-------------------------------------------------------------------
The war on the war on drugs (A sour-grapes staff editorial in The Oregonian
reacts to the victorious Oregon Medical Marijuana Act by making fun of sick
people, misrepresenting the statute and the campaign statements of
proponents, and calling on the legislature to eviscerate the new law.)
From: "Rick Bayer" (ricbayer@teleport.com)
To: "Drctalk@Drcnet. Org" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: The war on the war on drugs
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 10:52:44 -0800
Dear friends
This is the lead editorial in "The largest newspaper in the Pacific
Northwest", The Oregonian, who has finally acknowledged our victory of
the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (Measure 67). This is their official
editorial response and it is clear that they are going to do their best
to push our Legislature to repeal our law in January 1999 when the
legislature reconvenes (No, Measure 67 is not a constitutional amendment
but is statutory). Many votes remain to be counted but the 55 - 45 lead
remains.
I find it very sad that this newspaper promised during last year's Death
With Dignity debates that they would do everything possible to ease the
suffering of terminally ill patients. This year they are not only
flagrantly lying but are MOCKING SERIOUSLY ILL PATIENTS. I had better
not say any more because I am very angry.
The last OpEd I sent to the Oregonian was rejected. They didn't like me
last year during the Death With Dignity debates and the situation has
only worsened. It is up to patients and supporters of patients to step
up and perform a calm, rational, and compassionate letter and phone call
campaign to at least make The Oregonian editorial board aware of their
mistakes and their unacceptable attitude toward those who may not be as
"healthy and wealthy" as they. I should state a disclaimer that there
are fair and talented reporters at the Oregonian but their editorial
board and publisher are the ones who mock dying and suffering patients.
There are so many errors below that it is hard to know to where to start
but making fun of sick people is the worst of the worst. You may go to
our website and learn about the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act at
http://www.teleport.com/~omr with links to the NEW LAW.
The editorial page editor is Robert Caldwell at 503-221-8197 and
mailto:bobcaldwell@news.oregonian.com
The editorial department phone is 503-221-8150
For letters to the editor mailto:letters@news.oregonian.com or fax to
503-294-4193.
snail mail is
The Oregonian
letters to the editor
1320 SW Broadway
Portland, OR 97201
Thank you very much. There are differences of opinion among some of us
regarding drug policy but there are no differences in opinion that
seriously ill patients should not mocked, even if one is "The largest
newspaper in the Pacific Northwest".
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rick Bayer, MD, FACP
Portland, OR
mailto:ricbayer@teleport.com
***
The Oregonian Newspaper [lead editorial, page B8, November 5, 1998]
The war on the war on drugs
* Now that Oregonians have approved medical marijuana, don't expect the
debate on legalizing pot to mellow out
Maybe the prospect of plague of pony-tailed doctors prescribing reefer
for the blues has turned us into poor sports, but the passage of Ballot
Measure 67 Tuesday promised to set Oregon off on a long, strange, trip.
Four other western states - Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, and Washington -
and the District of Columbia approved laws on Tuesday allowing the
smoking of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
Oregon's new law is a study in vagueness and contradiction. Even the
law's supporters acknowledge that. They argued during the campaign that
the Legislature could, and should, go back and fix some of the law's
more glaring flaws. So it should, although it's hard to believe that
the worst flaws in the law are fixable.
Where possible, legislators should work on the law to remove its
ambiguities and to spell out the duties of state and local health and
law enforcement officials, as well as set out some procedures to follow.
The new law requires, for example, that patients who use marijuana to
relieve their suffering from "severe pain" brought on by such things as
"muscle spasms" be issued identification cards. Legislators will need
to decide exactly how that will work and who will issue the cards. We
were thinking maybe the police station would be a good place to get
them.
The cards themselves will serve to separate medical marijuana users from
your average dopers when police swoop down on their sickbeds. Since
there is no legal means, under the new law, to obtain the necessary
ingredients for medical marijuana, the cards have no other value. You
can't present them at the pharmacy to buy marijuana cigarettes or
anything.
Selling marijuana continues to be illegal. Growing small amounts of it
for medicinal purposes will be legal after Dec. 1. But the law remains
silent - because no other course is possible - on where one really
obtains the raw material for growing the medicinal plants. We could see
a whole new agricultural industry growing . . . oh that's right - one
already exists. It's just illegal.
Of course, you don't really need the cards under the new law because
gives you an "affirmative" defense if you are charged with possession
and didn't happen to remember to go register. You can see how
convenient that might be - and how difficult it will be for police and
prosecutors. Unfortunately, that probably is one the things the
Legislature can't fix without violating the spirit of the law.
What is that spirit?
For most Oregonians who favored it, we don't doubt that it was one of
compassion, toward seriously ill patients whose suffering might be
alleviated by smoking marijuana. It's hard to know whether some of the
law's more ridiculous requirements (police can't destroy marijuana
plants seized from medical users and medical regulators cannot
discipline doctors who prescribe the illegal substance to their
patients) were the result of poor drafting or actually part of the
measure's "spirit," too.
Certainly, part of the spirit of the law was to get the federal
government to take a more open view of experimentation on marijuana's
effects - medicinal or otherwise. That's definitely overdue.
