------------------------------------------------------------------- Public Nuisance Or Therapy? Cannabis Clubs (Dr. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard Medical School, writing in Playboy magazine, summarizes the brief history of medical marijuana dispensaries in California. Two models exist for such cannabis clubs - the pharmacy model, exemplified by the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, and the support-group model, exemplified by the San Francisco Cannabis Cultivators' Club. If there is even a kernel of truth to the idea that talking about the stress, setbacks and triumphs in the battle against an illness can help a patient cope and recover, it is clear that the San Francisco model provides the best environment for the dispensing of medicinal marijuana.) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:32:46 -0700 From: email@example.com (MAPNews) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: MN: US: Public Nuisance Or Therapy? Cannabis Clubs Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: The Media Awareness Project of DrugSense Source: Playboy magazine Section: The Playboy Forum Pubdate: November, 1998 Contact: email@example.com FAX: (312) 951-2939 Mail: The Playboy Forum Reader Response, PLAYBOY, 680 North Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60611 Website: http://www.playboy.com/ Author: Dr. Lester Grinspoon Note: Dr. Grinspoon is seeking contributors to a book in progress, The Uses of Marijuana. Contact the author at www.marijuana-uses.com or by writing to him at Harvard Medical School, 74 Fenwood Road, Boston, Massachusetts 02115. Public Nuisance Or Therapy? CANNABIS CLUBS On one side stand the millions of Californians who voted in favor of Proposition 215, the 1996 referendum that approved the possession and use of marijuana for gravely ill patients. The majority of citizens let their consciences speak. They realized the benefits of medicinal marijuana. They had heard or knew from firsthand experience that marijuana offers relief for arthritis pain, nausea, muscle spasms and glaucoma. They saw appetites restored to AIDS and chemotherapy patients who smoked joints or nibbled on marijuana brownies. Bodies gained strength. Patients were better able to fight disease. On the other side stand California's politically ambitious attorney general, Dan Lungren, and his allies in Washington: Attorney General Janet Reno, drug czar Barry McCaffrey and President Bill Clinton. Presumably, these agents of the war on drugs have family members who feel no pain, whose joints function effortlessly and whose appetites are never ravaged by serious disease. Fifty-six percent of California voters approved Proposition 215, but in San Francisco the numbers reached 78 percent. Within weeks of the vote, more than 30 cannabis clubs opened to help sick people in need of relief. One club quickly grew to include 8,000 members. Then the backlash began. Lungren convinced a state judge that cannabis clubs were a public nuisance. The war-on-drugs crowd noted that marijuana remained classified by the federal government as a Schedule I drug, meaning it could not be prescribed because it had no known medical uses. (Cocaine and morphine are Schedule II drugs, and thus can be prescribed by a doctor.) Lungren glowed when the courts ruled that, despite the referendum, cannabis clubs violated state laws against the possession and sale of cannabis. One judge interpreted Proposition 215 as allowing individuals to grow marijuana only for personal medical use -- no clubs allowed. California legislators implored Washington to recognize the voice of the people. In a letter to Clinton, nearly two dozen lawmakers pleaded: "This issue won't go away so long as human beings believe they have the right to attend to their own illnesses, as their doctors recommend, rather than as government dictates." Californians have rebuffed the feds before: When evidence showed that intravenous-drug users were spreading HIV by sharing needles, San Francisco was the first city to supply them with clean syringes through an exchange program. Californians invited lawmakers in Washington, D.C. to fly west and formulate a safe and affordable system for the delivery of medicinal marijuana, but the feds declined. As Lungren harassed and eventually closed the most visible cannabis clubs, advocates spoke of reinventing them. They thought Lungren was riled by the public nature of the clubs -- perhaps the answer might lie in rerouting medicinal marijuana through the traditional medical hierarchy. Maybe doctors in white coats would be more acceptable to the feds than were proprietors in tie-dye and denim. Disagreements within the medicinal marijuana movement on the value of the clubs resulted in two distribution models after the passage of Proposition 215. One model is based on the conventional delivery system for medicine: A patient visits a buyers' club (read: pharmacy), where he or she presents a note from a physician, certifying that the patient has a condition for which the physician recommends cannabis (read: prescription). The proprietor of the club (read: pharmacist) fills the prescription and the patient leaves to use the medicine, presumably at home. This model preserves the medical profession's authority to decide who shall use a medicine and for how long. The pharmacy provides a source - in this case a nonprofit one - for the medicine. If the doctor and the pharmacist behave ethically, only those who have a medical need for marijuana can receive it. In turn, patients now have a reliable source for the drug, relieving them of the stress of buying it on the street or secretly growing their own. The Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative is one of a number of clubs that conform to this model. Patients enter the cooperative with documentation from their physicians, purchase the marijuana and leave. The staid setup of the club and the attitudes of the proprietors make it clear that the patient is no more expected to use his medicine there than he would be at a conventional pharmacy. Some clubs, such as the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center in West Hollywood, have a policy of allowing emergency medical smoking; this takes place in a smoking room, and the sharing of joints is not allowed. The Santa Clara County Medical Cannabis Center, which recently shut its doors under pressure from local authorities, did not allow smoking anywhere on the premises, including in the parking lot; if a patient violated this rule, his or her membership was revoked. The second distribution model resembles a social club more than it does a pharmacy. The dispensing area is plastered with menus offering types, grades and prices. Large rooms are filled with brightly colored posters, lounge chairs and sofas, tables, magazines and newspapers. While some people remain only long enough to buy their medicine, most stay to smoke and talk. There are animated conversations, laughter, music and the pervasive, pungent odor of reefer. The atmosphere is informal, welcoming and warm, providing support for patients who may be socially isolated and have little opportunity to share concerns and feelings about their illnesses. This type of club is a blend of Amsterdam-style coffeehouse, American bar and support group. The model was epitomized by the San Francisco Cannabis Cultivators' Club, which was shut down by sheriff's deputies following local and federal court rulings. Until some kind of legal accommodation makes it possible for patients to receive marijuana without violating the law, buyers' clubs are the best approach to the problem. Yet the government, including the White House, the Drug Enforcement Administration and law enforcement at all levels, remains opposed to the idea. While the feds are retreating somewhat from their position that marijuana has no therapeutic value, they are still working diligently to close cannabis clubs. Many if not most advocates who recognize the importance of buyers' clubs believe that the model exemplified by the Oakland, Santa Clara and Los Angeles clubs is preferable to that represented in San Francisco. The former are more businesslike, conform more closely with the pharmacy model and at least appear to be more vigilant about checking the documentation of people who present themselves as patients. The San Francisco club, largely because of the on-site cannabis smoking and its relaxed atmosphere, appeared to be more casual in its commitment to confirming medical need, which made even the supporters of buyers' clubs a little nervous. Yet the importance of the social aspect of buyers' clubs cannot be underestimated. It is becoming increasingly clear that emotional support -- contacts with and help from friends, family, co-workers and others -- plays a salutary role in battling many illnesses. This kind of support improves the quality of life, and there is growing evidence that it may even prolong life. In one study, socially isolated women were found to be five times more likely to die from ovarian and related cancers than women with networks of friends and families. In another study, women with breast cancer were found to be 50 percent less likely to die in the first few months after surgery if they had confidants. In a four-year study of 133 breast cancer patients, married women had a longer average survival time. Researchers have consistently found that support groups are effective for patients with a variety of cancers. Participants become less anxious and depressed, make better use of their time and are more likely to return to work than patients who are given only standard care, regardless of whether they have serious psychiatric symptoms. There is evidence that even brief supportive therapy can have benefits that last for months. Some researchers have made the controversial claim that mere participation in support groups can keep cancer patients alive. The San Francisco buyers' club functioned very much as an informal support group. It was not designed by psychiatrists and social scientists to provide supportive group therapy, but there's reason to believe it did. One of the properties of marijuana may have contributed to its effectiveness: When people use cannabis, they tend to be more sociable and find it easier to share difficult thoughts and feelings. If there is even a kernel of truth to the idea that talking about the stress, setbacks and triumphs in the battle against an illness can help a patient cope and recover, it is clear that the San Francisco model provides the best environment for the dispensing of medicinal marijuana. Unfortunately, we live in a culture that considers such a facility a public nuisance and criminalizes a compassionate form of caring out of loyalty to a symbolic war on drugs. The contentious legal battle continues. This past summer Oakland designated the employees of the local cannabis club as officers of the city. This inspired political move uses a section of the Federal Controlled Substances Act and grants buyers for the cannabis cooperative the same protection as undercover narcs (who buy and sell drugs as part of investigations) have from possible prosecution. The club remains open in defiance of a federal judge's order to close. Copyright (c)1998 Playboy Enterprises, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Pot Will Win, Poll Predicts (The Herald, in Everett, Washington, says a new survey commissioned by The Arizona Republic shows Arizona voters, by a thin margin, appear ready to give a second endorsement to the use of marijuana and other illegal drugs for medical treatment.) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:34:40 -0800 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) To: email@example.com Subject: MN: US AZ: Pot Will Win, Poll Predicts Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: John Smith Pubdate: Sunday, 01 November, 1998 Source: Herald, The (WA) Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.heraldnet.com/ Copyright: 1998 The Daily Herald Co. POT WILL WIN, POLL PREDICTS: Voters - by a razor-thin margin - appear ready to give a second endorsement to the use of marijuana and other illegal drugs for medical treatment. A new Arizona Republic survey shows 43 percent support reinstating Arizona's marijuana-for-medicine law, first approved by voters 2-1 in 1996 but later gutted by state lawmakers. The poll found 40 percent back legislative efforts to block the law. Seventeen percent were undecided. The marijuana-for-medicine question will appear on Tuesday's ballot as Proposition 300.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Amending the Lynn Pierson Program (A list subscriber notes New Mexico has a medical marijuana law that needs only a little bit of tweaking to make it functional. He posts the text of an amendment that would make the law viable, and says after the election he will be looking for a legislative sponsor.) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 11:51:42 -0700 (MST) From: bryan krumm (email@example.com) To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: Amending the Lynn Pierson Program Reply-To: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org New Mexico has a medical marijuana law already that only needs a little tweaking to make it functional. After the elections I will be trying to find a legislator to sponsor a bill in the upcoming session to amend the Lynn Pierson Act. I have already spoken with some influencial politicians who have given me "soft support" and have urged me to pursue this issue. I'm not a lawyer so I was hoping to get some input from people on the list about the wording. Also, can anyone tell me how to properly cite the controlled substances act, public law titile 21, chapter 13, section 885, subsection d? Thanks, Bryan *** PROPOSED AMENDMENTS (rev. 10/31/98) AN ACT AMENDING THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH ACT BY REMOVING CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION AND CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA BY INDIVIDUALS WITH A LEGITIMATE MEDICAL NEED AND THEIR DESIGNATED CARETAKERS; MAKING AN APPROPRIATION TO THE LYNN PIERSON THERAPEUTIC RESARCH PROGRAM FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCURING A SUPPLY OF MARIJUANA WITH CONSISTENT STANDARDS OF STRENGTH AND PURITY AND FOR DEVELOPING N-OF-1 STUDIES TO FUTHER DETERMINE THE SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF MARIJUANA WHEN USED IN MEDICAL TREATMENT. AMENDMENT number 1 1. In section 26-2A-2, line 3, after glaucoma., insert the following: Evidence has also shown that marijuana may be of therapeutic benefit in the treatment of AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, asthma, and seizures. AMENDMENT number 2 1. In section 26-2A-3, subsection A., strike "health and environment" and replace with "The state department of health". AMENDMENT number 3 1. In section 26-2A-3, strike subsection C. 2. In section 26-2A-3, insert the following new subsections: C. "practitioner" means any medical practitioner licensed to prescribe and administer drugs which are subject to the Controlled Substances Act. D. "designated caretaker" means the individual designated by the person exempted under this act who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person ; such as a parent,partner, sibling, or other person in a relationship with that patient. AMENDMENT number 4 1. In section 26-2A-4, subsection A., strike "health and environment" and replace with "state department of health". AMENDMENT number 5 1. In section 26-2A-4, strike subsection B. 2. In section 26-2A-4, insert the following new subsections: "B. Except as provided in Subsection C. of Section 5 [26-2A-5C NMSA 1978] of the Controlled Substances Therapeutic Research Act, the Lynn Pierson Therapeutic Research Program shall be limited to diseases for which evidence has shown marijuana may be of therapeutic benefit. AMENDMENT number 6 1. In section 26-2A-5, subsection B, strike "physician" and replace with "practitioner". AMENDMENT number 7 1. After section 26-2A-6,insert the following new sections: "Section 26-2A-7. PROTECTION OF PATIENT RIGHTS.-- A. Federal interference has prevented implementation of the Controlled Substances Therapeutic Research Act and has created a class of criminals out of the sick and suffering. B. Patients are being denied their most fundamental rights of life, liberty and happiness due to political policies which ignore the scientific evidence that marijuana is safe and effective for use under medical supervision. C. Patients attempting to alleviate their suffering with this safe and effective medication risk the loss of property, loss of children, loss of employment and imprisonment. D. Therefore, the legislature of the State of New Mexico hereby removes any and all criminal and civil penalties related to the possession and cultivation of marijuana for medical use by individuals with a legitimate medical need. E. Legitimate medical need shall be demonstrated when a qualified practitioner refers a patient to the Lynn Pierson Therapeutic Research Program. F. Upon supplying evidence of legitimate medical need, patients and designated caretakers shall not be subject to arrest, or seizure of their medicine by any officer of the law." "Section 26-2A-8. PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF PRACTITIONERS.-- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no practitioner in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medicinal purposes." "Section 26-2A-9. PENALTIES.-- Except as authorized by law, any person who possesses, plants, cultivates, harvests, dries, or processes marijuana, or any person who causes the diversion of medicinal marijuana for unauthorized purposes, shall be subject to punishment persuant to [30-31-1 to 30-31-41 NMSA 1978]." "Section 26-2A-10. LIMITATIONS-- A. Participation in the Lynn Pierson Therapeutic Research Program shall be limited to citizens of the State of New Mexico. B. Marijuana not acquired from a federal source may not be taken outside the State of New Mexico." "Section 26-2A-11. APPROPRIATION--LYNN PIERSON THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH PROGRAM.-- A. Fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) is appropriated from the general fund to the Lynn Pierson Therapeutic Research Program for the following purposes: (1) developing a system whereby patients with legitimate medical need can have access to a supply of marijuana with consistent standards of strength and purity by; (a) applying to contract with the National Institute on Drug Abuse for receipt of dose-quantified marijuana pursuant to regulations promulgated by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration; (b) applying to the Drug Enforcement Administration to register as a manufacturer, distributor, researcher, analytical lab and impoter of marijuana [federal law code 21 CFR 1301] DEA form 225; (c) conducting a feasibility study on methods by which marijuana with consistent standards of strength and purity, can be cultivated in New Mexico, pursuant to Public Law [title 21, chapter 13, section 885, subsection d] for transfer to state operated licensed pharmacies while minimizing the possibility of diversion for unauthorized use. (2) development of N-of-1 studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of medicinal marijuana on a patient by patient basis. B. Any unexpected or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of fiscal year 1999 shall revert to the general fund." 2. Renumber the succeeding sections accordingly.
