of the children and the mother --
symbolic success, such as "sending a message" is not
sufficient; 3) The policy intervention should involve the
least restrictive means possible; and 4) The policy must
substantially benefit society and not lead to substantial
harm. Criminalization fails all four of these criteria.

The report also notes that removal of the child from
parental custody may or may not be appropriate, as substance
use or addiction on the mother's part may or may not
indicate poor parenting ability, and removal of the child
may precipitate social harms in the deterrence of prenatal
care and substance abuse treatment, a decrease in
confidential patient/clinician communication overload of the
social service and foster care systems and through race,
gender and class discrimination. The pervasiveness of
judgmental attitudes toward substance use may cloud the
ability of social services workers to make objective
assessments regarding the ability of a parent to care for
her children.

For a copy of the RWJF report, e-mail Prof. Nelson at
ljnelson@ccnet.com.

***

2. Canadian Member of Parliament to Introduce Motion on
Heroin Trials

Last week, we reported that officials in the province of
British Columbia, including the Chief Coroner and the Police
Chief of Vancouver, had endorsed a report calling for new
drug policies, including a trial program in which heroin
addicts could receive the drug through legal channels
(http://www.drcnet.org/wol/053.html#britishcolumbia).
Earlier this week, Libby Davis, Member of Parliament for
Vancouver East, announced that she would be filing a motion
calling on the federal government to immediately implement
clinical, multi-centre prescription heroin trials.

"The situation in the Downtown Eastside is critical," Davies
said. "People are dying in the streets because we have
failed to act. The motion I will be introducing when the
House of Commons resumes provides a rallying point for
support of a medicalized approach to addiction... Two
hundred addicts have died already this year, and many
estimate that another two hundred will perish before the
year is over. These needless deaths are entirely
preventable if the government chooses to act now, in
cooperation with the provinces, to provide the proper
medical and social support. Heroin trials, and the
appropriate and controlled medical care that will stem from
those trials, are one step toward stemming this epidemic
before more people are forced to pay with their lives."

For further information, contact Davies' office at (604)
775-5800 (Vancouver) or (613) 992-6030 (Ottawa).

***

3. Australian Families and Friends Groups Hold "Voice Day"
in Queensland, September 1st

The Australian organizations Families and Friends of Drug
Law Reform and DrugAid have been in the forefront of the
debate over compassionate policies like heroin maintenance
and alternatives to prohibition. On September 1, they are
holding an open forum, "Voice Day", from 9:15am - 4:00pm
(registration opening at 8:30), at the Parliament House in
Brisbane. The forum will be officially opened by Wendy
Edmond, MLA, the Minister of Health, and will include
addresses by experts, politicians, families and drug
dependent persons, personal stories, and panels hosted by
policy makers and professionals. Panel topics will include
Civil Rights, Treatment and Health, Drugs in Prisons, Law,
Order and Advocacy, and Education. The day's findings will
be presented to Premier Peter Beattie, as leader of the
Queensland Parliament. Admission is $12.

Though most DRCNet members won't be able to make it to
Queensland in person, those with personal or family
experiences with the consequences of addiction and drug
prohibition can still submit their stories via e-mail. Send
them to drugaid@dateline.net.au, or call (07) 3260 6277 or
(07) 3260 7016 or fax (07) 3260 6277 for further
information. Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform can
be found on the web at http://www.adca.org.au/ffdlr/.
DrugAid is online at http://www.drugaid.com.au/.

***

4. Cannabis Club Staff Designated as Officers of City of
Oakland

(reprinted from the NORML Foundation, http://www.norml.org)

August 13, 1998, Oakland, CA: City officials designated
employees of the local cannabis buyers' cooperative as
Officers of the City of Oakland in a groundbreaking ceremony
today.

Attorney Robert Raich said that the action immunizes the
Oakland Cannabis Cooperative staff from federal criminal and
civil liability. Section 885(d) of the Federal Controlled
Substances Act provides that any officer of a city who is
enforcing a local ordinance relating to controlled
substances will be protected from criminal sanctions. Last
month, the City Council unanimously passed an ordinance
recognizing that a "medical cannabis provider association
.. may ... distribute safe and affordable medical
cannabis."