And, part of the spirit of the law must emanate from the stated motives
of the organizations that financed the medical marijuana efforts or
offered other support from afar. Their main objectives are to change
national drug policy - to make war on the war on drugs, so to speak.
And, sorting out the contradictions in Oregon's new law will really
require a debate over the legalization of marijuana here. No doubt that
is part of the spirit of the new law, too. Arguably, it has been the
real issue all along. Too bad we didn't vote on that one.
***
[For the record - Dr. Rick Bayer, the chief petitioner for Measure 67, does
not wear his hair in a pony tail. Nor does the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act
allow cannabis to be recommended by a physician for "the blues," which, the
last time we checked, is not listed in the International Classification of
Diseases 9 - CM 1996. - ed.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Re - The war on the war on drugs (A letter sent to the editor
of The Oregonian says supporters of Ballot Measure 67, the Oregon
Medical Marijuana Act, never argued that it includes "glaring flaws"
which need a "legislative fix.")
From: owner-dpfor@drugsense.org [mailto:owner-dpfor@drugsense.org]On
Behalf Of LawBerger@aol.com
Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 9:19 AM
To: dpfor@drugsense.org
Subject: DPFOR: LTE re War on War on Drugs
950 Lloyd Center, Suite 3
503/287-4688
503/287-6938 (Fax)
Portland, OR 97232-1262
(LawBerger@aol.com)
Leland R. Berger
Attorney at Law
TO: Robert J. Caldwell, Editorial Page Editor, The
Oregonian, @ 294-4179
RE: The War on the War on Drugs; Letter to the Editor
November 6, 1998
I write concerning the above referenced editorial and to correct certain
inaccuracies in it.
Ballot Measure 67, the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act, is not the 'study in
vagueness and contradiction' you describe. Instead, as you know, it presents
a tightly regulated system of assuring that legitimate medicinal marijuana
patients are exempted from criminal consequences for their medicinal use. You
also know that the cards are to be issued by the Health Division because this
is a health issue and not a law enforcement issue.
Supporters of Ballot Measure 67 never argued that it includes 'glaring flaws'
which need a 'legislative fix'. We explained that to the extent there were
unintended consequences to any particular provision, because we were enacting
a statute and not amending the constitution, the legislature retained the
power to amend the statute to make sure that the new law stayed true to its
spirit.
I for one am amazed that after all these months you have not yet absorbed the
fact that the spirit of this legislation is the uncomplicated notion that
legitimate medicinal marijuana patients ought not be subject to criminal
sanctions for their legitimate medicinal use.
To paraphrase your advice to the president: It's about the patients, stupid.
Lee Berger
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon Passes Vote-By-Mail, Medical Marijuana, Adoption Measures
(An Associated Press election summary notes the final tallies for Tuesday's
state ballot measures. In Washington, DC, Associate Attorney General
Raymond C. Fisher said today the Justice Department would review the medical
marijuana initiatives passed in Oregon and elsewhere and discuss them with
local law enforcement before making any response.)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 23:55:31 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US OR: Wire: MMJ: Oregon Passes
Vote-By-Mail, Medical Marijuana,
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Olafur Brentmar
Pubdate: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 - 11:18 EST
Source: Associated Press
Author: HANS GREIMEL, Associated Press Writer
OREGON PASSES VOTE-BY-MAIL, MEDICAL MARIJUANA, ADOPTION MEASURES
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Oregon has become the first state in the nation to
retire the traditional polling place, passing a measure to conduct all its
elections exclusively by mail ballots.
Voters also passed measures that legalize marijuana for medical uses and
allow adoptees to see their original birth certificates.
The vote-by-mail proposal passed by a 57- to 43-percent margin, according
to election results tallied through Wednesday, but will not represent a
major change in the way Oregonians have voted in recent years.
Already, Oregon leads the nation in the percentage of votes cast by mail,
with nearly two-thirds of this election's votes cast by absentee ballot.
Even before it officially passed, a group of opponents challenged the
vote-by-mail measure on grounds that it would violate federal law requiring
presidential and congressional elections to take place on the same day.
Deborah Phillips, a spokeswoman for Voting Integrity Project Inc., based in
Arlington, Va., said the group's intent was to stop a voting method it
believes will lead to increased fraud and abuse.
``We believe that an all mail-in ballot is flat out dangerous,'' she said.
The new law ``eliminates the secret ballot and opens the door to possible
intimidation and vote tampering.''
Oregon also joined Washington state, Arizona, Nevada and Alaska in passing
a measure allowing the medical use of marijuana. California voters approved
such a measure in 1996.
In Washington, Associate Attorney General Raymond C. Fisher said today the
U.S. Justice Department would review each of the initiatives individually
and discuss them with local law enforcement before making any response to
them. In California, the federal government has mounted civil court actions
to close clinics dispensing marijuana under a similar initiative.
``Under the federal law, the use of marijuana remains a crime,'' Fisher
told a news conference at the Justice Department. ``Obviously, there are
people in a number of states who favor a medical exemption for it. Our
position is: Let's do research into it. Let's validate whether or not there
are legitimate uses of marijuana. But at the present time, it's a federal
crime and we intend to stand by it.''
Under Oregon's law, marijuana can only be prescribed by a doctor for a
limited number of illnesses, such as AIDS, multiple sclerosis, cancer and
glaucoma.