------------------------------------------------------------------- A Realistic Prescription To Mix Marijuana And Moderation (An op-ed in The Boston Globe by Thomas W. Clark, a research associate at Health and Addictions Research Inc., suggests teenagers may understand what the National Institute on Drug Abuse has been at pains recently to deny - that there are valid distinctions between soft and hard drugs, and that such distinctions can inform one's choice of psychoactive substance. Teenagers, in short, are not stupid, and though marijuana may not be risk-free, it compares favorably to alcohol and tobacco with regard to health hazards and potential for abuse. Consequently, the attempt to tar it with the same brush as cocaine and heroin is backfiring, undercutting the credibility of both NIDA and beleaguered parents who are asked to instill fear of the "evil weed" into their increasingly skeptical children.) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 15:38:23 -0800 From: email@example.com (MAPNews) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: MN: US MA: OPED: A Realistic Prescription To Mix Marijuana And Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: email@example.com (Dick Evans) Pubdate: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 Source: Boston Globe (MA) Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/ Copyright: 1998 Globe Newspaper Company. Author: Thomas W. Clark A REALISTIC PRESCRIPTION TO MIX MARIJUANA AND MODERATION The number of teenagers who use marijuana has increased dramatically since 1992, state and national surveys show, and this increase is causing much official consternation. After four years of relative silence on the issue, the Clinton administration has mounted a widely heralded media campaign against drugs - including marijuana use by adolescents. But teenagers, it turns out, don't seem particularly worried about pot. The rise in the number of young people who have tried marijuana over the last six years, surveys show, has been accompanied by a decline in the risk they perceive in smoking it occasionally. Meanwhile, the use of hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin has stayed far below that of marijuana, and adolescents perceive these substances as far more risky. Perhaps teenagers recognize what the National Institute on Drug Abuse, or NIDA, has been at pains recently to deny: that there are valid distinctions between soft and hard drugs in addictiveness and potential for harm, and that such distinctions can inform one's choice of psychoactive substance. Teenagers, in short, are not stupid, and in this case their perceptions are pretty much on the mark. Although certainly not risk-free, marijuana compares favorably to alcohol and tobacco with regard to health hazards and potential for abuse. Consequently, the attempt to tar it with the same brush as cocaine and heroin is backfiring, undercutting the credibility of both NIDA and beleaguered parents, who are asked to instill fear of the ``evil weed'' into their increasingly skeptical children. Indeed, while marijuana should remain illegal for teenagers, there is little reason to keep it illegal for adults. Much is made of pot being a gateway drug that leads to further experimentation and addiction, but, as even NIDA admits, most of those who try marijuana don't progress to other drugs or become addicted. Rather, it's a combination of risk factors - parents' and peers' substance use, poor social adjustment, low expectations of achievement, and idle after-school hours - that increases the probability of abuse and dependence. If marijuana is a gateway to hard drugs at all, it is most likely due to its illicit and countercultural status: The purveyors of pot can put your adolescent in touch with the local crack connection, while the glamour of defying the ban on marijuana may transfer to using more dangerous substances. Yet using marijuana has its risks, and its use by adolescents should remain illegal and be strongly discouraged. Just as it is harmful to smoke cigarettes, it is harmful to inhale the carcinogenic byproducts of marijuana along with its psychoactive ingredient - delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. While not nearly as devastating as chronic alcoholism, the regular and prolonged use of THC may compromise short-term memory and, perhaps, other cognitive functions. Even though non-smoked THC is approved for medical purposes, and thus has been found safe and effective for some applications, its recreational use should remain occasional, and restricted to those over 21. Pregnant women should avoid it, and the penalties that now apply to drunken driving should also apply to those who drive under the influence of THC. But despite its bad official press, THC actually ranks lowest in addictive potential of all commonly used substances, even below caffeine, according to two independent ratings by NIDA and the University of California. Lab animals cannot be induced to consistently self-administer THC, as they can with opiates, amphetamines, cocaine, alcohol, and nicotine. Nevertheless, NIDA has made much of research - published last year in the journal Science - showing that cannabis acts on the same reward mechanisms in the brain as do other psychoactive substances. But this rather unsurprising finding doesn't show THC to be especially problematic, just that its heavy use may in some cases lead to habituation. The fact remains that marijuana is simply not in the same class as heroin and crack, drugs that act far more powerfully and specifically on those brain sites implicated in dependence. This means that its increased availability following decriminalization for adults would not result, as some fear, in an epidemic of cannabis abuse. The best argument, perhaps, for keeping marijuana illegal across the board is that we simply don't need another widely available intoxicating substance, however benign, that might deflect adolescents from the necessary business of putting their lives together. But the horse is already well clear of the barn. In recent surveys, many teenagers say that it's as easy to get marijuana as alcohol and cigarettes. Drug enforcement hard-liners will reply that this means stricter sanctions are necessary, but how strict are we willing to get to suppress a drug that, used in moderation and in a non-smoked form, is no more risky (subtracting the risks of criminal prosecution) than having an occasional glass of wine with dinner? Some opponents of decriminalizing marijuana fear that it would set us on a slippery slope toward accepting any and all drugs, but this fear is irrational precisely because all drugs are not the same. We justly balk at sanctioning the use of substances that are highly addictive and harmful, as in the growing effort to curtail tobacco sales to minors. Other opponents, most of them hardly teetotalers, share the conventional prejudice that getting high on pot is somehow morally suspect. They suppose that some intoxicants (the currently legal ones, it just so happens) are fine, while the rest are corrupting, and that therefore we shouldn't expand our repertoire of even mildly altered states. But if the effects of alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine used in moderation are perfectly acceptable, why not those of THC, used in moderation? Some will object that moderation in the use of marijuana is exactly what cannot be guaranteed; that decriminalizing pot for adults would inevitably increase the number of users (some teenagers included) that abuse the drug and fall prey to its possibly damaging long-term effects. Granting this point, the issue then becomes whether the social and personal benefits of lifting the ban on marijuana outweigh the harms of a potential increase in abuse. This is the same dilemma faced by those who wanted to end alcohol prohibition: Since Prohibition helped to reduce alcohol-related addiction, disease, and accidents, how could one responsibly advocate its repeal? Nevertheless, Prohibition ended when it became clear that the personal liberty to enjoy alcohol, restrained by reasonable public health and law-enforcement safeguards, was deemed a greater good than heavyhanded attempts to reduce alcohol-related harms. Similarly, it is difficult to justify the staggering costs of the marijuana ban - the person-hours of drug enforcement, the ultimately futile attempts at crop eradication, the overloaded courts, and the draconian jail sentences - when weighed against the small increase in abuse that decriminalization for adults might entail. If we want proportionality between the sanctions against a drug and its potential for harm, then criminal penalties for personal marijuana use should be abolished. If we fail to reconsider our current policy, and continue to exaggerate the evils of any and all cannabis use, teenagers will judge adults hypocritical and continue to light up joints as they chant, ``Just say no!'' By being straight with kids, and ourselves, about marijuana's active ingredient, we'll gain credibility and strengthen the case against truly dangerous and addictive drugs. Respect our children's intelligence, and chances are they'll behave more intelligently. In our public health campaigns, we should strongly advise against smoking marijuana, while exploring safer means of ingesting recreational THC - in food or drink, perhaps - which standardize a moderate dose and guarantee purity. As with alcohol and nicotine, we should limit its availability to adolescents by establishing a minimum age for possession, and enforce that law vigorously. Legal use of marijuana by adults could be restricted to private, personal consumption, with civil penalties - not jail sentences - for sales or public use. Whatever course we adopt, there are clearly many policy options short of commercial legalization that would improve upon the absurdly punitive status quo. There would, of course, be many devils in the details of regulating decriminalization, but none nearly as onerous as our foolish obsession with attaining a cannabis-free culture. Even with the most enlightened policies, some cannabis use by teenagers will inevitably continue, but we won't be denying them the drug on the spurious basis that there is something especially bad about THC. We'll be denying it for the same good reasons we deny them nicotine, alcohol, and most other psychoactive substances: successful physical and psychological maturation is jeopardized by adolescent drug use, and at their age they've got more important things to do, such as fashioning a life that doesn't revolve around looking cool or getting high. Thomas W. Clark is a research associate at Health and Addictions Research Inc. of Boston, a nonprofit research and evaluation company specializing in behavioral health and criminal justice. The views here do not reflect policies endorsed by Health and Addictions Research Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Iowa traffic stop leads to US Supreme Court case (The Associated Press says a hearing Tuesday in Washington, DC will focus on whether Patrick Knowles' Fourth Amendment rights were violated when police made an unauthorized search of his car after he was cited for speeding. Marijuana and a pipe were found under the front passenger seat.) From: "Bob Owen@W.H.E.N." (email@example.com) To: "_Drug Policy --" (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: Iowa traffic stop leads to U.S. Supreme Court case Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 20:52:52 -0800 Sender: email@example.com Iowa traffic stop leads to U.S. Supreme Court case By Mary Neubauer, Associated Press, 11/01/98 12:30 DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Patrick Knowles knew he was speeding that day. Just off work and frustrated that his old car was sputtering, he had stomped on the gas pedal to keep the engine from dying. When a policeman drove by and quickly turned around, Knowles knew he likely would be pulled over and given a speeding ticket. He did not expect the officer to tell him he needed to search his car. ``I thought `Now wait a minute, I don't really like this idea,''' Knowles said. ``I was just sitting there. I'd said `Yes, sir. No, sir,' and been polite.'' But Newton Officer Ronald Cook did search Knowles' car without his permission on March 6, 1996 - legally under Iowa statutes- and found marijuana and a pipe under the front passenger seat. Knowles said a friend had left it there, but he was liable because it was in his car. Knowles contacted Maria Ruhtenberg, a lawyer who'd represented him in some previous misdemeanor cases. Ruhtenberg told him his rights might have been violated. On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Knowles' argument that the search violated the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and that the marijuana should not be used as evidence. ``We believe there is an overwhelming privacy issue involved, that such a search is invasive, intrusive and, frankly, offensive,'' Ruhtenberg said. Under Iowa law, police may choose either to make an arrest or issue a citation for all crimes except forcible felonies. Where it differs from laws in most states is in allowing officers in either instance to conduct an ``otherwise lawful search.'' Most laws permit searches only after an arrest or if the officer believes the person is involved in something illegal. Assistant Iowa Attorney General Bridget Chambers said the justifications for a search with a citation are the same as those in an arrest: Protect the officer's safety and stop evidence from being destroyed. Chambers said traffic stops can be dangerous and officers should not have to give up a tool that can protect them. If officers could not conduct searches on the basis of citations, they could simply choose to make more arrests, Chambers said. ``If they can arrest and search anyway, how does it protect a person's privacy to require the arrest?'' she asked. ``We're just saying it's a lesser intrusion, actually, than an arrest plus search.'' But Ruhtenberg argues that officers should have to have some suspicion of illegal activity to justify a search with only a citation. At Knowles' trial, Cook testified that he did not suspect Knowles of criminal activity. A state trial judge ruled against Knowles' argument that the marijuana should not be used as evidence. Knowles was convicted of possession of marijuana and keeping marijuana in his car and sentenced to 90 days in jail. In October 1997, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld his conviction in a 5-4 decision, saying the search was justified under state law and allowed under the Constitution. The case has drawn widespread interest, with the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filing arguments in support of Knowles' motion and the National Association of Police Organizations supporting the state's argument. Knowles, 37, now lives in Monroe and works at a plastics factory. He is married and has two children. He admits he has not been perfect but is glad to be involved in a case that he believes could protect others. ``I'm just a regular kind of guy,'' he said. ``I just want to get on with my life, but I want to get this straightened out first.''
------------------------------------------------------------------- Statistics on pregnant women prosecuted for drug use (Some revealing statistics from the November issue of Harper's Magazine begin by noting an estimated 200 American women have been arrested for child abuse since 1977 after using alcohol or other drugs while pregnant.) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 00:15:49 -0500 To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (firstname.lastname@example.org) From: Steve Young (theyoungfamily@WORLDNET.ATT.NET) Subject: Statistics on pregnant women prosecuted for drug use Reply-To: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org These stats are from the November issue of Harper's Magazine. Estimated number of American women arrested for child abuse since 1977 after using drugs or alcohol while pregnant: 200 Years in prinson to which a South Carolina woman was sentenced for this in 1992: 8 Years in prison to which New Jersey's Amy Grossberg was sentenced last July for killing her newborn: 2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------- Study Shows Subsidized Housing, Not Treatment of Social Ills, Is Crucial to Homeless (According to The New York Times, researchers at New York University have published a report in Tuesday's issue of the American Journal of Public Health challenging the widely held view that the most effective way to end homelessness among families is by first resolving such problems as mental illness and substance abuse. After following hundreds of homeless families in New York City between 1988 and 1993, researchers concluded the real problem is the city's scarcity of subsidized housing.) From: "Bob Owen@W.H.E.N." (email@example.com) To: "_Drug Policy --" (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: A home more important than staying straight Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 20:40:56 -0800 Sender: email@example.com November 1, 1998 New York Times Study Shows Subsidized Housing, Not Treatment of Social Ills, Is Crucial to Homeless By NICHOLE M. CHRISTIAN After following hundreds of homeless families in New York City to determine if social disorders prolonged their situation, a new study by New York University suggests the real problem is the city's scarcity of subsidized housing. The study, to be released Tuesday in the American Journal of Public Health, challenges a widely held view that the most effective way to end homelessness among families is by first resolving such problems as mental illness and substance abuse. The study concluded that homeless families, when provided with subsidized housing, can remain "stable" -- which the study defines as staying in the same apartment for at least 12 months -- regardless of the problems they may be battling. The research, done between 1988 and 1993, is considered the first long-term look at how social disorders affect the families' ability to find their way out of homelessness. "The conventional wisdom is that homeless families need to become rehabilitated before they can become housed," said Marybeth Shinn, a professor of psychology at New York University and co-author of the study. "Our findings show that if given the housing first, homeless families will become stable and remain stable." The study did not look at single homeless adults, where incidents of mental illness and substance abuse tend to be more serious and widespread. In reaching their conclusion, N.Y.U. researchers interviewed 564 families. Half of them were homeless for the first time; the other half were randomly drawn from the city's public assistance case load and had never been homeless. Every family was interviewed twice, once in 1988 and again five years later. Researchers found that 80 percent of the homeless families who were given a subsidized apartment were able to remain stable, despite their problems. Their rate of success in remaining housed matched that of the families who had never been homeless. One reason for the homeless families' success, researchers concluded, was that their rent was paid directly to a landlord. The study did not address what effect the acquisition of a stable apartment had on helping the families resolve their personal problems. "We're not saying that social services couldn't prove advantageous to these families, or that substance abuse and mental illness don't take tolls on families," said Beth C. Weitzman, an associate professor in N.Y.U.'s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service and a co-author of the study. "But those issues are all separate and distinct from homelessness. Just because a family has problems doesn't mean they can't remain housed." Of the homeless families who did not receive subsidized housing, only 18 percent found permanent housing, mostly by moving in with a relative or friend, the study found. Researchers linked their low success rate in part to the fact that some families left the shelter before they were deemed eligible for housing. Those who left forfeited their spot on the waiting list. During the time of the study, most families had to wait 6 to 18 months before becoming eligible. Some veteran researchers of homelessness hailed the N.Y.U. study for trying to refocus one of the oldest debates surrounding homelessness. "This study will inevitably be read by many people as dismissing the importance of social services," said Jim Baumohl, an associate professor of social welfare at Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania. "But what it's really saying is that if the goal is still to reduce shelter utilization, then we to ought to consider a strategy of rapid attachment to housing, rather than assuming homeless families can't stay housed." Susan Wiviott, a spokeswoman for the city's Department of Homeless Services, said she had not yet seen a copy of the study. But she said the city shares the view that subsidized housing is an effective way of helping the 4,700 homeless families now living in the city's shelters. Since the Giuliani administration took office, Ms. Wiviott said, 21,000 homeless families have moved out of shelters and into subsidized housing. But she added that in the wake of the Federal Government's recent decision to scale back national housing subsidies, New York was ill equipped to foot the bill. "Alone, we can't afford to house everybody who needs subsidized housing. Our hope is that Washington recognizes the need to continue its contribution of Section 8 and other Federal subsidies." The N.Y.U. study was financed through a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Lack Of Needle-Exchange Plan Hurts Minorities (According to The Dallas Morning News, former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders said Saturday at the four-day United States Conference on AIDS in Dallas that the $156 million AIDS package announced by President Clinton lacks a vital component - a needle-exchange program.) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 10:05:24 -0800 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) To: email@example.com Subject: MN: US TX: Lack Of Needle-Exchange Plan Hurts Minorities Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: firstname.lastname@example.org Pubdate: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 Source: Dallas Morning News (TX) Contact: email@example.com Website: http://www.dallasnews.com/ Copyright: 1998 The Dallas Morning News Author: Nita Thurman / The Dallas Morning News LACK OF NEEDLE-EXCHANGE PLAN HURTS MINORITIES Former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders says the $156 million AIDS package announced by President Clinton lacks a vital component for minorities: a clean-needle exchange program. More than 60 percent of AIDS cases among blacks and more than half of all AIDS cases among Hispanics are related to injections by contaminated needles, she said Saturday. Dr. Elders spoke at a news conference held in conjunction with the four-day 1998 United States Conference on AIDS at the Adam's Mark Hotel in downtown Dallas. The conference is being attended by several hundred community workers, doctors, people living with HIV and others working to stop the spread of AIDS. She quoted from a study, "Health Emergency 1999," on the spread of drug-related AIDS among minorities and also cited other earlier public health studies. The Health Emergency study was prepared by an independent research organization in Princeton, N.J. "We are trying to prevent HIV deaths," she said. "We are trying to provide good public health. But we have ignored the hard science and let it become a political football. "It costs a lot less to provide clean needles and save lives than to treat someone with AIDS." Dr. Elders citied five-year costs of $4,000 to $12,000 for each HIV infection that could have been prevented by a needle-exchange program. Medicine for one person with AIDS over five years costs about $60,000, she said. In the United States, federal funds cannot be used to finance programs to distribute clean hypodermic needles. Opponents of such programs say providing clean needles to drug users would condone or promote drug use. The Clinton administration has declined to lift the ban, and House Republicans early this year passed a bill trying to make the nine-year ban permanent. Mr. Clinton announced a $156 million program Wednesday to help fund AIDS programs for blacks and Hispanics at the community level. None of the funds can be used for needle-exchange programs. Public health experts, including Surgeon General David Satcher, have denounced the ban, citing findings by government scientists certifying that providing clean needles does not encourage drug abuse and can reduce the spread of AIDS. Minorities and the poor are the worst hit by the federal ban, Dr. Elders said, because private health dollars do not trickle down to low-income communities. About 113 needle-exchange programs funded by private donors existed in 1997, the study found, and most developed countries, including England, Switzerland, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, have clean-needle programs. Politicians who support the ban are reacting to conservative voters who want the ban on moral grounds, Dr. Elders said. "And they've silenced the rest of us," she said. "They seem to see these deaths as casualties of war, just consequences of the war on drugs. But these are American citizens that are dying when medical intervention could save their lives."