"Because the ordinance relies on provisions of federal law,
it may be replicated in cities throughout the country, not
just in California or other states that may pass laws
similar to Proposition 215," Raich said. City Council
representative Nate Miley and Oakland Club attorneys also
called today for a dismissal of all federal charges against
the Cooperative. The club remains open in violation of a
federal judge's decision to temporarily enjoin operations of
six state medical marijuana dispensaries -- including the
Oakland club -- named in a federal civil lawsuit.

"The Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative runs a clean,
legitimate business, contributes to Oakland's downtown
revitalization, and prevents seriously ill people from
turning to the streets to buy their medicine," said Miley.
"We're delighted to offer the Cooperative all the support we
can, and hope that other cities follow suit."

Jeff Jones, Executive Director of the Oakland Cooperative,
praised the Council's decision to designate the club. "This
is a great day for our patients and a great day for
Oakland," he said.

"I think a lot of Oakland patients can breathe a big sigh of
relief now," added Raich.

(For further information, contact Dale Gieringer of
California NORML at (415) 563-5858, e-mail canorml@igc.org,
or attorney Robert Raich at (510) 338-0700.

***

5. NIDA Ignores Own Experts' Advice to Provide Marijuana for
Medical Research

A year ago, on August 8, 1997, an "Ad Hoc Group of Experts"
assembled by the National Institutes of Health released a
report on its February "Workshop on the Medical Utility of
Marijuana," recommending that the National Institute on Drug
Abuse make it easier for researchers to obtain marijuana for
medical research. Under current NIDA policy, set by
Director Alan Leshner, researchers must apply to the NIH for
federal grant funding for their research, in order to obtain
marijuana from NIDA. NIDA will not provide marijuana for
research being conducted with private funds, even if that
research meets accepted FDA standards and has FDA approval.
Because NIDA has a monopoly on legal marijuana for research,
if NIH doesn't choose to fund a marijuana study, the study
cannot take place, even if private funds are available. The
NIH Experts Group recommended the following policy:

"Whether or not the NIH is the primary source of grant
support for a proposed bona fide clinical research study, if
that study meets U.S. regulatory standards (U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) protocol approval and Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) controlled substances
registration) the study should receive marijuana and/or
matching placebo supplied by the National Institute on Drug
Abuse (NIDA)."

The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) charged last week that
the Clinton Administration is stalling on the medical
marijuana research issue, a full year after issuance of the
NIH report:

"If a study does not require government funding, scientists
should not have to waste time applying for a grant, only to
get rejected because of a lack of funds," said MPP's Chuck
Thomas. "NIDA has effectively rejected the expert group's
advice."

"Tens of thousands of seriously ill people nationwide are
already risking arrest and imprisonment by using marijuana
for medicinal purposes," said Thomas. "Because the FDA-
approval route is being blocked by NIDA, the Marijuana
Policy Project is urging the American people to pass state
and local laws to remove criminal penalties for patients who
possess or grow their own medicinal marijuana."

ACTION REQUEST: Please contact Dr. Leshner's office, (301)
443-6480 or mailto:aleshner@ngmsmtp.nida.nih.gov and tell
him that "NIDA should provide marijuana to all FDA-approved
studies, without requiring an NIH peer review." Let us know
at mailto:alert-feedback@drcnet.org so we can assess our
impact. We will also share that information (but not your
name, without your explicit permission), with MPP and other
organizations working on this issue, to aid in the lobbying
effort.

The disparity between statements promulgated by drug czar
Barry McCaffrey, vs. the thoughtful examinations of the NIH
scientists panel, is illustrated by an article in our
newsletter of a year ago, titled "The Scientists and the
General", http://www.drcnet.org/guide8-97/nihondcp.html.
For more information about NIDA's efforts to block research,
visit http://www.mpp.org/NIDAbro.html. MPP is online at
http://www.mpp.org, and can be reached at (202) 462-5747.

***

6. Harm Reduction Conference in New Jersey

Harm Reduction in New Jersey: Putting Principles Into
Action, Friday, September 18, 1998, 9:00am - 4:00pm, Rutgers
Student Center, College Avenue, New Brunswick. This
conference is designed to provide participants with the
foundation for developing, conducting and evaluating harm
reduction strategies in their communities in order to
influence both practice and policy.