The measure passed in Oregon by a 55- to 45-percent margin.
Voters overwhelmingly rejected another marijuana-related measure that would
have increased penalties, with possible jail time, for possessing less than
an ounce of pot.
Also, Oregon became the first state Wednesday to see a public vote force
open its adoption records. Passing by a 55- to-45-percent margin, the
measure gives a copy of original birth certificates to an adult adoptee
upon request. Only Alaska and Kansas have similar laws, but those were
initiated in state legislatures.
In other votes, Oregonians rejecting a proposed ban on clearcut logging but
gave the go ahead to a host of other measures.
They earmarked 15 percent of lottery funds for parks and salmon
restoration, and they passed by a 4-1 margin an initiative that requires
giving property owners written notice of proposed zoning changes.
They also guaranteed the right of public employees to use payroll
deductions for political activities. Measure 62 was passed by a 2-1 margin
and runs counter to the ban on payroll deductions proposed in Measure 59.
Unions spent millions of dollars against that measure and their ad blitz
paid off. Measure 59 was trailing by 6 percentage points.
Measure 65, which would require the Legislature to review administrative
rules if petitioned to do so, was losing by about 6 percentage points.
Measure 54, which would authorize the state to back general obligation
bonds issued by school districts, held an edge of 10 percentage points. The
measure would also reduce interest costs to local school districts by
permitting them to get backing of state's credit rating to borrow.
Measure 55, which would allow the state to incur debt to support a prepaid
tuition program, continued to falter. The would allow students to pay
college tuition costs in advance under a plan backed by the state's credit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon medical marijuana and recrim debate on "Town Hall" from 11/1/98 is
online (Paul Stanford of the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act campaign says the recent
televised debate broadcast by KATU-2, Portland's ABC affiliate, can be viewed
for free in realtime from the crrh.org web site.)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 10:25:51 -0800
To: drctalk@drcnet.org, maptalk@mapinc.org, mattalk@islandnet.net
From: "D. Paul Stanford" (stanford@crrh.org)
Subject: OR Med MJ & Recrim on Town Hall-11/1/98 is on-line for video
streaming
Congratulations and thanks to all who have worked to make medical marijuana
initiatives a national success, and thank you to everyone who helped stop
recriminalization of marijuana in Oregon, which was defeated by 2-to-1.
Hemp Hemp Hurray!
The KATU-TV show "Town Hall" is now available for free viewing using Real
video streaming through the Internet. The show is 47 minutes long with the
commercials dubbed out. See Oregon Measure 67's Chief Petitioners, Dr. Rick
Bayer and Stormy Ray, debate medical marijuana, and Oregon State
Representatives Floyd Prozanski, Jo Ann Bowman and George Eighmey, along
with Ballot Measure 57's Chief Petitioners, Michael Rose and Todd Olson,
debate the legislature's misguided and unpopular attempt to recriminalize
possession of small amounts of marijuana. Also speaking eloquently for our
side are Dr. Phillip Leveque, Amy Klare, Ed Glick, Terry Miller, Lee Berger
and more.
This episode of Town Hall can be viewed at:
http://www.crrh.org/hemptv/news_katu1198.html
Yours truly,
D. Paul Stanford
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Police killer's housemate convicted of drug, child neglect charges
(According to The Associated Press, Jeffery Harlan Moore of Portland,
the housemate of Steven Dons, who died in police custody earlier this year
after a shootout occasioned by a warrantless break-in by the Marijuana Task
Force, faces 10 years in prison.)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 01:02:07 -0800
From: Paul Freedom (nepal@teleport.com)
Organization: Oregon Libertarian Patriots
To: Cannabis Patriots (Cannabis-Patriots-L@teleport.com)
Subject: CanPat - Police killer's housemate convicted of drug,
child neglect charges
Sender: owner-cannabis-patriots-l@smtp.teleport.com
IT LOOKS LIKE WE WILL NOT KNOW THE TRUTH
FROM THIS QUICK TRIAL!
PF
***
Police killer's housemate convicted of drug, child neglect charges
The Associated Press
11/5/98 2:32 AM
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- The housemate of a man who killed a police officer
last winter in a gun battle to protect his marijuana crop has been convicted of
drug and child neglect charges.
Jeffery Harlan Moore, 45, said he didn't know about the marijuana grow
operation in a locked room of the house he rented in southeast Portland.
But Multnomah County Circuit Judge Linda Bergman found that Moore had run
the drug operation with Steven Dons.
And she said he knew about the surveillance camera aimed at the front of the
house, which created the potential for harm to police officers.
Moore was convicted Wednesday of manufacture and possession of a
controlled substance. He also was convicted of child neglect for having his two
children, then ages 7 and 9, in the house with the grow operation.
He faces up to 10 years in prison, said Jim McIntyre, a senior deputy district
attorney.
Moore, a computer network analyst, was at work when police went to the
house Jan. 27 to investigate a suspected marijuana operation.
As they approached, they smelled marijuana and saw smoke coming from the
chimney. Fearing evidence was being destroyed, they identified themselves and
broke down the front door.
Dons, armed with an assault rifle, opened fire. Officer Colleen Waibel was
killed. Officer Kim Keist and Sgt. Jim Hudson were wounded.