------------------------------------------------------------------- Marijuana and Glaucoma (A sanctimonious editorial in The Archives of Opthalmology, by Paul L. Kaufman, MD, previews the biased article by Keith Green, a Medical College of Georgia professor of ophthalmology, about the potential use of marijuana and cannabinoids in glaucoma therapy, which will be widely publicized Nov. 13 and debunked by reformers the same day through the next week.) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 13:57:13 -0800 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) To: email@example.com Subject: MN: US: Editorial: Marijuana and Glaucoma Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Marcus/Mermelstein Family (firstname.lastname@example.org) Source: Archives of Opthalmology Copyright: 1998 American Medical Association Pubdate: Nov 1998 Section: Editorial Author: Paul L. Kaufman, MD Madison, Wis Contact: email@example.com See: http://www.ama-assn.org/public/journals/opht/letters.htm Website: http://www.ama-assn.org/public/journals/opht/ophthome.htm MARIJUANA AND GLAUCOMA In this issue of the ARCHIVES, Green elegantly reviews clinical issues about the potential use of marijuana and cannabinoids in glaucoma therapy. This editorial deals briefly with the scientific foundation underlying the marijuana-glaucoma controversy, and like the review, concludes that data, not demagoguery, should guide our path. Glaucoma results in the degeneration of retinal ganglion cells and their optic nerve axons that carry visual impulses from the eye to the brain. Marijuana and cannabinoids affect the major risk factor for glaucoma, elevation of intraocular pressure (IOP), which is regulated by the hydrodynamic systems at the front of the eye. The ciliary body secretes aqueous humor, which flows into the anterior chamber, nourishes the lens and the cornea, and leaves the eye via 2 routes. One route is through the trabecular meshwork, a lattice of connective tissue and endothelial cells embedded in a glycosaminoglycan-like ground substance, then into the Schlemm canal and the general venous circulation. A secondary drainage route is between the bundles of the ciliary muscle. The ciliary muscle controls trabecular meshwork drainage apparatus by tension on that structure. However, fluid can also move through the connective tissue-filled spaces within the ciliary muscle itself, and then through the sclera and out of the eye into the orbit, a pathway called the uveoscleral outflow route. The relationship between these various components of aqueous humor hydrodynamics can be summarized by the Goldmann equation, as follows: IOP=Pe+(F-U)/Ctrab where Pe indicates episcleral venous pressure (the pressure against which fluid leaving the anterior chamber via the trabecular-canalicular route must drain); F, aqueous humor flow; U, uveoscleral outflow; and Ctrab, facility of outflow from the anterior chamber via the trabecular meshwork and Schlemm canal. Since the goal in glaucoma therapy is to reduce the IOP, one can use the equation to see what has to happen. One can either reduce the episcleral venous pressure, reduce the rate at which fluid is formed by the ciliary processes, increase fluid drainage via the posterior uveoscleral route, or increase the hydraulic conductivity of the trabecular meshwork. Antiglaucoma drugs are currently available for all but the first of these mechanisms. There are currently 6 classes of drugs for the medical therapy of glaucoma. Cholinergic agonists (eg, pilocarpine) contract the ciliary muscle to deform the trabecular meshwork and make it easier for fluid to pass through. The 2-adrenergic agonists, such as epinephrine bitartrate or its prodrug dipivefrin hydrochloride, act directly on the endothelial cells of the trabecular meshwork via a classical 2-adrenoceptor-mediated mechanism, perhaps with an ultimate effect on the cytoskeleton that changes the shape and adhesive properties of these cells and reduces resistance to fluid flow. The -adrenergic antagonists, such as timolol, interfere with the ability of the ciliary epithelium to make fluid. The 2-adrenergic agonists, such as aproclonidine and brimonidine tartrate, and carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, such as acetazolamide sodium and dorzolamide hydrochloride, inhibit secretion. Prostaglandin F2 analogs cause the ciliary muscle to up-regulate the production of matrix metalloproteinases and thereby remodel the extracellular matrix between the bundles of the muscle, making it easier for fluid to leave the eye via the uveoscleral route. Other agents under study act via the cytoskeleton in the trabecular meshwork. At the time of the initial interest in cannabinoids for IOP reduction, in the early to mid-1970s, only cholinomimetics, epinephrine, and oral carbonic anhydrase inhibitors were available; none of these are popular today because of their side effects. They have been superseded by -blockers, 2-adrenergic agonists, prostaglandin F analogs, and topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors. The surgical options of laser trabeculoplasty, trabeculectomy, drainage devices, and cyclodestruction have also progressed during this time. Thus, the playing field is very different than it was 20 or 25 years ago. Where do marijuana and the cannabinoids fit in? Since our present therapy is directed only at lowering IOP, we must ask whether marijuana lowers the IOP. The answer in humans is an unequivocal yes. Several good studies show that smoking a marijuana cigarette reduces the IOP in normal subjects from approximately 15 to 11 mm Hg, a 24% reduction. The Goldmann equation indicates that the higher the IOP, the greater the IOP-lowering effect for a given suppression of fluid formation or enhancement of fluid drainage. In a group of patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension, with starting IOP of approximately 30 mm Hg, smoking a similar marijuana cigarette decreased IOP to approximately 21 or 22 mm Hg, also a 20% to 25% reduction. This result is comparable with that of other glaucoma medications, including the recently approved ones. However, the duration of action of smoked or ingested marijuana, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC), or other cannabinoids is unacceptably short: about 3.0 to 3.5 hours. To treat glaucoma, IOP must be controlled around the clock, and thus patient compliance becomes a serious issue. For marijuana to be a viable therapy, it would have to be smoked every 3 hours, and getting patients to put drops in their eyes even a few times a day is very difficult. Instead, the ideal glaucoma drug would require application at most twice (and preferably once) daily for compliance purposes. Furthermore, there is the question of whether cannabinoids can work topically. The supposedly active compound delta-9-THC does not lower IOP when applied topically. The mechanism(s) by which delta-9-THC or marijuana lowers IOP is not known. Mechanistic studies, performed long ago, have not given the answer, investigator claims to the contrary notwithstanding. We still do not know whether the action is central or peripheral; whether it is on aqueous formation or drainage; whether the sympathetic or parasympathetic nervous system is involved; or whether there is a vascular component. Rabbit ciliary epithelium exhibits decreased short-circuit current and secretion; increased hydraulic conductivity, suggesting varying effects on aqueous production; and increased outflow facility, suggesting an effect on the trabecular meshwork. No studies have been performed on the ciliary muscle. However, there are substantial species differences in responses. For instance, intravenous delta-9-THC decreases IOP in rabbits but not in monkeys. The rabbit outflow apparatus anatomically and physiologically functions quite differently from that of humans and is not an optimal model. In some monkey species, delta-9-THC given orally decreases IOP, but, as in humans, topical delta-9-THC has no effect. Eliminating sympathetic innervation to the eye in rabbits with superior cervical ganglionectomy or pharmacological ganglionic blockade eliminates the effect of delta-9-THC, suggesting drug action through the sympathetic and/or parasympathetic nervous systems. However, in cats neither superior cervical nor ciliary ganglionectomy has any effect. In rabbits, delta-9-THC increases outflow facility and decreases aqueous production; in cats, facility is increased, but production is unchanged. The story is confusing in part because the techniques used are 20 to 25 years old; the animal models are not necessarily comparable with the primate; and the compounds are not as specific as those now available. Measurement techniques have improved since then, and the invasive techniques for animals are much less traumatic. There are several noninvasive techniques applicable to animals and humans, and both are much more precise as to tissue and mechanism affected. Another problem not recognized as relevant to glaucoma 20 or 25 years ago is marijuana's ability to reduce blood pressure. Depending on dosage, frequency, and user experience, the reduction can be rather substantial. Blood flow to the optic nerve may be important to the nerve's health, especially in an adverse environment. In an eye with elevated IOP, or an optic nerve that is not doing well and has unusual susceptibility to changes in IOP, reduced blood flow may be a very important factor in the progression of glaucoma. In summary, decreased blood pressure, decreased optic nerve blood flow, and short duration of the IOP-lowering effect are significant actual and potential problems with marijuana, in addition to the psychotropic effects. Also, because we do not know how the drug works, we do not know how it will interact with other glaucoma drugs. If the mechanism involves a final common pathway, cannabinoids may not be additive and might even interfere with the other compounds. Conversely, some synthetic cannabinoids have neuroprotective effects in vitro, and thus might possess antiglaucoma potential independent of IOP. To rationally determine marijuana's potential place in the antiglaucoma armamentarium, we should study cannabinoids as we would any other interesting class of compounds, rather than simply allowing or abandoning their use at present. We know they lower the IOP substantially, but not how. Even if unsuitable for therapeutic use themselves, they may provide mechanistic insights to the development of other drugs. Issues of limited ocular penetration (because of high lipid and poor water solubility) and duration of action can be dealt with as with other drugs. We are much better able to do these things now than when we first attempted it 20 or 25 years ago. In short, science rather than emotion should set the standard. Paul L. Kaufman, MD Madison, Wis Reprints: Paul L. Kaufman, MD, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, 600 Highland Ave, Room F4/328 CSC, Madison, WI 53792-3220. Reference 1. Green K. Marijuana smoking vs cannabinoids for glaucoma therapy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:1433-1437. (Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:1512-1513)
------------------------------------------------------------------- Marijuana Smoking vs Cannabinoids For Glaucoma Therapy (The biased article by Keith Green, a Medical College of Georgia professor of ophthalmology, about the potential use of marijuana and cannabinoids in glaucoma therapy, which will be widely publicized Nov. 13 and debunked by reformers the same day through the next week.) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:42:44 -0800 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) To: email@example.com Subject: MN: US: Marijuana Smoking vs Cannabinoids For Glaucoma Therapy Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Marcus/Mermelstein Family (firstname.lastname@example.org) Source: Archives of Opthalmology Copyright: 1998 American Medical Association Pubdate: Nov 1998 Section: Clinical Sciences Author: Keith Green, PhD, DSc (e-mail: email@example.com) Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org See: http://www.ama-assn.org/public/journals/opht/letters.htm Website: http://www.ama-assn.org/public/journals/opht/ophthome.htm NOTE: This is the source article for an AP and CNN story which has caused much discussion among some of our readers. The magazine also published an editorial, posted separately at: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n1058.a03.html We are unsure of how widely the AP story was published. Please send any articles related to this issue to email@example.com Instructions for newshawking are at: http://www.mapinc.org/hawk.htm Some of the resulting articles are at: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n1052.a05.html http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n1048.a11.html http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n1046.a07.html MARIJUANA SMOKING VS CANNABINOIDS FOR GLAUCOMA THERAPY Objective: To discuss the clinical effects, including toxicological data, of marijuana and its many constituent compounds on the eye and the remainder of the body. A perspective is given on the use of marijuana and the cannabinoids in the treatment of glaucoma. Results: Although it is undisputed that smoking of marijuana plant material causes a fall in intraocular pressure (IOP) in 60% to 65% of users, continued use at a rate needed to control glaucomatous IOP would lead to substantial systemic toxic effects revealed as pathological changes. Conclusions: Development of drugs based on the cannabinoid molecule or its agonists for use as topical or oral antiglaucoma medications seems to be worthy of further pursuit. Among the latter chemicals, some have no known adverse psychoactive side effects. Smoking of marijuana plant material for the reduction of elevated IOP in glaucoma is ill-advised, given its toxicological profile. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:1433-1437 Previous reviews of the ocular and toxic effects of marijuana[1-6] have provided considerable background on general human responses. Use of marijuana for medicinal purposes decreased markedly in Western civilizations during the 1930s and 1940s, due to the variable potency of these herbal preparations and the parallel development of specific medications that were more potent and targeted toward specific symptoms. This philosophical alteration in medical therapy reflected changes that occurred in all branches of medicine. Only in the latter part of this century has marijuana been used as a pleasure-inducing substance during liberalization of ethics and social behavior in many cultures.[8-10] After tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine, it is probably the most widely used drug in society. More recently, legislation has been passed by certain states (with subsequent revocation in 1 state) that has led to a resurgence of interest in the evaluation of possible medical uses of marijuana. Extensive evaluations have resulted in 1 report to the director of the National Institutes of Health, and will result in another from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. Furthermore, a meeting on this topic held in March 1998 at New York University School of Medicine, New York, will result in publication of a book in the spring of 1999. In many areas of interest, there is little but anecdotal material on which to rely, but in the area of glaucoma, there exists a substantial literature. MEDICAL EFFECTS A number of health hazards of marijuana have been identified, but some are difficult to document completely.[9,10,13] Acute effects are increased pulse rate, orthostatic hypotension, euphoria, and conjunctival hyperemia.[14,15] Long-term clinical effects in humans include respiratory, hormonal, and pulmonary toxic effects, although effects on many other organ systems, including the brain, have been noted.[14,15,16-28] Marijuana smoking leads to emphysemalike lung changes that are caused by the products of marijuana burning (ie, cannabinoids) or through the release of tars, carcinogens, and other volatile materials, as occurs with tobacco smoke.[16,17] The latter products, however, occur in greater concentration than in tobacco smoke. The cognitive effects induced by marijuana are of equal concern; these assume greater relevance with chronic, repetitive exposure, especially in the age group in which glaucoma is most prevalent.[18,20-28] These factors must be considered when potential chronic use of cannabis is considered as a treatment. This is especially true of glaucoma, where continuous use would be necessary to control this 24-hour-a-day disease, requiring as many as 2920 to 3650 marijuana cigarettes per year. The widespread effects of the cannabinoids and marijuana on many biological systems have been attributed to direct effects on certain biochemical processes, perturbations in cell membranes, or attachment to 1 of the 2 identified cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2. The CB1 receptor is located in the central nervous system, whereas CB2 receptors occur in immune system tissues, such as spleen.[29-33] Through use of cannabinoid agonists such as WIN5512-2 and methanandamide, identification of cannabinoid receptors, and evaluation of their role in reflecting the biological activity of the cannabinoids, a better and more complete picture has arisen of the effects of these compounds.[29-33,34-38] OCULAR EFFECTS Inhalation of marijuana smoke or smoke of cigarettes laced with delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC), intravenous injection of cannabinoids, or ingestion of delta-9-THC or marijuana ("brownies") causes conjunctival hyperemia and decreased lacrimation.[1-4,6,39-41] Ocular side effects include diplopia, impairment of accommodation, photophobia, nystagmus, and blepharospasm. The ocular effects of long-term marijuana inhalation seem to be similar.[42,43] Pupillary effects appear to differ depending somewhat on the circumstances of marijuana intake.[44,45] Different cannabinoids reduce intraocular pressure (IOP) in about 60% to 65% of humans, and marijuana and delta-9-THC (inhaled or taken orally) also decrease IOP in the same percentage of nonglaucomatous volunteers[4,39,41,42] and of volunteer patients with glaucoma.[4,41,46] Orthostatic hypotension and 50% decreased lacrimation occur quickly after inhalation of 2% 9-THC cigarettes, as noted with a synthetic THC homolog. An apparent dose-response relationship occurred between cannabinoids or marijuana and IOP when groups were evaluated. Although the peak fall in IOP was dose related, the time of maximal change was unchanged. The IOP fell, on average, by about 25% (range, -45% to +5%) after smoking 2% marijuana through a water-cooled pipe. Duration of the reduction of IOP is about 3 to 4 hours, by which time the IOP approaches the presmoking level.[1-4,6,39,41] The major difficulty with marijuana smoking was to separate the reduction in IOP and the euphoric effect. These findings confirmed the physiological and pharmacological effects found in experimental animals after intravenous drug administration.[47-50] Studies in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) indicated a reduction of IOP in 60% to 65% of the population after marijuana smoking or delta-9-THC ingestion.[4,39,41,46] Seven of 11 patients in 1 study showed a reduction in IOP of about 30% after smoking 2% marijuana cigarettes. More quantities of oral drug or marijuana were needed compared with inhaled drug, presumably due to the poorer absorption by the former route. About 300 volunteers (nonglaucomatous subjects or patients with POAG) overall have participated in studies to examine the acute effects of marijuana smoking or cannabinoid use (topical, oral, or intravenous). Since the largest individual group was about 40 persons, this constitutes a large number of groups and a range of conditions under which marijuana or 1 of its constituents reduced IOP. Topical delta-9-THC was examined in rabbits, dogs, and primates for pharmacological activity[1-6,50,51-55] and toxic effects before being tested in humans.[57-60] The best vehicle identified for delivery of the lipophilic agent in the early 1980s has been superseded by vehicles that permit internalization of lipid-soluble compounds into other materials that are themselves water soluble. This provides an excellent delivery mode of a lipophilic drug through the aqueous tear environment to the lipid corneal epithelium. Other approaches have entailed water-soluble esters of a maleate salt of a 9-THC-related compound. This prodrug approach offers a new modality for encouraging greater drug penetration to the site of action. The development of nonpsychoactive, cannabinoid-related drugs also has resulted in separation of IOP reduction from euphoric effects, at least in experimental animal tests, and holds promise for more future developments. In humans, 9-THC drops were ineffective in reducing IOP in single-or multiple-drop studies, due to the induction of ocular irritation.