Presenters at this conference include: Imani Woods,
Director, Progressive Solutions, Seattle, WA; Stuart Fisk,
RN, Corpus Christi Residence, Pittsburgh, PA; Paula
Santiago, Community Organizer, Harm Reduction Coalition,
NYC; Synn Stern, Needle Exchange Manager, Positive Health
Project, NYC; NJ State Senator Joseph Vitale; Paul
Cherashore, Harm Reduction Coalition; Jennifer Gonnerman,
Reporter, The Village Voice, and others.

This conference is co-sponsored by: The New Jersey Harm
Reduction Coalition, the New Jersey Public Health
Association and the New Jersey AIDS Education & Training
Center. Registration is $20 for the general public, $15 for
NJHRC and NJPHA members, and free for full-time students.
Limited scholarships are available. For more information,
contact NJHRC at (732) 247-3242 or e-mail
mccague@mindspring.com.

***

7. Conferences Coming Up

We reprint the following conference listings for those
who missed them last week:

Regulating Cannabis: Options for Control in the 21st
Century -- An International Symposium, London,
September 5, 1998, Regent's College. The Lindesmith
Center and Release, a British agency dedicated to
providing a range of services for meeting the health,
welfare and legal needs of drugs users and those who
live and work with them, invite individuals and
organizations with a policy or professional interest to
attend a symposium on options for the regulation and
decriminalization of cannabis (marijuana). 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, and
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.
For further information, contact Mireille Jacobson at
the Lindesmith Center, (212) 548-0603, x1469, e-mail
mjacobson@sorosny.org, or Vicki Charles at Release, at
(44/171) 729-5255, fax (44/171) 729-2599, or visit
http://www.lindesmith.org/news/cannabis_conference.html
on the web.

Expanded Pharmacotherapies for the Treatment of Opiate
Dependence, a conference presenting the latest
research, policies, and practices related to the use of
opiates and other drugs -- including codeine, morphine,
diacetylmorphine, buprenorphine, methadone, and
amphetamine -- for maintenance treatment of addiction.
Particular attention will be devoted to evidence and
experiences outside the United States. Presenters will
include leading international and American clinicians,
researchers, and health officials. Friday, September
25, 9-5, $50 (lunch included), $20 for students, at the
New York Academy of Medicine, 5th Ave. & 103rd Street,
New York. NY. Co-sponsored by Beth Israel Medical
Center, Columbia University School of Public Health,
The Lindesmith Center, Montefiore Medical Center, The
New York Academy of Medicine, and Yale University
Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS. For
further information call (212) 822-7237, fax (212) 876-
4220, e-mail ralcantara@nyam.org, or visit

http://www.nyam.org/meded/announcements/treatment.html
on the web.

The Second National Harm Reduction Conference,
sponsored by the Harm Reduction Coalition, will convene
in Cleveland, Ohio, from October 7-10. Registration is
$300, with a 15% discount for current members of HRC,
and certain For further information, call (212) 213-
6376, or visit http://www.harmreduction.org on the web.

***

8. EDITORIAL: An Injustice in California

In November of 1996, California voters approved Proposition
215, allowing for the cultivation and use of marijuana for
medicinal purposes, by a margin of 56 to 44%. Today, and
for the past three weeks, best-selling author and cancer and
AIDS patient Peter McWilliams sits in a federal cell in Los
Angeles in lieu of $250,000 bond. McWilliams is under
indictment on nine counts, which boil down essentially to
growing marijuana with the intent of providing it to
patients. And there is little proof of that intent on which
the charges hinge.

In 1997, McWilliams, who is also a publisher, paid a
literary advance to Todd McCormick (himself a long-term
cancer-sufferer, whom the feds allege is a co-conspirator
and who has also been indicted), to write a comprehensive
book for patients on the proper way to grow marijuana for
medical use. In addition, McCormick was determined to find
out which of the many strains of marijuana works best for
each of the particular conditions (e.g. AIDS, cancer,
glaucoma, spasms, etc.) that patients use marijuana for.
Clearly, such research, carried out by a patient, would not
have passed muster with the National Institutes of Health.
But the fact is that tens of thousands of Californians, and
perhaps hundreds of thousands of other Americans are
currently using marijuana, and it will be years, if not
decades, before the government gets around to asking the
questions to which McCormick is determined to find the
answers.