Dons, who held police at bay for 2 1/2 hours, was paralyzed in the shootout.
A month later, he used the remote control on his hospital bed to hang himself
with a bedsheet.
Moore's attorney, Lynne Morgan, said her client became a target after Dons'
death. "To hold Mr. Moore responsible because Mr. Dons can't be prosecuted
is just not fair," she said.
But prosecutors presented more than 80 pieces of evidence against Moore,
including his fingerprint on a light track used to move grow lights over the
marijuana crop, and receipts in his room for some of the equipment.
Drug paraphernalia with cocaine and methamphetamine residue also was found
in Moore's bedroom.
Sentencing was set for Dec. 4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Police killer's friend guilty on drug counts (The Oregonian version
says Judge Bergman found Moore not guilty of child endangerment
for allegedly having his children around guns and ammunition in the house,
something many police undoubtedly do, but found him guilty on two counts
of child neglect because there was marijuana growing in the house, though
marijuana never killed anyone and the only thing that could make it dangerous
is prohibition.)
The Oregonian
letters to editor:
letters@news.oregonian.com
1320 SW Broadway
Portland, OR 97201
Web: http://www.oregonlive.com/
Police killer's friend guilty on drug counts
* A judge also convicts the housemate of the man who shot a
Portland officer on charges of child neglect
Thursday, November 5 1998
By David R. Anderson
of The Oregonian staff
The housemate of a man who shot and killed a Portland
police officer to protect a marijuana-growing operation is
guilty of drug and child neglect charges, a judge ruled
Wednesday.
Jeffery Harlan Moore, 45, claimed that he didn't know about
a 51-plant marijuana grow operation in a locked room of a
house he rented in Southeast Portland. But Multnomah
County Circuit Judge Linda Bergman found that he ran a
commercial drug operation with Steven Douglas Dons, who
was accused in the shooting.
Moore was at his job as a computer network analyst at Mt.
Hood Community College at the time of the drug raid.
Bergman convicted Moore of manufacture of a controlled
substance, three counts of possession of a controlled
substance and two counts of child neglect for having his two
children, then 7 and 9, in the house with the grow operation.
She also found aggravating factors, including that Moore
knew about a surveillance camera aimed out the front of the
house that created the potential for harm to police officers.
Bergman found Moore not guilty of child endangerment for
allegedly having the children around guns and ammunition in
the house.
Moore faces up to 10 years in prison, said Jim McIntyre, a
senior deputy district attorney. Bergman is scheduled to
sentence Moore on Dec. 4.
Prosecutors presented more than 80 pieces of evidence
against Moore, including his fingerprint on a light track used
to move halide lights over the marijuana plants and a receipt
in his bedroom from a store that sells equipment that can be
used to grow marijuana. Moore's 10-year-old daughter
testified that she heard humming from the room at night and
that Moore scolded her when he thought she had gotten into
the locked room.
Police also found drug paraphernalia with cocaine and
methamphetamine residue in Moore's bedroom.
Moore and Dons lived at 2612 S.E. 111th Ave. Portland
police went to the house Jan. 27 to investigate a suspected
marijuana operation. Officers smelled growing marijuana, and
several went to get a search warrant. As other officers
waited at the house, they saw smoke coming from the
chimney and smelled burning marijuana. Fearing that
someone in the house was destroying evidence, they
identified themselves and broke down the front door. Dons
fired an assault rifle, killing Officer Colleen Waibel and
wounding Officer Kim Keist and Sgt. Jim Hudson.
Dons was paralyzed in the shooting. He committed suicide in
his Justice Center jail cell a month later.
Moore's attorney, Lynne Morgan, said that the evidence did
not support a conviction and that her client became the target
of law enforcement anger after Dons' death.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Slain officer Colleen Waibel honored by office in her name (The Oregonian
says a police station in Parkrose, a suburb east of Portland, has been named
after the Marijuana Task Force agent and DARE officer who was shot and killed
during a warrantless break-in last January.)
* Parkrose and the Portland Police Bureau dedicate the
facility to memorialize the policewoman killed during a drug
raid
Thursday, November 5 1998
By Maxine Bernstein
of The Oregonian staff
The Parkrose community and Portland Police Bureau on
Wednesday dedicated a police contact office at the Parkrose
High School Community Center in the name of slain Officer
Colleen Waibel.
"It's a nice, long-lasting tribute to her. It's a very big honor,"
said Sgt. Mark Fortner, Waibel's husband, who attended the
ceremony. "She'd appreciate it. She'd be overwhelmed by it."
The naming of the Portland Police Bureau Colleen Waibel
Community Contact Office, 12003 N.E. Shaver St., comes
10 months after Waibel was shot and killed during a drug raid
Jan. 27.
Waibel, 44, was assigned to East Precinct. She was a
resident of Parkrose who taught Drug Awareness Resistance
Education (DARE) classes to local students. When Parkrose
school Officer Eric Knudsen was unable to staff the Parkrose
High School police office, Waibel often filled in for him and
worked some high school basketball games, he said.
"She was a pleasure to work around, very vibrant," said
Knudsen, a 25-year Police Bureau veteran. "I'm very pleased
to be working in an office dedicated to her memory."