[59,60] This effect was revealed only in humans. MARIJUANA SMOKING AS TREATMENT FOR GLAUCOMA Use of marijuana smoking as a treatment for glaucoma is not desirable for several reasons. Although drug absorption is maximum with smoking, and the user or patient can titrate the drug to a level of euphoria indicative of a pharmacological response, this approach is poor. The pathological effects on the lung already described, exposure to carcinogens, and the other pulmonary and respiratory changes at the organ and cellular levels[16,17,19] all make smoking a nonviable mechanism. The systemic toxic effects that result in pathological changes alone seem sufficient to discourage smoking marijuana. Primary open-angle glaucoma is a 365-day-a-year disease, and since the marijuana-induced fall in IOP lasts only 3 hours, the drug consumption conceivably needed to reduce and keep IOP at a safe level would be very high. The IOP is the only readily measurable parameter that one can use as an index of POAG and is still the major indicator of what is essentially a neuropathogenic disease. No indication has been obtained or reported that those highly limited number of persons who consume marijuana cigarettes as a compassionate investigational new drug have shown any maintenance of visual function or visual fields or stabilization of optic disappearance. Since marijuana reduces IOP for 3 to 4 hours, after which the IOP returns to baseline, control of IOP at a significantly lowered value, including maintenance of IOP at a 2-hour minimal low value, requires a marijuana cigarette to be smoked 8 or l0 times a day (by those persons in whom IOP actually decreases). This use corresponds to at least 2920 and as many as 3650 marijuana cigarettes consumed per year.[3,6] It is difficult to imagine anyone consuming that much marijuana and being a productive individual who is incorporated into society and perhaps operating machinery or driving on the highways. Similarly, the systemic end-organ effects at this level of consumption have the potential of being quite high. On the other hand, the availability of once-or twice-a-day eye drops (beta-blockers such as timolol maleate, or the prostaglandin agonist latanoprost) makes IOP control a reality for many patients and provides round-the-clock IOP reduction. Glaucoma treatment requires a round-the-clock reduction in IOP, and treatments are evaluated as successful if this level of activity is achieved without progression of visual field loss or optic disc changes. There has been considerable press coverage of the use of marijuana as an antiemetic[63-66] or as treatment for glaucoma. Dangers arise from 2 considerations of the latter. First, intermittent use would lead to a lack of IOP reduction on a continued basis, thereby permitting visual function loss to proceed. Second, full use of enough smoked marijuana leads to the need, as described above, of an average of at least 3300 cigarettes per year. Advocates of the latter approach often cite using marijuana for the relief of symptoms, whereas POAG has no symptoms until too late, when vision is irreversibly lost. The advocates of marijuana smoking for glaucoma treatment also must contend with the lack of standardization of the plant material. The 480 chemicals, including 66 cannabinoids, in marijuana vary depending on the site and circumstances of growth and certainly vary in content depending on which plant part is smoked.[67-69] This variability goes counter to the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC, concerning the chemical identity and performance characteristics of specific drugs. Indeed, dronabinol (Marinol), an oral form of delta-9-THC, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome wasting syndrome. Further, despite attempts by individual states to change their laws, marijuana remains a schedule 1 controlled substance, and federal law prevails. Lastly, there is an increasing movement at the federal and state levels to confine tobacco smoking to highly restricted areas to reduce smoking and the exposure of nonsmokers to second-hand smoke. In the face of this societal change, it is difficult to advocate increased smoking, particularly of marijuana, in settings where smoking is normally banned. CANNABINOIDS FOR GLAUCOMA TREATMENT Oral or topical cannabinoids show promise for future use in glaucoma treatment. Newer topical delivery technologies are available for these lipophilic drugs, including the formation of microemulsions and use of cyclodextrins to increase the solubility in aqueous-based solutions. This is a marked improvement over the lipid-based vehicles that were the only ones available during earlier basic and clinical studies of topical cannabinoids.[51,56,59,60,70] The development of compounds related to delta-9-THC, such as HU211 (dexanabinol), that show a complete absence of euphoric effects while retaining IOP-reducing activity is a major advance. Increasing knowledge concerning the topical cannabinoid receptors and ligands that reduce IOP in rabbit or monkey eyes will allow exploration of different structural analogs that may identify compounds efficacious as potential glaucoma medications.[70,71-78] Topical administration also has the advantage of permitting the use of a low mass of drug per delivery volume. Even at 5% concentration, a 30-uL drop would contain only 1.5 mg. Oral administration of cannabinoids that lack psychoactive effects but will reduce IOP could be a significant addition to the ophthalmic armamentarium against glaucoma. The cannabinoids that exist in the plant material[67-69] or as metabolites[79,80] do not appear to be viable candidates for oral use because of the inability to separate their euphoric and IOP-reducing effects. Because they are readily characterized from a chemical perspective, the cannabinoids and related substances represent an area of focus for future studies. Such attention would allow the development of appropriate vehicles for these chemicals into the predominantly aqueous environment of the tears. Compounds would be identified that have no euphoric effects or at least a very high ratio of IOP reduction to euphoric effects. Such chemicals would eliminate any potential abuse problems while providing drugs that would reduce IOP by unique interaction with receptors or other membrane components that could be additive to other currently available glaucoma medications. In experiments where the action of cannabinoids in causing an IOP reduction has been sought, evidence points to an influence on increasing outflow of fluid from the eye as the major component. This is true for delta-9-THC and HU211, although the binding of each of these compounds to the cannabinoid receptor differs widely. The rapidity of onset of the responses strongly suggests that an effect is occurring that can undergo rapid adjustment rather than be related to slow alterations in trabecular meshwork glycoproteins. The perspective presented herein differs in several ways from the conclusions reached by the National Institutes of Health-assembled panel to provide a written report on medicinal use of marijuana. The primary difference is the focus of research efforts, which the panel concluded should have marijuana smoking as its delivery mode, whereas my review recommends cannabinoids. The reasons for this divergence of opinion are given and, I believe, are compelling for glaucoma studies to focus on individual chemicals rather than a nonstandardized plant material. The latter has no possibility, due to the inherent variability and the plant versatility, of reaching the standards required by the Food and Drug Administration in terms of chemical identity, purity, or characterization. A contemporary review of medicinal applications that evaluated the effect of delta-9-THC and marijuana on a broad spectrum of medical problems indicated that THC may have a role in treating nausea associated with cancer chemotherapy and in appetite stimulation. Other uses of either material were not supported. From the Departments of Ophthalmology, and Physiology and Endocrinology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta. The author has no commercial or proprietary interest in any drug or product mentioned in this article. Accepted for publication July 21, 1998. This study was supported in part by an unrestricted departmental award and a Senior Scientific Investigator award from Research to Prevent Blindness Inc, New York, NY. I thank Brenda Sheppard for her valuable secretarial assistance. Reprints: Keith Green, PhD, DSc, Department of Ophthalmology, Medical College of Georgia, 112015th St, Augusta, GA 30912-3400 (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org). MARIJUANA SMOKING VS CANNABINOIDS FOR GLAUCOMA THERAPY REFERENCES 1. Green K. The ocular effects of cannabinoids. In: Zadunaisky JA, Davson H, eds. Current Topics in Eye Research. Orlando, Fla: Academic Press Inc; 1979;1:175-215. 2. Green K. Current status of basic and clinical marihuana research in ophthalmology. In: Leopold IH, Burns RP, eds. Symposium on Ocular Therapy. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1979;11:37-49. 3. Green K. Marihuana and the eye: a review. J Toxicol Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 1982;1:3-32. 4. Green K. Marijuana effects on intraocular pressure. In: Drance SM, Neufeld AH, eds. Glaucoma: Applied Pharmacology in Medical Treatment. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton Inc; 1984:507-526. 5. Mechoulam R, Lander H, Srebnik M, et al. Recent advances in the use of cannabinoids as therapeutic agents. In: Agurell S, Dewey WL, Willette RE, eds. The Cannabinoids: Chemical, Pharmacologic and Therapeutic Aspects. Orlando, Fla: Academic Press Inc; 1984:777-793. 6. Green K, McDonald TF. Ocular toxicology of marijuana: an update. J Toxicol Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 1987;6:309-334. 7. Green K. History of ophthalmic toxicology. In: Chiou GCY, ed. Ophthalmic Toxicology. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1992:1-16. 8. Waller CW, Nair RS, McAllister AF, Urbanek B, Turner CE. Marihuana: An Annotated Bibliography. Vol 2. New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Co Inc; 1982. 9. Fehr KO, Kalant H, eds. Adverse Health and Behavioral Consequences of Cannabis Use. Toronto, Ontario: Addictive Research Foundation; 1983. 10. Nahas GG, ed. Marihuana in Science and Medicine. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1984. 11. Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana: Report to the Director. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health; 1997. 12. Nahas GG, Sutin KN, Agurell S, eds. Marijuana and Medicine. Totawa, NJ: Humana Press. In press. 13. Agurell S, Dewey WL, Willette RE, eds. The Cannabinoids: Chemical, Pharmacologic and Therapeutic Aspects. Orlando, Fla: Academic Press Inc; 1984. 14. Graham IDP. Cannabis and Health. Orlando, Fla: Academic Press Inc; 1976. 15. Dewey WL. Cannabinoid pharmacology. Pharmacol Rev. 1986;38:151-178. 16. Tashkin DP, Shapiro BJ, Ramanna L, Taplin GV, Lee YE, Harper CE. Chronic effects of heavy marihuana smoking on pulmonary function in healthy young males. In: Braude MC, Szara S, eds. The Pharmacology of Marihuana. New York, NY; Raven Press; 1976:291-295. 17. Rosenkrantz H, Fleischman RW. Effects of cannabis on lungs. In: Nahas GG, Paton WDM, eds. Marihuana: Biological Effects. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press Inc; 1979:279-299. 18. Dornbush RL, Kokkevi A. The acute effects of various cannabis substances on cognitive, perceptual, and motor performance in very long-term hashish users. In: Braude MC, Szara S, eds. The Pharmacology of Marihuana. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1976:421-427. 19. Marihuana and Health. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine Report; 1982. 20. Murray JB. Marijuana's effects on human cognitive functions, psychomotor functions, and personality. J Gen Psychol. 1986;113:23-55. 21. Devane WA, Dysarz FA III, Johnson MR, Melvin LS, Howlett AC. Determination and characterization of a cannabinoid receptor in rat brain. Mol Pharmacol. 1988;34:605-613. 22. Leon-Carrion J. Mental performance in long-term heavy cannabis: a preliminary report. Psychol Rep. 1990;67:947-952. 23. Munro S, Thomas KL, Abu-Shaar M. Molecular characterization of a peripheral receptor for cannabinoids. Nature. 1993;365:61-65. 24. Howlett AC. Pharmacology of cannabinoid receptors. Ann Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 1995;35:607-634. 25. Solowij N. Do cognitive impairments recover following cessation of cannabis use? Life Sci. 1995;5:2119-2126. 26. Solowij N, Michie PT, Fox AM. Differential impairments of selective attention due to frequency and duration of cannabis use. Biol Psychiatry. 1995;37:731-739. 27. Fletcher JM, Page JB, Francis DJ, et al. Cognitive correlates of long-term cannabis use in Costa Rican men. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1996;53:1051-1057. 28. Pope HG, Yurgelun-Todd D. The residual cognitive effects of heavy marijuana use in college students. JAMA. 1996;275:521-527. 29. Mechoulam R, Feigenbaum JJ, Lander N, et al. Enantiomeric cannabinoids: stereospecificity of psychotropic activity. Experientia.1988;44:762-764. 30. Howlett AC, Champion TM, Wilken GH, Mechoulam R. Stereochemical effects of 11-OH-8-tetrahydrocannabinol-dimethylheptyl to inhibit adenylate cyclase and bind to the cannabinoid receptor. Neuropharmacology. 1990;29:161-165. 31. D'Ambra TE, Estep KG, Bell MR, et al. Conformationally restrained analogues of pravadoline: nanomolar potent, enantioselective, (aminoalkyl)indole agonists of the cannabinoid receptor. J Med Chem. 1992;35:124-135. 32. Compton DR, Gold LH, Ward SJ, Balster RL, Martin BR. Aminoalkylindole analogs: cannabimimetic activity of a class of compounds structurally distinct from 9-tetrahydrocannabinol. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1992;263:1118-1126. 33. Lynn AB, Herkenham M. Localization of cannabinoid receptors and nonsaturable high-density cannabinoid binding sites in peripheral tissues of the rat: implications for receptor-mediated immune modulation by cannabinoids. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1994;268:1612-1613. 34. Devane WA, Hanus L, Breuer A, et al. Isolation and structure of a brain constituent that binds to the cannabinoid receptor. Science. 1992;258:1946-1959. 35. Fride E, Mechoulam R. Pharmacological activity of the cannabinoid receptor agonist, anandamide, a brain constituent. Eur J Pharmacol. 1993;231:313-314. 36. Kuster JE, Stevenson JI, Ward SJ, D'Ambra TE, Haycock DA. Aminoalkylindole binding in rat cerebellum: selective displacement by natural and synthetic cannabinoids. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1993;264:1351-1363. 37. Abadji V, Lin S, Taha G, et al. (R)-methanandamide: a chiral novel anandamide possessing higher potency and metabolic stability. J Med Chem. 1994;37:1889-1893. 38. Smith PB, Compton DR, Welch SP, Razdan RK, Mechoulam R, Martin BR. The pharmacological activity of anandamide, a putative endogenous cannabinoid in mice. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1994;270:219-227. 39. Hepler RS, Frank IM, Petrus R. Ocular effects of marijuana smoking. In: Braude MC, Szara S, eds. The Pharmacology of Marihuana. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1976:815-824. 40. Perez-Reyes M, Wagner D, Wall ME, Davis KH. Intravenous administration of cannabinoids on intraocular pressure. In: Braude MC, Szara S, eds. The Pharmacology of Marihuana. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1976:829-832. 41. Merritt JC, Crawford WJ, Alexander PC, Anduze AL, Gelbart SS. Effect of marihuana on intraocular and blood pressure in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1980;87:222-228. 42. Jones RT, Benowitz N. The 30-day trip: clinical studies of cannabis tolerance and dependence. In: Braude MC, Szara S, eds. The Pharmacology of Marihuana. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1976:627-642. 43. Dawson WW, Jiminez-Antillon CF, Perez JM, Zeskind JA. Marihuana and vision after ten years' use in Costa Rica. Invest Ophthalmol. 1977;16:689-699. 44. Hepler RS, Frank IM, Ungerleider JT. Pupillary constriction after marijuana smoking. Am J Ophthalmol. 1972;74:1185-1190. 45. Brown B, Adams M, Halgerstrom-Portnoy G, Jones RT, Flom MC. Pupil size after use of marijuana and alcohol. Am J Ophthalmol. 1977;83:350-354. 46. Hepler RS, Petrus R. Experiences with administration of marihuana to glaucoma patients. In: Cohen S, Stillman RC, eds. The Therapeutic Potential of Marihuana. New York, NY: Plenum Publishing Corp; 1976:63-75. 47. Green K, Bowman KA. Effect of marihuana derivatives on intraocular pressure. In: Braude MC, Szara S, eds. The Pharmacology of Marihuana. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1976:803-813. 48. Green K, Symonds CM, Oliver NW, Elijah RD. Intraocular pressure following systemic administration of cannabinoids. Curr Eye Res. 1982-1983;2:247-253. 49. El-Sohly MA, Harland EC, Benigni DA, Waller CW. Cannabinoids in glaucoma, II: the effect of different cannabinoids on intraocular pressure of the rabbit. Curr Eye Res. 1984;3:841-850. 50. Waller CW, Benigni DA, Harland EC, Bedford JA, Murphy JC, El-Sohly MA. Cannabinoids in glaucoma, III: the effects of different cannabinoids on intraocular pressure in the monkey. In: Agurell S, Dewey WL, Willette RE, eds. The Cannabinoids: Chemical, Pharmacologic and Therapeutic Aspects. Orlando, Fla: Academic Press Inc; 1984:871-880. 51. Green K, Wynn H, Bowman K. A comparison of topical cannabinoids on intraocular pressure. Exp Eye Res. 1978;27:239-246. 52. Howes JF. Antiglaucoma effects of topically and orally administered cannabinoids. In: Agurell S, Dewey WL, Willette RE, eds. The Cannabinoids: Chemical, Pharmacologic and Therapeutic Aspects. Orlando, Fla: Academic Press Inc; 1984:881-890. 53. Merritt JC, Whitaker R, Page CJ, et al. Topical delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol as a potential glaucoma agent. Glaucoma. 1982;4:253-255. 54. Merritt JC, Peiffer RL, McKinnon SM, Stapleton SS, Goodwin T, Risco JM. Topical delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on intraocular pressure in dogs. Glaucoma. 1981;3:13-16. 55. Green K, Bigger JF, Kim L, Bowman K. Cannabinoid penetration and chronic effects in the eye. Exp Eye Res. 1977;24:197-205. 56. Green K, Sobel RE, Fineberg E, Wynn HR, Bowman KA. Subchronic ocular and systemic toxicity of topically applied delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Ann Ophthalmol. 1981;13:1219-1222. 57. Merritt JC, Olsen JL, Armstrong JR, McKinnon SM. Topical delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in humans. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1981;33:40-41. 58. Merritt JC, Perry DD, Russell DN, Jones BF. Topical delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and aqueous dynamics in glaucoma. J Clin Pharmacol. 1981;21(suppl 8-9):467S-471S. 59. Green K, Roth M. Ocular effects of topical administration of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in man. Arch Ophthalmol. 1982;100:265-267. 60. Jay WM, Green K. Multiple-drop study of topically applied 1% 9-tetrahydrocannabinol in human eyes. Arch Ophthalmol. 1983;101:591-593. 61. Beilin M, Aviv H, Friedman D, et al. HU2 11, a novel synthetic, non-psychotropic cannabinoid with ocular hypotensive activity [abstract]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993;34(suppl):1113. 62. Sugrue MF. New approaches to antiglaucoma therapy. J Med Chem. 1997;40:2793-2809. 63. Lucas VS, Laszlo J. delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol for refractory vomiting induced by cancer chemotherapy. JAMA. 1980;243:1241-1243. 64. Poster DS, Penta JS, Bruno S, Macdonald JS. delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in clinical oncology. JAMA. 1981;245:2047-2051. 65. Schwartz RH, Voth EA, Sheridan MJ. Marijuana to prevent nausea and vomiting in cancer patients: a survey of clinical oncologists. South Med J. 1997;90:167-172. 66. Allen T. Tetrahydrocannabinol and chemotherapy [letter]. N Engl J Med. 1976;294:168. 67. Turner CE, El-Sohly MA, Boeren EG. Constituents of Cannabis sativa (L), XVII: a review of the natural constituents. J Nat Prod. 1980;43:169-234. 68. Doorenbos NJ, Fetterman PS, Quimby MW, Turner CE. Cultivation, extraction and analysis of Cannabis sativa (L). Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1971;191:3-14. 69. Ross SA, El-Sohly MA. Constituents of Cannabis sativa L, XXVIII: a review of the natural constituents: 1980-1984. Zagazig J Pharm Sci. 1995;4:1-10. 70. Green K, Kim K. Acute dose response of intraocular pressure to topical and oral cannabinoids. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1977;154:228-231. 71. Mechoulam R, Lander N, Varkony TH, et al. Stereochemical requirements for cannabinoid activity. J Med Sci. 1980;23:1068-1072. 72. Newell FW, Stark P, Jay WM, Schanzlin DJ. Nabilone: a pressure-reducing synthetic benzopyran in open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1979;86:156-160. 73. Lemberger L. Potential therapeutic usefulness of marijuana. Ann Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 1980;20:151-172. 74. Razdan RK. Structure-activity relationships in cannabinoids. Pharmacol Rev. 1986;38:75-149. 75. Sugrue MF, Funk HA, Leonard Y, O'Neill-Davis L, Labelle M. The ocular hypotensive effects of synthetic cannabinoids [abstract]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1996;37(suppl):831. 76. Pate DW, Jarvinen K, Urtti A, Harho P, Jarvinen T. Arachidonylethanolamide decreases intraocular pressure in normotensive rabbits. Curr Eye Res. 1995;14:791-797. 77. Pate DW, Jarvinen K, Urtti A, et al. Effects of topical anandamides on intraocular pressure in normotensive rabbits. Life Sci. 1996;58:1849-1860. 78. Hodges LC, Reggio PH, Green K. Evidence against cannabinoid receptor involvement in intraocular pressure: effects of cannabinoids in rabbits. Ophthalmic Res. 1997;29:1-5. 79. Hollister LE, Gillespie HK. Delta-8- and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol: comparison in man by oral and intravenous administration. Clin Pharm Ther. 1973;14:353-357. 80. Wall ME, Brine DR, Perez-Reyes M. Metabolism of cannabinoids in man. In: Braude MC, Szara S, eds. The Pharmacology of Marihuana. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1976:93-113. 81. Green K. Marijuana and intraocular pressure: possible mechanisms of action. In: Nahas GG, Sutin KN, Agurell S, eds. Marijuana and Medicine. Totawa, NJ: Humana Press. In press. 82. Voth EA, Schwartz RH. Medicinal applications of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and marijuana. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:791-798.