Proposition 215 says that a patient or a caregiver may
cultivate and possess marijuana for medical use. And while
it does not specifically endorse such endeavors as buyers
clubs, neither does it limit the amount of marijuana that
can be grown for medicinal use. Todd McCormick, "financed"
by Peter McWilliams, was busted in his rented Bel Air home
with more than 4,000 plants of dozens of different strains.
No effort had been made to hide the plants. In fact, many
were growing outdoors in plain sight. And there is
absolutely no evidence that anyone had ever sold any of it.

McCormick's bust was carried out by the state, under the
authority of attorney general Dan Lungren. Bond for
McCormick, who vowed to stand and fight the charges and who
was not a risk for flight, was set at an astounding
$500,000. In fact, McCormick, who has suffered with a rare
form of cancer nearly since birth (he's 27 now), would be in
jail today if not for the generosity of his friend and
fellow activist, actor Woody Harrelson. McCormick and
everyone around him were confident that he would beat the
state's charges at trial. After all, there is nothing about
the current law that makes what he did illegal.

Apparently the feds agreed, and felt the need to spend
taxpayers' money on an investigation and indictment of both
McWilliams and McCormick, along with four others, for the
same offense. These federal charges supersede the state
charges and the crux of the matter is so tenuous as to
border on the absurd. Peter McWilliams is charged with
intent to distribute marijuana based upon the allegation
that he had one conversation with the director of the Los
Angeles buyers' club regarding the possible sale of
McCormick's marijuana for use by the club. McWilliams
strenuously denies this allegation. But even if it were
true, Peter McWilliams faces the prospect of spending most
of the rest of his life in prison for the "intent" to engage
in a transaction that the Los Angeles club, and clubs around
the state, are already engaging in on a regular basis:
procuring marijuana for the seriously and terminally ill
patients who have won the legal right to dictate the terms
of their own treatment.

It is not surprising that the federal government has sunk to
this level in its obsessive persecution of anyone and
everyone who dares participate in the compassionate
distribution of medicinal marijuana. First the feds
threatened doctors who discussed marijuana with their
patients. When a federal court enjoined those threats they
went after the buyers' clubs. Now they have Peter
McWilliams and Todd McCormick in their sights, on flimsy
evidence of a "crime" that is, by any standard of justice,
no crime at all. At the very worst, assuming that all of
the federal allegations were true, the marijuana in question
would not have entered the general market, no child, nor
even any healthy adult would have come into contact with it.
This prosecution is underway simply because of the number of
plants involved, and perhaps due to the high-profile status
of the defendant. Period.

A few miles up the Pacific Coast Highway, in Oakland, the
city council has taken the bold step of "deputizing" the
local buyers' club as a city agency. This unprecedented
move is a last-ditch effort to protect patients and the
club's operators from the talons of the federal law
enforcement bureaucracy that has threatened their health and
their freedom. The feds claim that their law trumps the
state law, and technically, they are right. But the people
and the government of Oakland also know that compassion,
freedom and the right of self-determination in so personal a
decision as medical treatment deserves to be protected from
unjust law and an intrusive sovereign.

But in L.A., where the city has not been so bold and
innovative in its efforts to protect its most vulnerable
citizens, the inquisition continues. And a man who suffers
from both AIDS and cancer, a long-time resident with a
business and a home who poses no risk of flight, sits in a
cell in lieu of an excessive and punitive bond, facing
charges which could rob him of the rest of his life. This
is the way the federal government spends our money to deal
with those who dare to question its drug war orthodoxy. It
is cruel and unjust, especially if one's conception of
justice has anything to do with punishments that befit the
crime. But it is a perfect example of the message our
government wants to send to those wayward citizens who are
attempting to carve out a small exception to the Zero-
Tolerance madness. And justice has absolutely nothing to do
with it.

Adam J. Smith
Associate Director

***

DRCNet needs your support! Donations can be sent to 2000 P
St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036, or made by credit
card at http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html on the web.
Contributions to DRCNet are not tax-deductible.

***

DRCNet

***

JOIN/MAKE A DONATION	http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html
DRUG POLICY LIBRARY	http://www.druglibrary.org/
REFORMER'S CALENDAR	http://www.drcnet.org/calendar.html
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST	http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html
DRCNet HOME PAGE	http://www.drcnet.org/
ONLINE LIBRARY		http://www.druglibrary.org/

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

[End]