During the year the office has been open, students have
walked in to ask Knudsen about traffic tickets, how they
could become a police officer or go on "ride-alongs" with
police and to report threats or other criminal misconduct.
Waibel's mother, Beatrice Waibel, was among those attending
the dedication Wednesday. She said that the loss of her
daughter still is painful but that she was uplifted to see the
community show appreciation for Waibel's work.
"It's nice they're doing it because she did try to help the
children," she said.
The Parkrose Business Association, together with Crown
Trophy, donated money for a plaque that will be placed at the
police office.
The plaque will read: "Colleen lived in and faithfully served
the community of Parkrose. The children of Parkrose called
Officer Waibel 'Our Angel Sent from Heaven.' "
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Marijuana Gains Momentum (The San Francisco Examiner says surprise
victories for medical marijuana proposals in five states Tuesday mean
California's Proposition 215 was no fluke - and the federal government will
be under pressure to change its hard-line stance.)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 11:54:12 -0600
From: "Frank S. World" (compassion23@geocities.com)
Reply-To: compassion23@geocities.com
Organization: Rx Cannabis Now!
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7417/
To: DRCNet Medical Marijuana Forum (medmj@drcnet.org)
Subject: US SFX MMJ: Medical marijuana gains momentum
Sender: owner-medmj@drcnet.org
Source: San Francisco Examiner
Contact: letters@examiner.com
Website: http://www.examiner.com
Pubdate: Thursday, November 5, 1998
MEDICAL MARIJUANA GAINS MOMENTUM
By Ulysses Torassa
EXAMINER MEDICAL WRITER
Surprise victories for medical marijuana proposals in five states Tuesday
mean California's Proposition 215 was no fluke - and the federal government
will be under pressure to change its hard-line stance, advocates said
yesterday.
But officials at the White House's office of drug policy said they were
unfazed by the election results in Arizona, Nevada, Alaska, Washington and
Oregon.
"It does not cause us to believe that marijuana is a safe substance," said
Jim McDonough, director of strategy for the Office of National Drug Control
Policy. "The bottom line: It's not science."
Initiative backers, though, said the votes - all significant majorities -
demonstrate strong mainstream support, which federal officials will find
hard to ignore.
"I don't think anybody, especially the drug office, thought every one of
them would pass," said Dave Fratello, spokesman for the Los Angeles-based
Americans for Medical Rights, which was behind the initiatives. "This is so
overwhelming, and such a rebuke. They have to be soaking up the defeat and
trying to figure out what to do next."
The Clinton administration and its drug czar, Gen. Barry McCaffrey,
steadfastly have opposed using marijuana as a medicine, saying it is
unproved, unsafe and sends the wrong message about drug abuse to the
nation's children.
The initiatives, all tightly worded to apply only to people with conditions
such as AIDS, cancer and glaucoma, were well-funded, with at least
$2 million spent on the various campaigns. Most of the money came from three
multimillionaires, including financier George Soros.
In each state, the measures were passing with at least 55 percent of the
vote (Oregon's absentee ballots still were being counted). In Nevada, the
law requires the initiative be voted on again in 2000 before it could go
into effect.
A measure also was before voters in Washington, D.C., but a last-minute
provision added by Congress to the federal budget forbids officials there
from counting those votes. Still, supporters say an exit poll showed it
winning 69 percent to 31 percent.
Eligible patients in the states where the law goes into effect likely will
be issued cards to keep them from being arrested for possessing marijuana.
The measures don't allow people to sell marijuana to those with medical
needs, so patients still will have to go to the black market, Fratello said.
In the long run, the group wants the government to reclassify marijuana from
a Schedule 1 drug, which means it has no medical use, to a Schedule 2 or 3
drug that is regulated and can be prescribed by a doctor.
Also under consideration is a federal judge's recommendation that the
government expand an obscure, decades-old program under which eight people
in the United States are getting marijuana for medical purposes. The move
could settle a class-action suit brought against the government by people
trying to gain access, but the Justice Department has indicated it is
unlikely to go along.
Fratello said he doesn't expect Tuesday's results to lead the government to
reverse itself on that lawsuit, or its larger policy stance.
"It will be hard to turn the ship of state around on this issue," he said.
"The victory last night was overwhelming, but we know the solution is still
several years away."
The government could pin some incremental policy changes on an upcoming
report from the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine.
Supporters believe the report, at least, will call for more research, and
possibly for the sanctioned use of cannabis in medical settings.
Meanwhile, the group said it expects to resurrect an invalidated initiative
in Colorado next year, and to have one on the ballot in Maine as well. Also
in its sights are Massachusetts, Florida, Ohio, Illinois and Michigan.
"First it was California, and maybe people wrote off California as an
anomaly," Fratello said. "Now it's the entire West, which is convincing, but
it's still not the Midwest. If we're going to continue to legitimize this,
those Midwestern states are looking like the places where we intend to go."
For supporters in California, the biggest events Tuesday were the elections
of Gray Davis as governor and Bill Lockyer as attorney general, said Jeff
Jones, director of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative. Lockyer
supported the 1996 medical marijuana initiative, Proposition 215. During the
campaign, Lockyer said he would like to see "clinics, not cults," while
current Attorney General Dan Lungren has worked to shut down clinics in San
Francisco and Oakland. Davis has said he would not oppose the will of the
California majority in passing Prop. 215.