------------------------------------------------------------------- The War At Home (A lengthy article by Gore Vidal in Vanity Fair analyzes the war against Constitutional liberties waged by American government and media, particularly in the guise of the war on some drugs and counter-terrorism.) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 20:28:46 -0800 From: email@example.com (MAPNews) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: MN: US: The War At Home Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Patrick Henry (email@example.com) Pubdate: November 1998 Source: Vanity Fair Page: 96 Copyright: 1998 The Conde Nast Publications Inc. Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.vanityfair.com Author: Gore Vidal THE WAR AT HOME The U.S. Bill Of Rights Is Being Steadily Eroded, With Two Million Telephone Calls Tapped, 30 Million Workers Under Electronic Surveillance, And, Says The Author, Countless Americans Harassed By A Government That Wages Spurious Wars Against Drugs And Terrorism. Most Americans of a certain age can recall exactly where they were and what they were doing on October 20, 1964, when word came that Herbert Hoover was dead. The heart and mind of a nation stopped. But how many recall when and how they first became aware that one or another of the Bill of Rights had expired? For me, it was sometime in 1960 at a party in Beverly Hills that I got the bad news from the constitutionally cheery actor Cary Grant. He had just flown in from New York. He had, he said, picked up his ticket at an airline counter in that magical old-world airport, Idlewild, whose very name reflected our condition. "There were these lovely girls behind the counter, and they were delighted to help me, or so they said. I signed some autographs. Then I asked one of them for my tickets. Suddenly she was very solemn. 'Do you have any identification?' she asked." (Worldly friends tell me that the "premise" of this story is now the basis of a series of TV commercials for Visa unseen by me.) I would be exaggerating if I felt the chill in the air that long-ago Beverly Hills evening. Actually, we simply laughed. But I did, for just an instant, wonder if the future had tapped a dainty foot on our mass grave. Curiously enough, it was Grant again who bore, as lightly as ever, the news that privacy itself hangs by a gossamer thread. "A friend in London rang me this morning," he said. This was June 4, 1963. "Usually we have code names, but this time he forgot. So after he asked for me I said into the receiver, 'All right. St. Louis, off the line. You, too, Milwaukee,' and so on. The operators love listening in. Anyway, after we talked business, he said, 'So what's the latest Hollywood gossip?' And I said, 'Well, Lana Turner is still having an affair with that black baseball pitcher.' One of the operators on the line gave a terrible cry, 'Oh, no!"' Innocent days. Today, as media and Congress thunder their anthem, "Twinkle, twinkle, little Starr, how we wonder what you are," the current president is assumed to have no right at all to privacy because, you see, it's really about sex, not truth, a permanent nonstarter in political life. Where Grant's name assured him an admiring audience of telephone operators, the rest of us were usually ignored. That was then. Today, in the all-out, never-to-be-won twin wars on Drugs and Terrorism, two million telephone conversations a year are intercepted by law-enforcement officials. As for that famous "workplace" to which so many Americans are assigned by necessity, "the daily abuse of civil liberties ... is a national disgrace," according to the American Civil Liberties Union in a 1996 report. Among the report's findings, between 1990 and 1996, the number of workers under electronic surveillance increased from 8 million per year to more than 30 million. Simultaneously, employers eavesdrop on an estimated 400 million telephone conversations a year--something like 750 a minute. In 1990, major companies subjected 38 percent of their employees to urine tests for drugs. By 1996, more than 70 percent were thus interfered with. Recourse to law has not been encouraging. In fact, the California Supreme Court has upheld the right of public employers to drug-test not only those employees who have been entrusted with flying jet aircraft or protecting our borders from Panamanian imperialism but also those who simply mop the floors. The court also ruled that governments can screen applicants for drugs and alcohol. This was inspired by the actions of the city-state of Glendale, California, which wanted to test all employees due for promotion. Suit was brought against Glendale on the ground that it was violating the Fourth Amendment's protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures." Glendale's policy was upheld by the California Supreme Court, but Justice Stanley Mosk wrote a dissent: "Drug testing represents a significant additional invasion of those applicants' basic rights to privacy and dignity ... and the city has not carried its considerable burden of showing that such an invasion is justified in the case of all applicants offered employment." In the last year or so I have had two Cary Grant-like revelations, considerably grimmer than what went on in the good old days of relative freedom from the state. A well-known acting couple and their two small children came to see me one summer. Photos were taken of their four-year-old and six-year-old cavorting bare in the sea. When the couple got home to Manhattan, the father dropped the negatives off at a drugstore to be printed. Later, a frantic call from his fortunately friendly druggist: "If I print these I've got to report you and you could get five years in the slammer for kiddie porn." The war on kiddie porn is now getting into high gear, though I was once assured by Wardell Pomeroy, Allied Kinsey's colleague in sex research, that pedophilia was barely a blip on the statistical screen, somewhere down there with farm lads and their animal friends. It has always been a mark of American freedom that unlike countries under constant Napoleonic surveillance, we are not obliged to carry identification to show to curious officials and pushy police. But now, due to Terrorism, every one of us is stopped at airports and obliged to show an ID which must include a mug shot (something, as Allah knows, no terrorist would ever dare fake). In Chicago after an interview with Studs Terkel, I complained that since I don't have a driver's license, I must carry a passport in my own country as if I were a citizen of the old Soviet Union. Terkel has had the same trouble. "I was asked for my ID--with photo--at this southern airport, and I said I didn't have anything except the local newspaper with a big picture of me on the front page, which I showed them, but they said that that was not an ID. Finally, they got tired of me and let me on the plane." Lately, I have been going through statistics about terrorism (usually direct responses to crimes our government has committed against foreigners-although, recently, federal crimes against our own people are increasing). Only twice in 12 years have American commercial planes been destroyed in flight by terrorists; neither originated in the United States. To prevent, however, a repetition of these two crimes, hundreds of millions of travelers must now be subjected to searches, seizures, delays. The state of the art of citizen-harassment is still in its infancy. Nevertheless, new devices, at ever greater expense, are coming onto the market--and, soon, to an airport near you--including the dream machine of every horny schoolboy. The "Body Search" Contraband Detection System, created by American Science and Engineering, can "X-ray" through clothing to reveal the naked body, whose enlarged image can then be cast onto a screen for prurient analysis. The proud manufacturer boasts that the picture is so clear that even navels, unless packed with cocaine and taped over, can be seen winking at the voyeurs. The system also has what is called, according to an A.C.L.U. report, "a joystick-driven Zoom Option" that allows the operator to enlarge interesting portions of the image. During all this, the victim remains, as AS&E proudly notes, fully clothed. Orders for this machine should be addressed to the Reverend Pat Robertson and will be filled on a first-come, first-served basis, while the proud new owner of "Body Search" will be automatically included in the F.B.I.'s database of Sexual Degenerates-Class B. Meanwhile, in February 1997, the "Al" Gore Commission called for the acquisition of 54 high-tech bomb-detection machines known as the CTX 5000, a baggage scanner that is a bargain at a million dollars and will cost only $100,000 a year to service. Unfortunately, the CTX 5000 scans baggage at the rate of 250 per hour, which would mean perhaps a thousand are needed to "protect" passengers at major airports from those two putative terrorists who might--or might not--strike again in the next 12 years, as they twice did in the last 12 years. Since the present scanning system seems fairly effective, why subject passengers to hours of delay, not to mention more than $54 million worth of equipment? Presently, somewhat confused guidelines exist so that airline personnel can recognize at a glance someone who fits the "profile" of a potential terrorist. Obviously, anyone of mildly dusky hue who is wearing a fez gets busted on the spot. For those terrorists who do not seem to fit the "profile," relevant government agencies have come up with the following behavioral tips that should quickly reveal the evildoer. A devious drug smuggler is apt to be the very first person off the plane unless, of course, he is truly devious and chooses to be the last one off. Debonair master criminals often opt for a middle position. Single blonde young women are often used, unwittingly, to carry bombs or drugs given them by Omar Sharif look-alikes in sinister Casbahs. Upon arrival in freedom's land, great drug-sniffing dogs will be turned loose on them; unfortunately, these canine detectives often mistakenly target as drug carriers women that are undergoing their menstrual period: the sort of icebreaker that often leads to merry laughter all around the customs area. Apparently one absolutely sure behavioral giveaway is undue nervousness on the part of a passenger though, again, the master criminal will sometimes appear to be too much at ease. In any case, whatever mad rule of thumb is applied, a customs official has every right to treat anyone as a criminal on no evidence at all; to seize and to search without, of course, due process of law. Drugs. If they did not exist our governors would have invented them in order to prohibit them and so make much of the population vulnerable to arrest, imprisonment, seizure of property, and so on. In 1970, I wrote in The New York Times, of all uncongenial places, It is possible to stop most drug addiction in the United States within a very short time. Simply make all drugs available and sell them at cost. Label each drug with a precise description of what effect-good or bad--the drug will have on the taker. This will require heroic honesty. Don't say that marijuana is addictive or dangerous when it is neither, as millions of people know--unlike "speed," which kills most unpleasantly, or heroin, which can be addictive and difficult to kick. Along with exhortation and warning, it might be good for our citizens to recall (or learn for the first time) that the United States was the creation of men who believed that each person has the right to do what he wants with his own life as long as he does not interfere with his neighbors' pursuit of happiness (that his neighbor's idea of happiness is persecuting others does confuse matters a bit). I suspect that what I wrote 28 years ago is every bit as unacceptable now as it was then, with the added problem of irritable ladies who object to my sexism in putting the case solely in masculine terms, as did the sexist founders. I also noted the failure of the prohibition of alcohol from 1919 to 1933. And the crime wave that Prohibition set in motion so like the one today since "both the Bureau of Narcotics and the Mafia want strong laws against the sale and use of drugs because if drugs are sold at cost there would be no money in them for anyone." Will anything sensible be done I wondered? "The American people are as devoted to the idea of sin and its punishment as they are to making money--and fighting drugs is nearly as big a business as pushing them. Since the combination of sin and money is irresistible (particularly to the professional politician), the situation will only grow worse." I suppose, if nothing else, I was a pretty good prophet. The media constantly deplore the drug culture and, variously, blame foreign countries like Colombia for obeying that Iron law of supply and demand to which we have, as a notion and as a nation, sworn eternal allegiance. We also revel in military metaphors. Czars lead our armies into wars against drug dealers and drug takers. So great is this permanent emergency that we can no longer afford such frills as habeas corpus and due process of law. In 1989 the former drug czar and TV talk-show fool, William Bennett, suggested de jure as well as de facto abolition of habeas corpus in "drug" cases as well as (I am not inventing this) public beheadings of drug dealers. A year later, Ayatollah Bennett declared, "I find no merit in the [drug] legalizers' case. The simple fact is that drug use is wrong. And the moral argument, in the end, is the most compelling argument." Of course, what this dangerous comedian thinks is moral James Madison and the Virginia statesman and Rights-man George Mason would have thought dangerous nonsense, particularly when his "morality" abolishes their gift to all of us, the Bill of Rights. But Bennett is not alone in his madness. A special assistant to the president on drug abuse declared, in 1984, "You cannot let one drug come in and say, 'Well, this drug is all right.' We've drawn the line. There's no such thing as a soft drug." There goes Tylenol-3, containing codeine. Who would have thought that age-old palliatives could, so easily, replace the only national religion that the United States has ever truly had, anti-Communism? On June 10, 1998, a few brave heretical voices were raised in The New York Times, on an inner page. Under the heading BIG NAMES SIGN LETTER CRITICIZING WAR ON DRUGS. A billionaire named "George Sores has amassed signatures of hundreds of prominent people around the world on a letter asserting that the global war on drugs is causing more harm than drug abuse itself." Apparently, the Lindesmith Center in New York, funded by Sores, had taken out an ad in the Times, thereby, expensively, catching an editor's eye. The signatories included a former secretary of state and a couple of ex-senators, but though the ad was intended to coincide with a United Nations special session on Satanic Substances, it carried no weight with one General Barry McCaffrey, President Clinton's war director, who called the letter "a 1950s perception," whatever that may mean. After all, drug use in the 50s was less than it is now after four decades of relentless warfare. Curiously, the New York Times story made the signatories seem to be few and eccentric while the Manchester Guardian in England reported that among the "international signatories are the former prime minister of the Netherlands... the former presidents of Bolivia and Colombia... three [U.S.] federal judges... senior clerics, former drugs squad officers... " But the Times always knows what's fit to print. It is ironic - to use the limpest adjective - that a government as spontaneously tyrannous and callous as ours should, over the years, have come to care so much about our health as it endlessly tests and retests commercial drugs available in other lands while arresting those who take "hard" drugs on the parental ground that they are bad for the user's health. One is touched by their concern - touched and dubious. After all, these same compassionate guardians of our well-being have sternly, year in and year out, refused to allow us to have what every other First World country simply takes for granted, a national health service. When Mr. and Mrs. Clinton came up to Washington, green as grass from the Arkansas hills and all pink and aglow from swift-running whitewater creeks, they tried to give the American people such a health system, a small token in exchange for all that tax money which had gone for "defense" against an enemy that had wickedly folded when our back was turned. At the first suggestion that it was time for us to join the civilized world, there began a vast conspiracy to stop any form of national health care. It was hardly just the "right wing," as Mrs. Clinton suggested. Rather, the insurance and pharmaceutical companies combined with elements of the American Medical Association to destroy forever any notion that we be a country that provides anything for its citizens in the way of health care. One of the problems of a society as tightly controlled as ours is that we get so little information about what those of our fellow citizens whom we will never know or see are actually thinking and feeling. This seems a paradox when most politics today involves minute-by-minute polltaking on what looks to be every conceivable subject, but, as politicians and pollsters know, it's how the question is asked that determines the response. Also, there are vast areas, like rural America, that are an unmapped ultima Thule to those who own the corporations that own the media that spend billions of dollars to take polls in order to elect their lawyers to high office. Ruby Ridge. Waco. Oklahoma City. Three warning bells from a heartland that most of us who are urban dwellers know little or nothing about. Cause of rural dwellers' rage? In 1996 there were 1,471 mergers of American corporations in the interest of "consolidation." This was the largest number of mergers in American history, and the peak of a trend that had been growing in the world of agriculture since the late 1970s. One thing shared by the victims at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and Timothy McVeigh, who committed mass murder in their name at Oklahoma City, was the conviction that the government of the United States is their implacable enemy and that they can only save themselves by hiding out in the wilderness, or by joining a commune centered on a messianic figure, or, as revenge for the cold blooded federal murder of two members of the Weaver family at Ruby Ridge, blow up the building that contained the bureau responsible for the murders. To give the media their due, they have been uncommonly generous with us on the subject of the religious and political beliefs of rural dissidents. There is a neo-Nazi "Aryan Nations." There are Christian fundamentalists called "Christian Identity," also known as "British Israelism." All of this biblically inspired nonsense has taken deepest root in those dispossessed of their farmland in the last generation. Needless to say, Christian demagogues fan the flames of race and sectarian hatred on television and, illegally, pour church money into political campaigns. Conspiracy theories now blossom in the wilderness like night-blooming dementia praecox, and those in thrall to them are mocked invariably by the ... by the actual conspirators. Joel Dyer, in Harvest of Rage: Why Oklahoma City Is Only the Beginning, has discovered some very real conspiracies out there, but the conspirators are old hands at deflecting attention from themselves. Into drugs? Well, didn't you know Queen Elizabeth II is overall director of the world drug trade (if only poor Lillibet had had the foresight in these republican times!). They tell us that the Trilateral Commission is a world-Communist conspiracy headed by the Rockefellers. Actually, the commission is excellent shorthand to show how the Rockefellers draw together politicians and academics-on-the-make to serve their business interests in government and out. Whoever it was who got somebody like Lyndon LaRouche to say that this Rockefeller Cosa Nostra is really a Communist front was truly inspired. But Dyer has unearthed a genuine ongoing conspiracy that affects everyone in the United States. Currently, a handful of agro-conglomerates are working to drive America's remaining small farmers off their land by systematically paying them less for their produce than it costs to grow, thus forcing them to get loans from the conglomerates' banks, assume mortgages, undergo foreclosures and the sale of land to corporate-controlled agribusiness. But is this really a conspiracy or just the Darwinian workings of an efficient marketplace? There is, for once, a smoking gun in the form of a blueprint describing how best to rid the nation of small farmers. Dyer writes: "In 1962, the Committee for Economic Development comprised approximately seventy-five of the nation's most powerful corporate executives. They represented not only the food industry but also oil and gas, insurance, investment and retail industries. Almost all groups that stood to gain from consolidation were represented on that committee. Their report [An Adaptive Program for Agriculture] outlined a plan to eliminate farmers and farms. It was detailed and well thought out." Simultaneously, "as early as 1964, Congressmen were being told by industry giants like Pillsbury, Swift, General Foods, and Campbell Soup that the biggest problem in agriculture was too many farmers." Good psychologists, the C.E.O.'s had noted that farm children, if sent to college, seldom return to the family farm. Or as one famous economist said to a famous senator who was complaining about jet lag on a night flight from New York to London, "Well, it sure beats farming." The committee got the government to send farm children to college. Predictably, most did not come back. Government then offered to help farmers relocate in other lines of work, allowing their land to be consolidated in ever vaster combines owned by fewer and fewer corporations. So a conspiracy had been set in motion to replace the Jeffersonian ideal of a nation whose backbone was the independent farm family with a series of agribusiness monopolies where, Dyer writes, "only five to eight multinational companies have, for all intents and purposes, been the sole purchasers and transporters not only of the American grain supply but that of the entire world." By 1982 "these companies controlled 96% of US wheat exports, 95% of US corn exports," and so on through the busy aisles of chic Gristedes, homely Ralph's, sympathetic Piggly Wigglys. Has consolidation been good for the customers? By and large, no. Monopolies allow for no bargains, nor do they have to fuss too much about quality because we have no alternative to what they offer. Needless to say, they are hostile to labor unions and indifferent to working conditions for the once independent farmers, now ill-paid employees. For those of us who grew up in pre-war United States there was the genuine ham sandwich. Since consolidation, ham has been so rubberized that it tastes of nothing at all while its texture is like rosy plastic. Why? In the great hogariums a hog remains in one place, on its feet, for life. Since it does not root about or even move-it builds up no natural resistance to disease. This means a great deal of drugs are pumped into the prisoner's body until its death and transfiguration as inedible ham. By and large, the Sherman anti-trust laws are long since gone. Today three companies control 80 percent of the total beef-packing market. How does this happen? Why do dispossessed farmers have no congressional representatives to turn to? Why do consumers get stuck with mysterious pricings of products that in themselves are inferior to those of an earlier time? Dyer's answer is simple but compelling. Through their lobbyists, the corporate executives who drew up the "adaptive program" for agriculture now own or rent or simply intimidate Congresses and presidents while the courts are presided over by their former lobbyists, an endless supply of white-collar servants since two-thirds of all the lawyers on our small planet are Americans. Finally, the people at large are not represented in government while corporations are, lavishly. What is to be done? Only one thing will work, in Dyer's view: electoral finance reform. But those who benefit from the present system will never legislate themselves out of power. So towns and villages continue to decay between the Canadian and the Mexican borders, and the dispossessed rural population despairs or rages. Hence, the apocalyptic tone of a number of recent nonreligious works of journalism and analysis that currently record, with fascinated horror, the alienation of group after group within the United States. Since the Encyclopedia Britannica is Britannica and not America, it is not surprising that its entry for "Bill of Rights, United States" is a mere column in length, the same as its neighbor on the page "Bill of Sale," obviously a more poignant document to the island compilers. Even so, they do tell us that the roots of our Rights are in Magna Carta and that the genesis of the Bill of Rights that was added as 10 amendments to our Constitution in 1791 was largely the handiwork of James Madison, who, in turn, echoed Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights. At first, these 10 amendments were applicable to American citizens only as citizens of the entire United States and not as Virginians or as New Yorkers, where state laws could take precedence according to "states' rights," as acknowledged in the 10th and last of the original amendments. It was not until 1868 that the 14th Amendment forbade the states to make laws counter to the original bill. Thus every United States person, in his home state, was guaranteed freedom of "speech and press, and the right to assembly and to petition as well as freedom from a national religion." Apparently, it was Charlton Heston who brought the Second Amendment, along with handguns and child-friendly Uzis, down from Mount DeMille. Originally, the right for citizen militias to bear arms was meant to discourage a standing federal or state army and all the mischief that an armed state might cause people who wanted to live not under the shadow of a gun but peaceably on their own atop some sylvan Ruby Ridge. Currently, the Fourth Amendment is in the process of disintegration, out of "military necessity"- the constitutional language used by Lincoln to wage civil war, suspend habeas corpus, shut down newspapers, and free southern slaves. The Fourth Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The Fourth is the people's principal defense against totalitarian government; it is a defense that is now daily breached both by deed and law. In James Bovard's 1994 book, Lost Rights, the author has assembled a great deal of material on just what our law enforcers are up to in the never-to-be-won wars against Drugs and Terrorism, as they do daily battle with the American people in their homes and cars, on buses and planes, indeed, wherever they can get at them, by hook or by crook or by sting. Military necessity is a bit too highbrow a concept for today's federal and local officials to justify their midnight smashing in of doors, usually without warning or warrant, in order to terrorize the unlucky residents. These unlawful attacks and seizures are often justified by the possible existence of a flush toilet on the fingered premises. (If the warriors against drugs don't take drug fiends absolutely by surprise, the fiends will flush away the evidence.) This is intolerable for those eager to keep us sin-free and obedient. So in the great sign of Sir Thomas Crapper's homely invention, they suspend the Fourth, and conquer. Nineteen ninety-two. Bridgeport, Connecticut. The Hartford Courant reported that the local Tactical Narcotics Team routinely devastated homes and businesses they "searched." Plainclothes policemen burst in on a Jamaican grocer and restaurant owner with the cheery cry "Stick up, niggers. Don't move." Shelves were swept clear. Merchandise ruined. "They never identified themselves as police," the Conrant noted. Although they found nothing but a registered gun, the owner was arrested and charged with "interfering with an arrest" and so booked. A judge later dismissed the case. Bovard reports, "In 1991, in Garland, Texas, police dressed in black and wearing black ski-masks burst into a trailer, waved guns in the air and kicked down the bedroom door where Kenneth Baulch had been sleeping next to his seventeen-month-old son. A policeman claimed that Baulch posed a deadly threat because he held an ashtray in his left hand, which explained why he shot Baulch in the back and killed him. (A police internal investigation found no wrongdoing by the officer.) In March 1992, a police SWAT team killed Robin Pratt, an Everett, Washington, mother, in a no-knock raid carrying out an arrest warrant for her husband. (Her husband was later released after the allegations upon which the arrest warrant were based turned out to be false.)" Incidentally, this K.G.B. tactic - hold someone for a crime, but let him off if he then names someone else for a bigger crime, also known as Starr justice - often leads to false, even random allegations which ought not to be acted upon so murderously without a bit of homework first. The Seattle Times describes Robin Pratt's last moments. She was with her six-year-old daughter and five-year-old niece when the police broke in. As the bravest storm trooper, named Aston, approached her, gun drawn, the other police shouted, "'Get down,' and she started to crouch onto her knees. She looked up at Aston and said, 'Please don't hurt my children....' Aston had his gun pointed at her and fired, shooting her in the neck. According to [the Pratt family attorney John] Muenster, she was alive another one to two minutes but could not speak because her throat had been destroyed by the bullet. She was handcuffed, lying face down." Doubtless Aston was fearful of a divine resurrection; and vengeance. It is no secret that American police rarely observe the laws of the land when out wilding with each other, and as any candid criminal judge will tell you, perjury is often their native tongue in court. The I.R.S. has been under some scrutiny lately for violations not only of the Fourth but of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth requires a grand-jury indictment in prosecutions for major crimes. It also provides that no person shall be compelled to testify against himself, forbids the taking of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or the taking of private property for public use without compensation. Over the years, however, the ever secretive I.R.S. has been seizing property right and left without so much as a postcard to the nearest grand jury, while due process of law is not even a concept in their singleminded pursuit of loot. Bovard notes: Since 1980, the number of levies-I.R.S. seizures of bank accounts and pay checks-has increased four-fold, reaching 3,253,000 in 1992. The General Accounting Office (GAG)estimated in 1990 that the I.R.S. imposes over 50,000 incorrect or unjustified levies on citizens and businesses per year. The GAO estimated that almost 6% of I.R.S. levies on business were incorrect.... The I.R.S. also imposes almost one and a half million liens each year, an increase of over 200% since 1980. Money magazine conducted a survey in 1990 of 156 taxpayers who had I.R.S. liens imposed on their property and found that 35% of the taxpayers had never received a thirty-day warning notice from the I.R.S. of an intent to impose a lien and that some first learned of the liens when the magazine contacted them. The current Supreme Court has shown little interest in curbing so powerful and clandestine a federal agency as it routinely disobeys the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments. Of course, this particular court is essentially authoritarian and revels in the state's exercise of power while its livelier members show great wit when it comes to consulting Ouija boards in order to discern exactly what the founders originally had in mind, ignoring just how clearly Mason, Madison, and company spelled out such absolutes as you can't grab someone's property without first going to a grand jury and finding him guilty of a crime as law requires. In these matters, sacred original intent is so clear that the Court prefers to look elsewhere for its amusement. Lonely voices in Congress are sometimes heard on the subject. In 1993, Senator David Pryer thought it would be nice if the I.R.S. were to notify credit agencies once proof was established that the agency wrongfully attached a lien on a taxpayer's property, destroying his future credit. The I.R.S. got whiny. Such an onerous requirement would be too much work for its exhausted employees. Since the U.S. statutes that deal with tax regulations comprise some 9,000 pages, even tax experts tend to foul up, and it is possible for any Inspector Javert at the I.R.S. to find flawed just about any conclusion as to what Family X owes. But, in the end, it is not so much a rogue bureau that is at fault as it is the system of taxation as imposed by key members of Congress in order to exempt their friends and financial donors from taxation. Certainly, the I.R.S. itself has legitimate cause for complaint against its nominal masters in Congress. The I.R.S.'s director of taxpayer services, Robert LeBaube, spoke out in 1989: "Since 1976 there have been 138 public laws modifying the Internal Revenue Code; Since the Tax Reform Act of 1986 there have been 13 public laws changing the code, and in 1988 alone there were seven public laws affecting the code." As Bovard notes but does not explain, "Tax law is simply the latest creative interpretation by government officials of the mire of tax legislation Congress has enacted. I.R.S. officials can take five, seven, or more years to write the regulations to implement a new tax law-yet Congress rontinely changes the law before new regulations are promulgated. Almost all tax law is provisional - either waiting to be revised according to the last tax bill passed, or already proposed for change in the next tax bill." What is this great busyness and confusion all about? Well, corporations send their lawyers to Congress to make special laws that will exempt their corporate profits from unseemly taxation: this is done by ever more complex--even impenetrable-tax laws which must always be provisional as there is always bound to be a new corporation requiring a special exemption in the form of a private bill tacked on to the Arbor Day Tribute. Senators who save corporations millions in tax money will not need to spend too much time on the telephone begging for contributions when it is time for him-or, yes, her-to run again. Unless-the impossible dream-the cost of elections is reduced by 90 percent, with no election lasting longer than eight weeks. Until national TV is provided free for national candidates and local TV for local candidates (the way civilized countries do it), there will never be tax reform. Meanwhile, the moles at the I.R.S., quite aware of the great untouchable corruption of their congressional masters, pursue helpless citizens and so demoralize the state. It is nicely apt that the word "terrorist" (according to the O.E.D.) should have been coined during the French Revolution to describe "an adherent or supporter of the Jacobins, who advocated and practiced methods of partisan repression and bloodshed in the propagation of the principles of democracy and equality." Although our rulers have revived the word to describe violent enemies of the United States, most of today's actual terrorists can be found within our own governments, federal, state, municipal. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (known as A.T.E), the Drug Enforcement Agency, EB.L., I.R.S., etc., are so many Jacobins at war against the lives, freedom, and property of our citizens. The F.B.I. slaughter of the innocents at Waco was a model Jacobin enterprise. A mildly crazed religious leader called David Koresh had started a commune with several hundred followers--men, women, and children. Koresh preached world's end. Variously, A.T.E and F.B.I. found him an ideal enemy to persecute. He was accused of numerous unsubstantiated crimes, including this decade's favorite, pedophilia, and was never given the benefit of due process to determine his guilt or innocence. David Kopel and Paul H. Blackman have now written the best and most detailed account of the American government's current war on its unhappy citizenry in No More Wacos: What's Wrong with Federal Law Enforcement and How to Fix It. They describe, first, the harassment of Koresh and his religious group, the Branch Davidians, minding the Lord's business in their commune; second, the demonizing of him in the media; third, the February 28, 1993, attack on the commune: 76 agents stormed the communal buildings that contained 127 men, women, and children. Four A.T.F. agents and six Branch Davidians died. Koresh had been accused of possessing illegal firearms even though he had previously invited law-enforcement agents into the commune to look at his weapons and their registrations. Under the Freedom of Information Act, Kopel and Blackman have now discovered that, from the beginning of what would become a siege and then a "dynamic entry" (military parlance for all-out firepower and slaughter), A.T.F. had gone secretly to the U.S. Army for advanced training in terrorist attacks even though the Posse Comitatus Law of 1878 forbids the use of federal troops for civilian law enforcement. Like so many of our laws, in the interest of the war on Drugs, this law can be suspended if the army is requested by the Drug Law Enforcement Agency to fight sin. Koresh was secretly accused by A.T.F. of producing methamphetamine that he was importing from nearby Mexico, 300 miles to the south. Mayday! The army must help out. They did, though the charges against drug-hating Koresh were untrue. The destruction of the Branch Davidians had now ceased to be a civil affair where the Constitution supposedly rules. Rather, it became a matter of grave military necessity: hence a CS-gas attack (a gas which the U.S. had just signed a treaty swearing never to use in war) 0n April 19, 1993, followed by tanks smashing holes in the buildings where 27 children were at risk; and then a splendid fire that destroyed the commune and, in the process, the as yet uncharged, untried David Koresh. Attorney General Janet Reno took credit and "blame,'' comparing herself and the president to a pair of World War II generals who could not exercise constant oversight ... the sort of statement World War II veterans recognize as covering your ass. Anyway, Ms. Reno presided over the largest massacre of Americans by American Feds since 1890 and the fireworks at Wounded Knee. Eighty-two Branch Davidians died at Waco, including 30 women and 25 children. Will our Jacobins ever be defeated as the French ones were? Ah ... The deliberate erasure of elements of the Bill of Rights (in law as opposed to in fact when the police choose to go on the rampage, breaking laws and heads) can be found in loony decisions by lower courts that the Supreme Court prefers not to conform with the Bill of Rights. It is well known that the Drug Enforcement Agency and the I.R.S. are inveterate thieves of private property without due process of law or redress or reimbursement later for the person who has been robbed by the state but committed no crime. Currently, according to Kopel and Blackman, U.S. and some state laws go like this: whenever a police officer is permitted, with or without judicial approval, to investigate a potential crime, the officer may seize and keep as much property associated with the alleged criminal as the police officer considers appropriate. Although forfeiture is predicated on the property's being used in a crime, there shall be no requirement that the owner be convicted of a crime. It shall be irrelevant that the person was acquitted of the crime on which the seizure was based, or was never charged with any offense. Plainly, Judge Kafka was presiding in 1987 (United States v. Sandini) when this deranged formula for theft by police was made law: "The innocence of the owner is irrelevant," declared the court. "It is enough that the property was involved in a violation to which forfeiture attaches." Does this mean that someone who has committed no crime, but may yet someday, will be unable to get his property back because U.S. v. Sandini also states firmly, "The burden of proof rests on the party alleging ownership"? This sort of situation is particularly exciting for the woof-woof brigade of police since, according to onetime attorney general Richard Thornburgh, over 90 percent of all American paper currency contains drug residue; this means that anyone carrying, let us say, a thousand dollars in cash will be found with "drug money," which must be seized and taken away to be analyzed and, somehow, never returned to its owner if the clever policeman knows his Sandini. All across the country high-school athletes are singled out for drug testing while random searches are carried out in the classroom. On March 8, 1991, according to Bovard, at the Sandburg High School in Chicago, two teachers (their gender is not given so mental pornographers can fill in their own details) spotted a 16-year-old boy wearing sweatpants. Their four eyes glitterinly alert, they cased his crotch, which they thought "appeared to be 'too well endowed.'') He was taken to a locker room and stripped bare. No drugs were found, only a nonstandard scrotal sac. He was let go as there is as yet no law penalizing a teenager for being better hung than his teachers. The lad and his family sued. The judge was unsympathetic. The teachers, he ruled, "did all they could to ensure that the plaintiff's privacy was not eroded." Judge Kafka never sleeps. Although drugs are immoral and must be kept from the young, thousands of schools pressure parents to give the drug Ritalin to any lively child who may, sensibly, show signs of boredom in his classroom. Ritalin renders the child docile if not comatose. Side effects? "Stunted growth, facial ties, agitation and aggression, insomnia, appetite loss, headaches, stomach pains and seizures." Marijuana would be far less harmful. The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was not unlike Pearl Harbor, a great shock to an entire nation and, one hopes, a sort of wake-up call to the American people that all is not well with us. As usual, the media responded in the only way they know how. Overnight, one Timothy McVeigh became the personification of evil. Of motiveless malice. There was the usual speculation about confederates. Grassy knollsters. But only one other maniac was named, Terry Nichols; he was found guilty of "conspiring" with McVeigh, but he was not in on the slaughter itself. A journalist, Richard A. Serrano, has just published One of Ours: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing. Like everyone else, I fear, I was sick of the subject. Nothing could justify the murder of those 168 men, women, and children, none of whom had, as far as we know, anything at all to do with the federal slaughter at Waco, the ostensible reason for McVeigh's fury. So why write such a book? Serrano hardly finds McVeigh sympathetic, but he does manage to make him credible in an ominously fascinating book. Born in 1968, McVeigh came from a rural family that had been, more or less, dispossessed a generation earlier. Father Bill had been in the U.S. Army. Mother worked. They lived in a western New York blue-collar town called Pendleton. Bill grows vegetables; works at a local G.M. plant; belongs to the Roman Catholic Church. Of the area, he says, "When I grew up, it was all farms. When Tim grew up, it was half and half." Tim turns out to be an uncommonly intelligent and curious boy. He does well in high school. He is, as his defense attorney points out, "a political animal." He reads history, the Constitution. He also has a lifelong passion for guns: motivation for joining the army. In Bush's Gulf War he was much decorated as an infantryman, a born soldier. But the war itself was an eye-opener, as wars tend to be for those who must fight them. Later, he wrote a journalist how "we were falsely hyped up." The ritual media demonizing of Saddam, Arabs, Iraqis had been so exaggerated that when McVeigh got to Iraq he was startled to "find out they are normal like me and you. They hype you to take these people out. They told us we were to defend Kuwait where the people had been raped and slaughtered. War woke me up." As usual, there were stern laws against American troops fraternizing with the enemy. McVeigh writes a friend, "We've got these starving kids and sometimes adults coming up to us begging for food.... It's really 'trying' emotionally. It's like the puppy dog at the table; but much worse. The sooner we leave here the better. I can see how the guys in Vietnam were getting killed by children." Serrano notes, "At the close of the war, a very popular war, McVeigh had learned that he did not like the taste of killing innocent people. He spat into the sand at the thought of being forced to hurt others who did not hate him any more than he them." The army and McVeigh parted once the war was done. He took odd jobs. He got interested in the far right's paranoid theories and in what Joel Dyer calls "The Religion of Conspiracy." An army buddy, Terry Nichols, acted as his guide. Together they obtained a book called Privacy, on how to vanish from the government's view, go underground, make weapons. Others had done the same, including the Weaver family, who had moved to remote Ruby Ridge in Idaho. Randy Weaver was a cranky white separatist with Christian Identity beliefs. He wanted to live with his family apart from the rest of America. This was a challenge to the F.B.I. When Weaver did not show up in court to settle a minor firearms charge, they staked him out August 21, 1992. When the Weaver dog barked, they shot him; when the Weavers' 14-year-old son fired in their direction, they shot him in the back and killed him. When Mrs. Weaver, holding a baby, came to the door, F.B.I. sniper Lon Horiuchi shot her head off. The next year the Feds took out the Branch Davidians. For Timothy McVeigh, the A.T.F. became the symbol of oppression and murder. Since he was now suffering from an exaggerated sense of justice, not a common American trait, he went to war pretty much on his own and ended up slaughtering more innocents than the Feds had at Waco. Did he know what he was doing when he blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City because it contained the hated bureau? McVeigh remained silent throughout his trial. Finally, as he was about to be sentenced, the court asked him if he would like to speak. He did. He rose and said, "I wish to use the words of Justice Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead to speak for me. He wrote,'Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."' Then McVeigh was sentenced to death by the government. Those present were deeply confused by McVeigh's quotation. How could the Devil quote so saintly a justice? I suspect that he did it in the same spirit that Iago answered Othello when asked why he had done what he had done: "Demand me nothing: what you know, you know: from this time forth I never will speak word." Now we know, too; or as my grandfather used to say back in Oklahoma, "Every pancake has two sides."
------------------------------------------------------------------- Drugs - Missing The Big Story (The Columbia Journalism Review says that when it comes to press coverage of "the drug issue," the main action is in Mexico. In the United States, the press has been neglecting the battle at home. What's missing is any sustained coverage of the really significant stories, for example, the effectiveness of treatment in reducing addicts' dependence, and the difficulty they have in getting it.) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:31:10 -0800 From: email@example.com (MAPNews) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: MN: US: OPED: Drugs: Missing The Big Story Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Steve Young Pubdate: Nov./Dec. 1998 Source: Columbia Journalism Review Contact: email@example.com Website: http://www.cjr.org Author: Michael Massing DRUGS: MISSING THE BIG STORY When it comes to press coverage of the drug issue, the main action is in Mexico. American correspondents there pore over financial records, examine court documents, and interview officials to chronicle the pernicious effects drug trafficking has had on that country's political system. Meticulously researched, lushly documented, and numbingly detailed, these stories resemble the exposes of municipal malfeasance that were popular during the heyday of investigative journalism in the 1970s. A typically knotty lead in The New York Times: "The longtime private secretary to a patriarch of Mexico's governing party has told American authorities about a series of dealings between narcotics traffickers and high-ranking political leaders, including members of the family of former President Carlos Salinas de Gortari." Last November, The Washington Post ran a five-part, 17,000-word series on drug trafficking along the U.S.