The Oakland club's distribution activities were shut down by the federal
government this year, and the organization is fighting the move in court.
Meanwhile, Jones said, people are being taught to grow their own, and he is
involved in setting up a patient advocacy group that will step up lobbying
efforts among elected officials and federal bureaucrats to turn around their
positions on medical marijuana. In San Francisco, the coordinator of the
California chapter of the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws
said he sees momentum building for decriminalization and eventual
legalization of cannabis. Besides voting for medical marijuana, voters in
Oregon also overwhelmingly were supporting a measure to decriminalize
marijuana possession, which had been recriminalized by the state
legislature.
(c)1998 San Francisco Examiner
-------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mendocino sheriff, DA downplay pot users (The Sacramento Bee says voters
in Mendocino County, California - where marijuana is the largest cash crop
and two generations of pot growers reside in the mountains - may have outdone
themselves in 1998, electing a district attorney who spent nine months in
federal prison as a tax protestor and a sheriff who downplays the value of
marijuana arrests. "I don't have a felony record," emphasized district
attorney-elect Norman Vroman Wednesday, noting that he could not practice law
in California or be a candidate for political office under such
circumstances. "It was a misdemeanor conviction." The sheriff-elect, Tony
Craver, said, "I don't smoke marijuana and I don't advocate it and I'm not in
favor of it," but decades of eradication efforts and other laws have not
succeeded and are drawing time and resources from drug problems that
Mendocino County residents find more threatening.)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 11:45:56 -0600
From: "Frank S. World" (compassion23@geocities.com)
Reply-To: compassion23@geocities.com
Organization: Rx Cannabis Now!
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7417/
To: DRCNet Medical Marijuana Forum (medmj@drcnet.org)
Subject: US CA: New Mendocino sheriff, DA downplay pot users
Sender: owner-medmj@drcnet.org
Source: Sacramento Bee
Contact: opinion@sacbee.com
Website: http://www.sacbee.com/
Pubdate: Nov. 5, 1998
NEW MENDOCINO SHERIFF, DA DOWNPLAY POT USERS
By John D. Cox Bee Staff Writer (Published Nov. 5, 1998)
In a region noted for its passionate and sometimes quirky politics,
Mendocino County voters may have outdone themselves in 1998.
They elected a law enforcement team Tuesday that favors decriminalizing
marijuana, including a district attorney who spent nine months in federal
prison for failing to pay federal income taxes.
The election of a sheriff who downplays marijuana may not come as a surprise
in a county with two generations of pot growers in the mountains, but the
victory of Norman Vroman, 62, a Ukiah defense attorney, over incumbent
District Attorney Susan Massini, 55, was an upset by any standards.
"The people were ready for a change," said Vroman, who garnered about 52
percent of the vote. "They were fed up with the incumbent."
In the June primary, Massini was the top vote-getter with 44 percent of the
vote, to 30 percent for Vroman. In Tuesday's runoff, a politician in
Massini's position -- she's been in office 12 years -- would expect to pick
up the majority she needed from among the 26 percent of June voters who
voted for losing conservative candidate Al Kubanis.
Particularly against someone with Vroman's record.
"I don't have a felony record," the victor emphasized Wednesday, noting that
he could not practice law in California or be a candidate for political
office under such circumstances. "It was a misdemeanor conviction."
Vroman said he failed to pay income taxes for about five years in the 1980s,
but as far as he is concerned, "I didn't break any law."
"It had to do with a principle rather than the IRS or money or anything
else," he said. "The principle is that there was no law that requires me to
file a return."
When he demanded to see the law, "a federal judge told me, 'We don't have to
do that,' and it was a downhill slide after that."
The downhill slide included nine months in a federal prison in 1992 and two
personal bankruptcy filings, the last in 1994. But all of that is "old news"
dredged up by his political opponents, Vroman said.
"The people of Mendocino County saw through this smoke screen put up by the
incumbent," he said. "My qualifications as a trial attorney are outstanding.
I know what I'm doing. I'm going to be in the courtroom, a hands-on
prosecutor. I look forward to it. It's obvious the people agreed with me."
Vroman's stance as a tax protester struck a chord in a county with a long
political history of anti-government, rural independence, and where
marijuana is the county's largest cash crop.
The sheriff-elect is Tony Craver, a sheriff's lieutenant who polled 58
percent of the vote in the race to succeed retiring sheriff Jim Tuso.
Craver said Wednesday he and Vroman have not discussed their common view
that marijuana ought to be decriminalized, but both are bound to uphold the
law.
"My attitude is going to be, as long as marijuana is illegal, I will not
discourage deputies from enforcing the marijuana law," he said.
"I don't smoke marijuana and I don't advocate it and I'm not in favor of
it," said Craver, but decades of eradication efforts and other laws have not
succeeded and are drawing time and resources from drug problems that
Mendocino County residents find more threatening.