-Mexico border and the violence and corruption it has spawned. At a time when so many news organizations are cutting back foreign coverage, such a commitment of resources seems admirable, and the Times, for one, was rewarded this year with a Pulitzer Prize. Yet, in the rush to recount events in Tijuana and Juarez, the press has been neglecting another, more important front in the drug war -- the battle at home. In the U.S., the press favors two types of drug stories: teenage drug use (teen drug crisis, headlined the New York Post, August 21, 1996) and well-to-do junkies (heroin's hold on Hollywood, Entertainment Weekly cover story, August 9, 1996). Or both (heroin alert: rockers, models, and the new drug crisis: are teens at risk? Newsweek cover story, August 26, 1996). In reality, middle-class heroin addiction is neither new nor particularly widespread. And the rise of teen drug use in recent years is confined mostly to marijuana. National surveys affirm that America's drug problem consists mainly of a hard core of users who are disproportionately poor, unemployed, and black or Hispanic. There are about 3.6 million hard-core users, according to the federal government, and they consume an estimated 75 percent of the heroin and cocaine used in the United States. They also account for most of the crime, child abuse, overdose deaths, and other terrible consequences of drug use. To the extent that these users surface in the media, it is usually in stories about street sweeps, prison overcrowding, or child welfare. What's missing is any sustained coverage of the really significant stories -- the effectiveness of treatment in reducing addicts' dependence, and the difficulty they have in getting it. The Office of National Drug Control Policy says that the U.S. treatment system has enough capacity to help only half of those 3.6 million hard-core users. This is not by accident. For the last twenty years, drug treatment has been systematically underfunded at all levels of government. The result: long waiting lists for treatment in cities around the country. In New York state alone, an estimated 100,000 people who want treatment are unable to get it in any given year. Where are the news stories? Part of the problem is the popular wisdom -- in newsrooms as in the general public -- that treatment does not work. Everybody knows someone who has done well in treatment, only to relapse soon after leaving it. Feeding this skepticism are the disparaging remarks about treatment made by politicians trying to look tough on drugs, such as New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who recently launched a stinging attack on methadone. The pols -- and the popular perceptions -- are wrong. Take the case of a typical street junkie, an addict who's been injecting heroin or smoking crack for years and supporting his habit by shoplifting, robbing, or other hustles. While caught up in his drug-taking, such a person will not generally give much thought to treatment. But for most there comes a point when drug use begins to cause serious problems, from physical ailments to family dysfunction to trouble with the law, and when this happens many junkies become open to treatment. They have several varieties to choose from. One is methadone. A synthetic opiate that blocks the craving for heroin, methadone is usually dispensed in clinics that require patients to come for a daily dose plus some counseling. Methadone works solely on heroin users, and most experts agree that to be fully effective it needs to be accompanied by an array of services, including vocational assistance. For addicts who use drugs other than heroin, or who use heroin but do not want to take methadone (daily trips to a clinic are not always possible), there are "drug-free" outpatient clinics, which offer intensive counseling and other services but no pharmaceuticals. Addicts who feel the need for a more radical change in their lives can enroll in residential programs. Lasting anywhere from three months to two years, such programs commonly offer counseling, educational programs, and vocational training, all served up in a highly structured environment in which everything from meal hours to leisure time is strictly regulated. A year in a residential program costs about $18,000. Methadone costs $4,000 to $6,000 a year, and non-methadone outpatient programs even less. (Most programs that treat indigent addicts get money from Medicaid as well as direct grants from the federal or state government.) By contrast, a year in prison costs between $25,000 and $30,000, not including the sums spent on arrest and prosecution. It is the relative cheapness that makes treatment so cost-effective. In a 1994 study, the RAND Corporation sought to compare the effectiveness of treatment with that of three other types of drug-control programs: local police action, border interdiction, and drug-suppression programs abroad. How much, RAND asked, would it cost to reduce cocaine use by 1 percent by relying on each of these four approaches? Using sophisticated computer analysis, RAND found that, relying solely on drug-fighting efforts abroad, the government would have to spend $783 million more a year to reduce cocaine consumption by 1 percent; relying on interdiction, it would have to spend $366 million more, and on domestic law enforcement, $246 million. Relying solely on treatment, however, the government would have to spend only $34 million more to achieve that 1 percent reduction. In other words, treatment was seven times more cost-effective than local law enforcement, ten times more effective than interdiction, and twenty-three times more effective than attacking drugs at their source. Many other studies show that treatment works. In 1996, for instance, the U.S. government released a study of hard-core users in treatment. The number using cocaine dropped from 39.5 percent before treatment to 17.8 percent a year later; for heroin, the number went from 23.6 percent to 12.6 percent. Overall, drug consumption decreased by roughly 50 percent. This is not to deny the reality of relapse. Most addicts require two, three, or more exposures to treatment before the process takes hold. Over time, though, treatment produces dramatic reductions in drug use and related crime. In one analysis, California found that, for every dollar invested in treatment, the state saved seven dollars, mostly from reductions in crime and health-care costs. Despite all this, about two-thirds of the federal drug budget goes for law enforcement and interdiction, and only one-third for treatment and prevention. Press coverage of the drug issue is even more imbalanced. Newspapers and TV news programs rarely report on the mass of research demonstrating the effectiveness of treatment. Nor do they describe what happens to addicts who are turned away from treatment programs for lack of space. Most striking of all is the lack of stories about how hard it is to gain entry to treatment. The drug treatment world is a balkanized and fractious place. Each program serves different populations, features different approaches, and has different admissions criteria. In most cities there's no central entry point where addicts can apply for help, no registry of which programs have openings. And, because treatment centers are so competitive, they will rarely refer a drug user to another program, even when they are full. In some cases, there are even financial disincentives to helping addicts. Most clinicians, for instance, agree that a patient completing detox will relapse if he is not referred to a longer-term program. But hospitals in New York state are reimbursed up to $1,000 a day for each detox bed that is filled; if a patient relapses, his eventual return for another round of detox is almost guaranteed. Thus are hospitals rewarded for failure. All in all, the nation's treatment system almost seems designed to make sure addicts don't get help. By any journalistic standard, this would seem a good story. Yet, in an extensive reading of newspaper clips, I found just one in-depth account of the trouble addicts have in getting into detox in New York City, the nation's drug capital. The four-part series appeared six years ago, in the Los Angeles Times. Articles detailing the gaps in the treatment world are equally rare. In February 1997, Christopher Wren of The New York Times wrote about the shocking scarcity of methadone capacity nationwide (ex-addicts find methadone more elusive than heroin). With more than 800,000 heroin addicts in the U.S., he noted, the nation's methadone clinics can accommodate only 115,000 of them. Eight states have no methadone at all. Last August, The Washington Post ran a biting expose of chaos and disarray in the District of Columbia's drug treatment system (in d.c., many addicts and few services). Reporter Peter Slevin described how many drug-using criminal offenders -- mandated by judges to treatment -- had to wait as long as six months behind bars because no beds were available. Slevin interviewed parole officers who were working the phones on behalf of their clients, desperately seeking treatment for them before they returned to a life of drugs and crime. Journalists could tell similar stories in almost every large city. Few do. In terms of drama, reporting on the lack of treatment slots or the barriers to entering detox cannot compare with stalking drug lords in Mexico or watching coca fields being sprayed in Colombia. But tales of the treatment crisis may be more important stories. By showing how poorly the treatment system is serving addicts, and yet how much promise treatment holds, news organizations could help bring about real reform. Doing so, though, would require sending reporters not just south of the border but down the street. Michael Massing, a contributing editor to CJR, is the author of The Fix, a book about America's drug problem, published in October by Simon & Schuster
------------------------------------------------------------------- CIA's Drug Confession (iF magazine, in Canada, says CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz confirmed long-standing allegations of cocaine trafficking by Nicaraguan Contra forces in an historic document released Oct. 8 that was nearly ignored by major news media.) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:31:10 -0800 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) To: email@example.com Subject: MN: US: CIA's Drug Confession Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Anne R. Kist Pubdate: Nov./Dec. 1998 Source: iF Magazine Section: Page 22 Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.consortiumnews.com/ Author: Robert Parry CIA'S DRUG CONFESSION Cocaine traffickers and money-launderers swarmed through the Nicaraguan contra movement in the 1980s to a far greater extent than was ever known, according to a report by the CIA's inspector general. One contra trafficker claimed Ronald Reagan's National Security Council cleared his work. The NSC's favorite covert airline also was under suspicion for drug connections, the report stated. In an historic document released on Oct. 8 -- and nearly ignored by the major news media -- CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz confirmed long-standing allegations of cocaine trafficking by contra forces. Hitz identified more than 50 contras and contra-related entities implicated in the drug trade. Hitz detailed, too, how the Reagan administration protected these drug operations and frustrated federal investigations which threatened to expose these crimes in the mid-1980s. In perhaps the most stunning disclosure, Hitz published evidence that drug trafficking and money laundering tracked directly into Reagan's National Security Council where Lt. Col. Oliver L. North oversaw contra operations. Hitz also revealed that the CIA placed an admitted drug money launderer in charge of the Southern Front contras in Costa Rica. Hitz disclosed, too, that the second-in-command of contra forces on the Northern Front in Honduras had escaped from a Colombian prison where he was serving time for a drug conviction. In the lengthy report -- Volume Two of a two-volume set on contra drug allegations -- Hitz continued to defend the CIA on one narrow point: that the CIA did not conspire with the contras to raise money through cocaine trafficking. But Hitz made clear that the contra war took precedence over law enforcement and that the CIA withheld evidence of contra crimes from the Justice Department, the Congress and even the CIA's own analytical division. Among Hitz's new disclosures: The CIA knew the criminal nature of its contra clients from the start of the war against Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista government. The earliest contra force, called ADREN or the 15th of September Legion, had chosen "to stoop to criminal activities in order to feed and clothe their cadre," according to a June 1981 draft CIA field report. ADREN employed terrorist methods, including the bombing of Nicaraguan civilian planes and hijackings, to disrupt the Sandinista government, the CIA knew. [Graf 180] Cocaine smuggling was also in the picture. According to a September 1981 cable to CIA headquarters, ADREN decided to use drug trafficking as another financing mechanism. Two ADREN members made the first delivery of drugs to Miami in July 1981, the CIA cable reported. [Graf 181] ADREN's leaders included Enrique Bermudez and other early contras who would later direct the major contra army, the CIA-organized FDN. Throughout the war, Bermudez remained the top contra military commander. The CIA later corroborated the allegations about ADREN's cocaine trafficking, but insisted that Bermudez had opposed the drug shipments to the United States which went ahead nonetheless. [Graf 542] The truth about Bermudez's claimed opposition to drug trafficking, however, is less clear. According to Volume One of Hitz's report, Bermudez enlisted Norwin Meneses, a large-scale Nicaraguan cocaine smuggler, to raise money and buy supplies for the contras. The first volume quoted a Meneses associate, another Nicaraguan trafficker named Danilo Blandon. In an interview with Hitz's investigators, Blandon said he and Meneses flew to Honduras to meet with Bermudez in 1982. At the time, Meneses's criminal activities were well known in the Nicaraguan exile community. But the FDN commander told the cocaine smugglers that "the ends justify the means" in raising money for the contras. After the Bermudez meeting, contra soldiers helped Meneses and Blandon get past Honduran police who briefly arrested them on drug-trafficking suspicions. After their release, Blandon and Meneses traveled on to Bolivia to complete a cocaine transaction. [For details, see iF Magazine, Mar-Apr. 1998.] There were other indications of Bermudez's drug-smuggling tolerance. In February 1988, another Nicaraguan exile linked to the drug trade accused Bermudez of narcotics trafficking, according to Hitz's report. Continuing its long defense of Bermudez, however, the CIA dismissed the source as "unstable." [Graf 545] After the contra war ended, Bermudez returned to Managua, where he was shot to death on Feb. 16, 1991. The murder has never been solved. In the Southern Front, in Costa Rica, the drug evidence centered on the forces of Eden Pastora, another leading contra commander. But Hitz discovered that the U.S. government may have contributed to the problem. Hitz revealed that the CIA put a now-admitted drug operative -- known by his CIA pseudonym "Ivan Gomez" -- in a supervisory position over Pastora. Hitz reported that the CIA discovered Gomez's drug history in 1987 when Gomez failed a security review on drug-trafficking questions. The CIA then hushed up the discovery. In internal CIA interviews, Gomez admitted that in March or April 1982, he helped family members who were engaged in drug trafficking and money laundering. In one case, Gomez said he assisted his brother and brother-in-law in transporting cash from New York City to Miami. He admitted that he "knew this act was illegal." [Grafs 672-73] Later, Gomez expanded on his admission, describing how his family members had slid $2 million into debt and had gone to Miami to run a money-laundering center for drug traffickers. Gomez said "his brother had many visitors whom [Gomez] assumed to be in the drug trafficking business." Gomez's brother was arrested on drug charges in June 1982. Three months later, in September 1982, Gomez started his CIA assignment in Costa Rica. Years later, convicted drug trafficker Carlos Cabezas charged that in the early 1980s, Ivan Gomez was the CIA agent in Costa Rica who was overseeing drug-money donations to the contras. Gomez "was to make sure the money was given to the right people [the contras] and nobody was taking ... profit they weren't supposed to," Cabezas declared publicly. [Graf 678] But the CIA sought to discredit Cabezas. He did have trouble identifying Gomez's picture and put Gomez at one meeting in early 1982 -- before Gomez started his CIA assignment. Still, Hitz's report offers the first official evidence that Gomez did have a direct role in drug-money laundering, as Cabezas alleged. There also was more about Gomez. In November 1985, the FBI learned from an informant that Gomez's two brothers had been large-scale cocaine importers, with one brother arranging shipments from Bolivia's infamous drug kingpin Roberto Suarez. [Graf 695] Suarez already was known as a right-wing financier. In 1980, with Argentine military support, Suarez bankrolled a coup in Bolivia that ousted the elected government. The violent putsch became known as the Cocaine Coup because it made Bolivia the region's first narco-state. Bolivia's protected cocaine shipments helped transform the Medellin cartel into a corporate-style business for delivering cocaine to the U.S. market. Some of those profits allegedly found their way into contra coffers, partly through Suarez. Flush with cash in the early 1980s, Suarez invested more than $30 million in various right-wing paramilitary operations, including the contra forces in Central America, according to U.S. Senate testimony by an Argentine intelligence officer, Leonardo Sanchez-Reisse. In 1987, Sanchez-Reisse stated that the Suarez drug money was laundered through front companies in Miami before going to Central America. There, other Argentine intelligence officers -- veterans of the Bolivian coup -- trained the contras. [For details, see "Nazi Echo" in The Consortium On-line, Sept. 19, 1998.] Hitz added another piece to this contra-Bolivian puzzle. One contra fund-raiser, Jose Orlando Bolanos, boasted that the Argentine government was supporting his anti-Sandinista activities, according to a May 1982 cable to CIA headquarters. Bolanos made the statement during a meeting with undercover DEA agents in Florida. He offered to introduce them to his Bolivian cocaine supplier. [Graf 465] Despite all this suspicious drug activity around the contras, the CIA insisted that it did not unmask Ivan Gomez until 1987, when he failed a security check and confessed his role in his family's drug business. The CIA official who interviewed Gomez concluded that "Gomez directly participated in illegal drug transactions, concealed participation in illegal drug transactions, and concealed information about involvement in illegal drug activity," Hitz wrote. [Graf 674-75] But senior CIA officials still chose to protect Ivan Gomez. They rejected a proposal that the Gomez case be referred to the Justice Department. Their rationale was a 1982 DOJ-CIA agreement that spared the CIA from a legal obligation to report narcotics crimes by non-employees. [Graf 714] Instead, the CIA eased Gomez, an independent contractor, out of the agency in February 1988, without alerting law enforcement or the congressional oversight committees. [Graf 728] When questioned about the case nearly a decade later, one senior CIA official who had supported the gentle treatment of Gomez had second thoughts. "It is a striking commentary on me and everyone that this guy's involvement in narcotics didn't weigh more heavily on me or the system," the official acknowledged. [Graf 711] As for the decision not to make a criminal referral, the official added: "That view that Gomez is not technically an employee and therefore reporting may not be required is slicing it pretty thin." [Graf 713] A Medellin drug connection arises in another section of Hitz's report, where he revealed evidence suggesting that some contra trafficking may have been sanctioned by Reagan's National Security Council. The protagonist for this part of the contra-drug mystery is Moises Nunez, a Cuban-American who worked for North's NSC operation and for two drug-connected seafood importers, Ocean Hunter in Miami and Frigorificos de Puntarenas in Costa Rica. Frigorificos de Puntarenas was created in the early 1980s as a cover for drug-money laundering, according to sworn testimony by two of the firm's principals -- Carlos Soto and Medellin cartel accountant Ramon Milian Rodriguez. Drug allegations began swirling around Nunez in the mid-1980s. Finally, on March 25, 1987, the CIA questioned Nunez about the cocaine-trafficking suspicions. He responded by pointing the finger toward his superiors at the NSC. "Nunez revealed that since 1985, he had engaged in a clandestine relationship with the National Security Council," Hitz reported. "Nunez refused to elaborate on the nature of these actions, but indicated it was difficult to answer questions relating to his involvement in narcotics trafficking because of the specific tasks he had performed at the direction of the NSC. Nunez refused to identify the NSC officials with whom he had been involved." [Graf 490] After this first round of questioning, CIA headquarters authorized an additional session, but then senior CIA officials reversed the decision. There would be no further efforts at "debriefing Nunez." Hitz noted that "the cable [from headquarters] offered no explanation for the decision" to stop the Nunez interrogation. [Graf 491] When asked recently about that decision, former Central American Task Force planning chief Louis Dupart said he did not recall the reason for halting the Nunez debriefing. But Dupart added, "the Agency position was not to get involved in this matter, and to turn it over to others because 'it had nothing to do with the Agency, but with the National Security Council. We ... told Congress and [Iran-contra special prosecutor Lawrence] Walsh. That's all we had to do. It was someone else's problem'." [Graf 492] Dupart's boss, task force chief Alan Fiers, stated that the Nunez-NSC drug lead was not pursued "because of the NSC connection and the possibility that this could be somehow connected to the Private Benefactor program [the contra money handled by North]. A decision was made not to pursue this matter." [Graf 494] According to CIA records, the CIA briefed Sens. Warren Rudman and William Cohen, two Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee, about the Nunez case. Dupart offered to arrange a committee interview with Nunez but that apparently never happened. [Graf 493] The CIA did interview Nunez again in September 1987 -- five months after his admission and at the height of the Iran-contra scandal. Nunez began insisting that he had no relationship with the NSC. [Graf 495] By then, however, Joseph Fernandez, former CIA station chief in Costa Rica, had confirmed to congressional Iran-contra investigators that Nunez "was involved in a very sensitive operation" for North's "Enterprise." The exact nature of that NSC-authorized activity has never been divulged. The CIA gave Walsh the material about Nunez's claim of NSC authorization, but not until February 1988 -- nearly a year after the admission and then only as part of a large batch of documents delivered at the end of Walsh's North investigation. If supplied in a timelier fashion, the Nunez statement and the other evidence of money laundering might have put into focus a part of the North case that always remained fuzzy: his personal handling of dirty money. According to little-noticed documents that emerged during the Iran-contra scandal, North tapped into a money-laundering network that pulled $2.7 million in untraceable cash off New York City streets. The cash deliveries were arranged through a Republic National Bank officer named Nan Morabia. She sent bags filled with cash to North's operatives who took the money to Washington. [For details, see iF Magazine, July-Aug. 1997] Mysterious money was showing up elsewhere in the contra operation. A total of $14 million materialized in 1985 to finance the so-called Arms Supermarket which supplied weapons to the contras in Honduras. North's handwritten notes from July 12, 1985, record a warning from a CIA officer in the field that "$14M [million] to finance came from drugs." The Arms Supermarket owner, Ronald Martin, denied the drug taint, but acknowledged that the financing was handled by a Cuban-American banker named John Molina, who moved money from wealthy individuals through Panamanian banks. In 1987, John Molina told his brother, Pablo, that he had worked for the CIA from 1980 until April 1987 arranging letters of credit to purchase arms for the contras and other U.S.-backed forces in Latin America. As the money poured in, John Molina confided to his brother that he suspected that some came from drug trafficking. In an interview with me, Pablo Molina quoted John as saying, "There's too much money coming in. ... You can't imagine how much money is involved." A nervous John Molina tried to pull out of the operation in 1987. But he received one last assignment: to close out some contra front companies in Panama. On Oct. 2, 1987, after completing that work, John Molina left the law offices of Sucre y Sucre in Panama City. He walked to his car and climbed in. A young man approached from the side and shot Molina in the head. The assassin was later captured and claimed that he was dispatched by Colombian kingpins to murder Molina. [For details, see iF Magazine, July-Sept. 1997] During the Iran-contra investigation, however, Walsh never zeroed in on the money laundering or the drug trafficking. In March 1988, Walsh indicted North for crimes related to false statements, document destruction and other relatively minor offenses. While Moises Nunez may have worked for the NSC, the CIA worked directly with other drug-connected Cuban-Americans on the contra project, Hitz found. One of Nunez's Cuban-American associates, Felipe Vidal, had a criminal record as a narcotics trafficker in the 1970s. But the CIA still hired him to serve as a logistics coordinator for the contras, Hitz reported. [Grafs 508-511] The CIA soon learned that Vidal's drug connections were not only in the past. A December 1984 cable to CIA headquarters revealed Vidal's ties to Rene Corvo, another Cuban-American suspected of drug trafficking. [Graf 512] Corvo was working with anticommunist Cuban, Frank Castro, who was viewed as a Medellin cartel representative within the contra movement. [For details, see sidebar, "Contras' Narco-Terrorist."] There were other narcotics problems with the CIA's Felipe Vidal. In January 1986, the Drug Enforcement Administration in Miami seized 414 pounds of cocaine concealed in a shipment of yucca that was going from a contra operative in Costa Rica to Ocean Hunter, where Vidal worked. [Graf 526] Despite the evidence, Vidal remained a CIA employee as he collaborated with Frank Castro's assistant, Rene Corvo, in raising money for the contras, according to a CIA memo in June 1986. By fall 1986, Sen. John Kerry had heard enough rumors about Vidal to demand information about him as part of a congressional inquiry into contra drugs. But the CIA withheld the derogatory information. On Oct. 15, 1986, Kerry received a briefing from Alan Fiers who didn't mention Vidal's drug arrests and conviction in the 1970s. [Graf 527] Vidal was not yet in the clear, however. In 1987, the U.S. attorney in Miami began investigating Vidal, Ocean Hunter and other contra-connected entities. This prosecutorial attention worried the CIA. The CIA's Latin American division felt it was time for a security review of Vidal. But on Aug. 5, 1987, the CIA's security office blocked the review for fear that the Vidal drug information "could be exposed during any future litigation." [Grafs 520-22] As expected, the U.S. Attorney did request documents about "contra-related activities" by Vidal, Ocean Hunter and 16 other entities. The CIA advised the prosecutor that "no information had been found regarding Ocean Hunter," a statement that was clearly false. [Graf 528] The CIA continued Vidal's employment as an advisor to the contra movement until 1990, virtually the end of the contra war. [Graf 510] Hitz revealed that drugs also tainted the highest levels of the Honduran-based FDN, the largest contra army. Hitz found that Juan Rivas, a contra commander who rose to be chief of staff, admitted that he had been a cocaine trafficker in Colombia before the war. The CIA asked Rivas, known as El Quiche, about his background after the DEA began suspecting that Rivas might be an escaped convict from a Colombian prison. [Graf 562] In interviews with CIA officers, Rivas acknowledged that he had been arrested and convicted of packaging and transporting cocaine for the drug trade in Barranquilla, Colombia. After several months in prison, Rivas said, he escaped and moved to Central America where he joined the contras. [Graf 563] Defending Rivas, CIA officials insisted that there was no evidence that Rivas engaged in trafficking while with the contras. But one CIA cable noted that he lived an expensive lifestyle, even keeping a $100,000 thoroughbred horse at the contra camp. [Graf 566] Contra military commander Bermudez later attributed Rivas's wealth to his ex-girlfriend's rich family. But a CIA cable in March 1989 added that "some in the FDN may have suspected at the time that the father-in-law was engaged in drug trafficking." [Graf 567] Still, the CIA moved quickly to protect Rivas from exposure and possible extradition to Colombia. In February 1989, CIA headquarters asked that DEA take no action "in view of the serious political damage to the U.S. Government that could occur should the information about Rivas become public." [Graf 569] In a Feb. 22, 1989, note, the CIA's director of operations, Richard Stoltz, argued that "what we have here is a single, relatively petty transgression in a foreign country that occurred a decade ago and that is apparently of no current interest to DEA." [Graf 573] Rivas was phased out of the contra leadership with an explanation of poor health. With U.S. government help, he was allowed to resettle in Miami. Colombia was not informed about his fugitive status. [Graf 581] Another senior FDN official implicated in the drug trade was its chief spokesman in Honduras, Arnoldo Jose "Frank" Arana. The drug allegations against Arana dated back to 1983 when a federal narcotics task force put him under criminal investigation because of plans "to smuggle 100 kilograms of cocaine into the United States from South America." On Jan. 23, 1986, the FBI reported that Arana and his brothers were involved in a drug-smuggling enterprise, although Arana was not charged. Arana sought to clear up another set of drug suspicions in 1989 by visiting the DEA in Honduras with a business associate, Jose Perez. Arana's association with Perez, however, only raised new alarms. If "Arana is mixed up with the Perez brothers, he is probably dirty," the DEA responded. Through their ownership of an air services company called SETCO, the Perez brothers were associated with Juan Matta Ballesteros, a major cocaine kingpin connected to the murder of a DEA agent, according to reports by the DEA and U.S. Customs. Hitz reported that someone at the CIA scribbled a note on the DEA cable about Arana stating: "Arnold Arana ... still active and working, we [CIA] may have a problem." [Grafs 608-15] Despite its drug ties to Matta Ballesteros, SETCO emerged as the principal company for ferrying supplies to the contras in Honduras. During congressional Iran-contra hearings, FDN political leader Adolfo Calero testified that SETCO was paid from bank accounts controlled by Oliver North. SETCO also received $185,924 from the State Department for ferrying supplies to the contras in 1986. Hitz found other air transport companies used by the contras implicated in the cocaine trade. Even FDN leaders suspected that they were shipping supplies to Central America aboard planes that might be returning with drugs. Mario Calero, Adolfo Calero's brother and the chief of contra logistics, grew so uneasy about one air-freight company that he notified U.S. law enforcement that the FDN only chartered the planes for the flights south, not the return the flights north. [Graf 550] Hitz found that some drug pilots simply rotated from one sector of the contra operation to another. Donaldo Frixone, who had a drug record in the Dominican Republic, was hired by the CIA to fly contra missions from 1983-85. Frixone then was implicated in September 1986 smuggling 19,000 pounds of marijuana into the United States. In late 1986 or early 1987, he went to work for Vortex, another U.S.-paid contra supply company linked to the drug trade. [Grafs 996-1000] One of Hitz's most dramatic findings was evidence implicating Southern Air Transport, the principal airline of North's Iran-contra operations and a former CIA-owned airline. In the mid-1980s, Southern Air flew missiles to Iran as well as supplies to the contras. SAT crewmen were involved in one flight that was shot down over Nicaragua on Oct. 5, 1986, exposing part of North's Iran-contra network. After that event, Attorney General Edwin Meese III briefly blocked a federal investigation into Southern Air on national security grounds. But suspicions about SAT were just starting. Wanda Palacio, who had ties to the Medellin cartel, told Senate investigators that she witnessed Ochoa operatives loading cocaine aboard SAT planes in both 1983 and 1985.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Still Life with Absinthe - The Tipple Of Choice For Fin-De-Siecle Decadents Tempts A New Generation (The Utne Reader reprints an article from the winter 1997 issue of The Idler in which musician and writer John Moore describes his flirtation with the Green Fairy. Absinthe is commonly believed to cause hallucinations, convulsions, degenerate behavior, and even brain damage. Modern research has shown that wormwood releases a chemical called thujone, which has a molecular structure similar to that of marijuana's active component. It isn't clear whether the thujone in absinthe is sufficient to cause such severe effects, however. It is far more likely that alcohol is the culprit. In 1905, when Swiss farmer Jean Lanfray shot his entire family after a heavy day's drinking, the story made headlines all over Europe, proclaiming him "un absinthiste." He had also consumed several bottles of wine, brandy, and creme de menthe, but that was ignored. The bans began.) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 12:53:50 -0800 From: email@example.com (MAPNews) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: MN: Still Life with Absinthe Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Luciano Colonna, Utah Harm Reduction Coalition Source: Utne Reader Copyright: 1998 Utne Reader Contact: email@example.com Website: http://www.utne.com Pubdate: Nov 1998 Author: John Moore Still Life with Absinthe: The Tipple Of Choice For fin-de-siecle Decadents Tempts A New Generation Called the cocaine of the 19th century, absinthe was so central to that era's artistic life that it appeared in the paintings of masters ranging from Van Gogh to Picasso, and in the writings of such luminaries as Oscar Wilde and Emile Zola. No wonder it piques the fantasies of today's explorers, especially those who travel to Czechoslovakia, Spain, and other parts of Europe where it can still be sampled. Be forewarned, however: Despite its renewed celebrity status as Nine Inch Nails singer Trent Reznor's "perfect drug," the stuff can be nasty, and its active ingredient, wormwood, even nastier. (Last September, a leading U.S. medical journal reported renal failure in a man who drank essential oil of wormwood.) In this piece from The Idler (Winter, 1997), Black Box Recorder musician and writer John Moore describes his flirtation with the Green Fairy. One winter, studying the bottles in a Prague bar, I noticed a particularly inviting one filled with emerald green liquid that looked like it could inflict damage. It was absinthe. I knew a little about absinthe but, like most people, I thought it had been banned and was gone forever. Before taking a sip, I studied it. Its scent was pungent and alcoholic, its color spectacular. It seemed to catch the light and looked quite unnatural. The first mouthful exploded on my tongue and vaporized up through my nostrils. I had to swallow it quickly. I could feel its intense heat running down my throat, burning its way into my stomach. What little taste there was, was dry and bitter, tinged with aniseed. It had a real afterburn. I felt like it had been injected, not swallowed. There was no gradual seeping into the bloodstream -- this was the bloodstream. Armed with a glass of water, I finished it, then ordered another glass. A friendship had begun. I soon learned how to drink absinthe properly. Of course, you can drink it neat (preferable for the first glass, otherwise you miss out on the burn), but the best way is to add sugar and dilute it with water. This gives drinking absinthe a ritualistic feel, like using intravenous drugs. Both involve spoons, fire, and patience: similar means to a not completely dissimilar end. Pour the absinthe into a glass (narrow is best, because it reduces evaporation). Fill the spoon with sugar, then dip it into the absinthe. Once the sugar is soaked, light it and hold it over the glass until it melts into the absinthe, which catches fire; this is when you add the water. Sometimes it is difficult to put out the fire; you may have to blow on it. Absinthe's effects are different from those of standard drinks. I am not sure whether this is due to the ingredients or the fact that the alcohol is twice the strength of most other spirits (70 percent by volume). Drinking absinthe has a relaxing effect -- the first few glasses, at least. It is very warming, perfect for a hip flask on a winter's day. As far as I can remember, I have never had hallucinations while drinking it, but it does produce vivid dreams, invariably surreal and obscene. The drink is made by soaking dried wormwood (Artemisia absinthium, still found in health food shops and used to kill intestinal parasites) in ethyl alcohol, along with herbs to hide the bitter taste. Aniseed is the dominant flavor, although fennel, hyssop, and lemon balm are also used. The Oxford English Dictionary describes wormwood as "an emblem of what is bitter and grievous to the soul"; in Russian, it is chernobyl. Found everywhere, it is native to Asia and Europe, where it grows along what is said to be the path the exiled serpent took from Eden. Absinthe is commonly believed to cause hallucinations, convulsions, degenerate behavior, and even brain damage. Modern research has shown that wormwood releases a chemical called thujone, which has a molecular structure similar to that of marijuana's active component. It isn't clear whether the thujone in absinthe is sufficient to cause such severe effects, however. It is far more likely that alcohol is the culprit. Although it makes a brief appearance in Greek and Roman history, absinthe didn't become popular until the end of the 18th century. It is said that a French physician living in Switzerland, Pierre Ordinaire, invented it in 1792, but it's more likely that he was the first to market it. The drink was popularized by another Frenchman, Henri-Louis Pernod, who built a small distillery in Val de Travers, Switzerland, in 1805, then the Pernod Fils factory at Pontarlier, France. The business grew steadily. In the war with Algeria, absinthe was given as a malaria preventative to French troops, who developed a taste for it that survived their return home. Successive failures of the grape harvests in the late 1800s also fueled its popularity: As wine prices went up, absinthe prices came down until they were well within the reach of the hoi polloi. Millions of liters of la Fee Verte (the Green Fairy), as it was affectionately called, were consumed each year. Exported everywhere, it became the drink of choice for artists and artisans alike. Eventually, the voices of dissent, especially those of priests and vintners, made themselves heard. Temperance leagues formed, and the press launched a moral crusade, reporting absinthe-related crimes and creating conspiracy theories. Left-wingers said it robbed the working class of dignity, while right-wingers denounced it because libertines drank it. Some claimed it was a Jewish plot to destroy France; one distillery even marketed a brand called "Anti-Jewish Absinthe." By 1900, medical evidence was beginning to tip the scales. The imminence of war led to a panic over poor health: The average Frenchman's chest was two inches smaller than the average German's, and the asylums were full of people whose mental conditions were attributed to absinthe. In 1905, when Swiss farmer Jean Lanfray shot his entire family after a heavy day's drinking, the story made headlines all over Europe, proclaiming him "un absinthiste." (He had also consumed several bottles of wine, brandy, and creme de menthe, but that was ignored.) That did it; the bans began. Belgium was first, in 1905, then Switzerland in 1908, the United States in 1912, and, two weeks after the outbreak of war, France in 1914. In 1990, Randomil Hill, a Czech distiller, began to produce absinthe legally again. The drink is also available in Portugal and parts of Spain, and is gaining an ever-widening following. Along with the palette knife and pen, absinthe was essential to the 19th-century sensual explorer's toolkit. Whether it worked for or against creativity is debatable, but one cannot deny that the legacy of work these old soaks left behind is among the finest of all time. Like the Italian Renaissance, the age of absinthe drew a map for the future. You may want to check out some lively Net sites on the subject before imbibing, or, if you've already done the dirty deed, you can participate in an online survey conducted by the University of California, San Francisco, Drug Dependence Research Center. As researchers Matthew Baggott and Dr. John Mendelson point out, "Little is known about absinthe's effects in humans. Research from the early part of the century is difficult to interpret, and no modern research has been carried out." At least not yet. Cheers.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Many Police Thought Dead In Colombia Attack (Reuters says as many as half of the 120 "police" stationed at a "police base" in a remote jungle region of eastern Colombia may have been killed Sunday during an attack by up to 600 guerillas with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.) From: "Bob Owen@W.H.E.N." (firstname.lastname@example.org) To: "_Drug Policy --" (email@example.com) Subject: Many Police Thought Dead In Colombia Attack Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 17:46:53 -0800 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Sunday, November 1, 1998 Many Police Thought Dead In Colombia Attack By KARL PENHAUL, Reuters BOGOTA--Marxist rebels rained home-made missiles on to a police base in a remote jungle region of eastern Colombia Sunday and security sources said they believed scores of policemen may have died. The attack by up to 600 Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas began before dawn and "fierce" fighting raged on throughout the afternoon, a police spokesman said. At least 120 policemen were stationed at the base near the town of Mitu in Vaupes province and preliminary official reports referred to two police officers confirmed dead and five injured. One police source, however, said some 60 officers may have been killed. The raid came one week before security forces are due to pull out of a huge swathe of southeast Colombia -- an area the size of Switzerland -- to make way for the first peace talks in six years between the government and FARC chieftains. "Internally the police is talking about a figure of about 60 dead. It could be more, it could be less," a police source, who requested anonymity, told Reuters. National Police deputy commander, Gen. Luis Ernesto Gilibert, said police and army reinforcements were being flown to Mitu, adding that all radio and phone links were cut after rebels blew up a communications antenna. "We are worried about the fate of our men. The rest at this moment is pure speculation," he said, declining further comment on the possible death toll. A police spokesman said the FARC used rudimentary missiles made of gas cylinders packed with powerful explosives and capable of flying up to about 320 feet (100 meters). The weapons were first used to devastating effect when the FARC overran a police anti-drugs base in neighboring Guaviare province in August, killing at least 30 security force members. If the scale of Sunday's attack is confirmed it could put renewed pressure on President Andres Pastrana to take a tougher stance against the rebels. Pastrana took office nearly three months ago promising his top priority would be to find a peaceful end to Colombia's long-running civil conflict, in which at least 35,000 people have died in the last decade alone. Both the FARC and the National Liberation Army (ELN), the oldest and largest rebel groups in the hemisphere, have said they will join peace talks. But while Pastrana has granted them sweeping concessions, including the demilitarization of a 15,000 square mile (40,000 sq km) corner of southeast Colombia due to be complete by Saturday, the rebels have continued their attacks across the country. Two weeks ago, the Cuban-inspired ELN blew up the country's largest oil pipeline in northwest Colombia and started a fireball of blazing crude oil which engulfed an entire village, killing more than 70 people. The FARC and the ELN, which rose up in arms in the mid-1960s in an attempt to set up a socialist system, will negotiate separately with the government on demands for agrarian reform, an end to unfettered free market economic policies and greater wealth distribution. Both groups -- aiming ultimately for a share in national power -- have refused to lay down their weapons or demobilize before or after any eventual peace deal and say talks must be conducted "in the middle of the war." U.S. officials warned recently that Colombia's estimated 20,000 rebels could take power by force within five years if peace talks collapse, and say they pose a serious threat to regional stability. Copyright 1998 Reuters Limited. All Rights Reserved *** When away, you can STOP and RESTART W.H.E.N.'s news clippings by sending an e-mail to email@example.com. Ignore the Subject: line. In the body put "unsubscribe when" to STOP. To RESTART, put "subscribe when" in the e-mail instead (No quotation marks.)
------------------------------------------------------------------- Crime And Punishment (Resurgence Magazine, in Britain, features an essay by Brendan O'Friel, the forrner chairman of the Prison Governors Association, pondering what should be done about Britain's rapidly increasing prison population. In the years between the two world wars, a period of high unemployment, the prison population in England and Wales fluctuated between 10,000 and 13,000. The number of people locked up now has passed 65,000 and planners are having to contemplate forecast figures of over 80,000.) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 18:22:45 -0800 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) To: email@example.com Subject: MN: UK: Crime And Punishment Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Peter Webster Pubdate: Nov / Dec 1998 Source: Resurgence Magazine, Devon, UK Section: pp 20-21 Copyright: Resurgence Magazine 1998 Fax: (44) 1237 441203 Website: http://www.gn.apc.org/resurgence Author: Brendan O'Friel CRIME AND PUNISHMENT WHEN WE ATTENDED the Prison Governors Conference at Buxton this year, my colleagues and I learned the disturbing but not unexpected news that the total number of people locked up in British prisons had just passed 65,000, yet another record. Even more troubling were the gloomy--- but realistic---predictions that next year there would probably be over 70,000 prisoners and that prison planners were having to contemplate forecast figures of over 80,000. In the years between the two world wars, the prison population in England and Wales fluctuated between 10,000 and 13,000. This was a period of high unemployment and much less prosperity than we enjoy today. When I joined the prison service in 1963, we were responsible for 28,000 prisoners. By the 1970s, there were 40,000 people in prison. Prosperity and crime seem to be glowing, hand in hand. The immediate cause of the present explosion of prison numbers was the policies of the last Home Secretary, Michael Howard. His slogan "Prison Works" has unleashed a tidal wave of prisoners propelled through the judicial system into the prisons. Leaving aside issues such as whether the prisons can cope and whether the country can afford the substantial resources required to contain the ever-rising prison numbers, the important question is whether this dramatic rise in the use of imprisonment will benefit society and prevent future crime. The rise in imprisonment in the United Kingdom partially echoes the quite extraordinary growth in imprisonment in the United States. In less than twenty years the prison population in the USA has tripled, and there are now approaching 2 million people behind bars. A substantial new industry is developing to manage and profit from this phenomenon. Private prisons are a major growth business. Thus a powerful lobby is developing with a substantial vested interest in a large and expanding prison population. GOING BACK TO FIRST principles, we need to consider the purpose of imprisonment and our attitude to offenders. The value of each human being and the responsibility of individuals for their actions are both important principles underlying our whole philosophy of criminal justice. Of great importance too is the notion that few individuals carry the sole responsibility for their actions: upbringing, environment, the influence of others have all usually contributed in one way or another to criminal behaviour. As for the purpose of imprisonment, this has changed dramatically over the centuries as punishments such as the death penalty, corporal punishment and transportation to the colonies became unpopular, unacceptable or just impractical. So prison is now the ultimate sanction of the courts in dealing with offenders. But what is the nature of this punishment? Alexander Paterson, the great English penal reformer, coined a most important distinction. "Prisoners are sent to prison", he declared, "as a punishment, not for punishment." In other words, it was not the job of the prison service to inflict further punishment during a prison sentence; the punishment was the loss of liberty itself for the period imposed by the court. Paterson laid down that the acid test of a prison administration was the proportion of prisoners who, having served a first sentence of imprisonment, return for a second term. Few returns were the sign of a good prison administration. Our present-day prisons fail the Paterson test. High proportions of those serving sentences return to prison. This is especially true of young offenders where the return rate may be over eighty per cent. The published figures are incomplete as they only include those caught and convicted for further crime. Because people have to be released from prison for some years before a conclusion can be drawn, the statistics are always well out of date. What then should we be doing about crime and offenders? Who are these offenders? They are, by and large, people who have had few opportunities and many handicaps. They often come from dysfunctional or disadvantaged families; they frequently have missed out on education and training opportunities. Even more worrying, they have often suffered serious harm such as physical and sexual abuse in their formative years. The poorer sections of society and ethnic minorities are heavily over-represented. Few prisoners have employment records. There are considerable dangers in incarcerating an ever-growing number of people. Locking people up does not just take them out of circulation. It may make them worse. As David Waddington, Home Secretary in 1989-91, said, "Prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse." So what is to be done? First, make less use of imprisonment. We should use alternative penalties. Fines, community service, probation, attendance centres, electronic tagging are all available. But community penalties need to be further strengthened, particularly by giving the courts the powers to order attendance at training courses which are designed to reduce offending behaviour. If people can find meaningful and satisfying work, they are less likely to commit crime. We must put more resources towards education and training. Prison must be used only as a last resort, for dangerous and violent offenders from whom the community requires protection. Prisons can then concentrate on a much smaller group of offenders. The task for the Prison Service, after ensuring safe custody, is to offer a challenging and demanding programme of activities to reduce further offending on release. BUT THE PROGRAMME outlined above only deals with a part of the problem. There is much more to do. The underlying causes of crime need to be identified and action taken, for example to reduce social exclusion and long-term unemployment. But action to tackle the causes of crime has to recognize another range of problems at a deeper level. There is much to be questioned about our society's present priorities. Radical change in society's attitudes may be needed if we wish to make a substantial and lasting impact on the problem of crime. Take the problem of alcohol and violence, for example. There is a great deal of evidence of a close link between alcohol and violent crime. Yet measures to reduce the dangers of excessive consumption of alcohol are often opposed by a powerful lobby of all the vested interests in alcohol manufacture and selling. What are our society's real priorities---profits from the alcohol industry or less crime on our streets? There are even wider issues. Our whole consumer society vaunting success in material terms through the advertising industry may be placing far too much temptation before people who have no hope of achieving material success. Consider too the impact of the vast growth in material possessions upon these people. Car crime was not a problem sixty years ago. Stand in any city centre on any working day and count the value of the motor vehicles around you. The temptation to steal cars has increased to a degree our ancestors could not have conceived. Unless we are prepared to question our preoccupation with materialism and consumerism we will not make much headway in reducing crime. There is much we can do to reintroduce to the world the old virtues of frugality, simplicity and moderation. The need is for us all to reorder our priorities, to dethrone the false gods of material success and the selfishness bound up in this creed. A change of this order is required to give sensible policies for tackling crime and disorder some chance of success. Can we rise to the challenge of making such difficult changes within our society? Brendan O'Friel is the forrner chairman of the Prison Governors Association. -------------------------------------------------------------------
The articles posted here are generally copyrighted by the source publications. They are reproduced here for educational purposes under the Fair Use Doctrine (17 U.S.C., section 107). NORML is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit educational organization. The views of the authors and/or source publications are not necessarily those of NORML. The articles and information included here are not for sale or resale.
Comments, questions and suggestions.Reporters and researchers are welcome at the world's largest online library of drug-policy information, sponsored by the Drug Reform Coordination Network at: http://www.druglibrary.org/
Next day's news
Previous day's news
to the 1998 Daily News index for October 29-November 4
to the Portland NORML news archive directory
to 1998 Daily News index (long)
This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/981101.html