"I would certainly emphasize the methamphetamine problem and hope the
deputies would spend their time doing that instead of going after people who
are smoking pot," said Craver. "We can't ask deputies not to enforce the
marijuana law, but it's not going to be a high priority."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DARE America Forces Alterna To Remove Hemp Shampoo Ads (A company press
release on Entertainment Wire says Alterna Applied Research Laboratories, the
manufacturer of hemp hair care products, has been forced this week by the
private corporation that administers the government's favorite
illegal-drug-use prevention program to remove ads for legal hemp shampoo from
more than 100 bus benches in Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley.)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 21:38:52 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: WIRE: DARE America Forces Alterna To Remove Hemp
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Patrick Henry (resist_tyranny@mapinc.org)
Pubdate: Thu, 05 Nov 1998
Source: Entertainment Wire
Note: The original headline (below) was obviously a typo. I supplied the
subject line.
AMERICA FORCES ALTERNA, THE HEMP HAIR CARE
LOS ANGELES--(ENTERTAINMENT WIRE)--Nov. 5, 1998--Alterna Applied
Research Laboratories, maker of professional hemp hair care products,
was forced by DARE America this week to remove hemp shampoo ads from
more than 100 bus benches in Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley,
Calif.
Proactive in its approach to educate the nation about hemp's many
environmental, economic and cosmetic benefits, Alterna has waged its
own war focusing on dispelling the myths and misinformation about hemp
via a national hemp awareness campaign using billboards and bus benches.
Alterna holds fast to these two facts: hemp is not marijuana and hemp
is not a drug. The progressive hair care company and hemp
industrialists alike believe that by erroneously defining hemp and
marijuana as the same plant, hemp is unjustly persecuted. Currently,
DARE America does not actively distinguish between industrial THC
(Drug)-free hemp and marijuana and strongly objects to Alterna's use
of the hemp leaf in its advertising.
As education is the key to enlightenment, Alterna champions and
supports DARE'S drug education programs, with one small exception. In
educating our nation's children about the evils of drugs, Alterna
believes it is important to explain to kids the differences between
hemp and marijuana.
With the explosion of hemp manufacturers nationally and
internationally, hemp is a commodity that cannot be ignored. Hemp is
now being incorporated into everyday household items and the positive
benefits of the plant are being publicized. It is crucial that
children do not confuse hemp's benefits with the drug marijuana.
By associating a hemp leaf with the word "HEMP" and the phrase "THC
(Drug) free" in its advertising, Alterna has begun a national
awareness campaign that clearly presents the differences between hemp
and marijuana.
In an effort to educate DARE about hemp and align itself with the
venerable program, Alterna has supplied the organization with hemp
educational packages and proposed an annual donation of proceeds on
all sales of its hair care line to help support DARE'S war on drugs.
Despite the outreach, DARE remains steadfast in its opposition to
Alterna's pro-hemp campaign.
"DARE has applied strong pressure to the City of Los Angeles,
resulting in the removal of the dialog-generating billboards and bus
benches," said Kimberlee Jensen-Mitchell, director of publicity for
Alterna. "Through this act, Alterna has been denied the opportunity to
further create awareness about hemp's vast benefits."
"If hemp and marijuana are left undefined by DARE, how do we properly
explain to our children why 29 countries, now including Canada,
distinguish between the two plants and encourage hemp cultivation?"
asked Mike Brady, vice president of sales and marketing for Alterna.
"It's a disservice to children not to give them all the facts. It
would be as if the common cooking mushroom and the psychedelic
mushroom were not distinguished."
Alterna's bus bench ad design displays a green hemp leaf with "THC
(Drug) free" clearly written below it and a bottle of the hemp shampoo
with the word "HEMP" emblazoned across the ad. The company's phone
number and Web address are also included in order to teach more about
hemp's many benefits, especially how it can help improve the strength,
shine and healthy appearance of hair.
Unconventional in its approach, Alterna consistently sets new
standards in the beauty industry in the fields of advanced formulation
and product performance. The first professional hair care company to
harness the power of nutrient-rich hemp seed oil in January of 1997,
Alterna continually redefines itself as an industry innovator. a
CONTACT: Alterna Applied Research Laboratories, Los Angeles
-------------------------------------------------------------------
His Own Little Drug War (The San Jose Mercury News says Tony Bennett,
who left his heart in San Francisco and became the darling of the MTV
generation in his 60s, has written in "The Good Life" that he used marijuana
and cocaine in 1970s Hollywood until he "spiraled into a dangerous
drug-filled low" as his personal life unraveled - which could just mean he
drank a lot. Apparently he was able to quit using "drugs" without benefit of
prison or coerced treatment, however.)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 20:41:48 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: His Own Little Drug War
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Marcus/Mermelstein Family (mmfamily@ix.netcom.com)
Pubdate: 5 Nov 1998
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
Copyright: 1998 Mercury Center
PEOPLE IN THE NEWS
HIS OWN LITTLE DRUG WAR
Tony Bennett left his heart in San Francisco and became the darling of the
MTV generation in his 60s. And he picked up a drug problem along the way.
``At every big party I'd go to, people were high on something,'' the
72-year-old crooner wrote in ``The Good Life,'' about the heady Hollywood
days of the 1970s.
``Cocaine flowed as freely as champagne, and soon I began joining in the
festivities. . . . Compounded with my pot smoking, the whole thing started
sneaking up on me.''
By the late 1970s, he spiraled into a dangerous drug-filled low as his
personal life unraveled -- his mother died, his marriage was faltering and
the government was after him for back taxes.
``I found I was using drugs to ease my pain,'' Bennett said.
In 1979, when the IRS threatened to seize his home, he went on a binge that
nearly killed him. In the two decades since then, the eight-time Grammy
winner has risen to new career and personal highs, without drugs. His
latest album, ``The Playground,'' is being released this week.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Former 'Bad Boy' Of Wrestling Has Surprising Hold On Electorate
(The San Jose Mercury News publishes a feature article about Minnesota's new
governor-elect, Jesse Ventura of the Reform Party, the one-time "bad boy"
of the pro wrestling circuit, action-flick actor, Navy SEAL, talk-radio
shock jock - and drug policy reform advocate. However, the newspaper
downplays Ventura's stance to the point of misrepresenting it, saying,
"He even mused publicly about legalizing prostitution and drugs, although
he says he is not suggesting he approves of the idea.")
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 19:35:18 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Former `Bad Boy' Of Wrestling Has Surprising Hold On Electorate
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Marcus/Mermelstein Family (mmfamily@ix.netcom.com)
Pubdate: Thu, 5 Nov 1998
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Copyright: 1998 Mercury Center
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
Author: Pam Belluck, New York Times
NATIONAL UPSET
Former `Bad Boy' Of Wrestling Has Surprising Hold On Electorate
BLOOMINGTON, Minn. -- He's given up body-slamming Hulk Hogan. He's
quit wearing a pink feather boa and glitter tights. He no longer
pummels alien invaders with Arnold Schwarzenegger or plays characters
who snarl things like, ``I ain't got time to bleed.''
So now, Jesse Ventura -- former ``bad boy'' on the pro wrestling
circuit, action-flick actor, Navy SEAL and talk-radio shock jock --
says he's ready for a new nickname. He doesn't want to be called ``the
Body'' any more. ``I'm Jesse `the Mind' now,'' he said Wednesday.
After all, Ventura -- the strapping, chrome-domed, gravel-throated
sports-celluloid celebrity -- has a new job. In an earth-rattling
political upset Tuesday that left politicians and prognosticators
shellshocked, Ventura became the next governor of Minnesota.
Unable to resist, David Letterman instantly offered up a Top 10 list
of slogans for the new chief of state, including ``Building a
steroid-enhanced bridge to the 21st century,'' and ``C'mon, don't you
want to see Newt Gingrich in a choke hold?''
Ventura, who ran as a third-party maverick against two respected and
established major-party candidates, strutted a little through his
victory party as if he had just whacked Jimmy ``Superfly'' Snuka.
``They said a vote for me was a wasted vote,'' he said. ``Well guess
what? Those wasted votes wasted them.''
Ventura's breathtaking victory -- with 37 percent of the vote --
marked the first time a Reform Party candidate had ever won statewide
office and made him the highest-ranking elected official in Ross
Perot's party. It was a huge humiliation for his rivals -- the
Democrat, Minnesota Attorney General Hubert H. Humphrey III, son of
the former vice president, who got 28 percent, and the Republican, St.
Paul Mayor Norm Coleman, who got 34 percent.
`It's stunning'
``Oh my gosh, it's stunning,'' said Chris Gilbert, chairman of the
department of political science at Gustavus Aldophus University in St.
Peter, Minn., one of a legion of experts who initially thought Ventura
was just a ``curiosity.''
``Regardless of how we try to explain it, it's a really stunning,
striking outcome for Minnesota and the nation, to have a Reform Party
candidate break through and for the Democrats and Republicans in the
state to essentially see all their core supporters taken away from
them,'' Gilbert said.
A few observers were not as shocked.
``Jesse's victory proves that people want a real man in power to lead,
not a play plastic puppet like other politicians,'' said Hogan, who
played good guy to Ventura's bad guy. (He added: ``I'd love to get him
in the ring one time before he becomes president.'')
Outside of Minnesota, the Jesse Ventura phenomenon might seem comical.
But inside the state, at least in 20-20 hindsight, it actually seems
to make sense. Behind it is a streak of protest vote, a trace of the
national backlash against politicians. But Ventura was able to cobble
together a number of other advantages.
Name recognition
In Minnesota, Ventura, 47, had tremendous name recognition, primarily
from his talk-radio show, and that made up for his lack of campaign
funds.
While Coleman and Humphrey were both competent and well-regarded, they
lacked luster and began to snipe at each other in what, for Minnesota,
was a negative campaign. Ventura, on the other hand, is an appealingly
colorful mixture of affable bravado and plain-spoken drive. In one of
his television commercials, children play with a Jesse Ventura action
figure, which scuffles with Evil Special Interest Man.
What's more, voters with low expectations were pleasantly surprised
when Ventura, who served four years as the mayor of Brooklyn Park, a
suburb of Minneapolis, turned out to be a substantive candidate, able
to clearly articulate opinions on almost every issue, many of them
refreshingly straightforward.
Describing himself as a fiscal conservative with liberal and moderate
social views, Ventura supports abortion rights and gay rights. He
refuses money from special-interest groups, and opposes school
vouchers, merit pay for teachers and taxpayer funding for a new
baseball stadium. He even mused publicly about legalizing prostitution
and drugs, although he says he is not suggesting he approves of the
idea.
In a state with a populist affection for political mavericks -- Perot
received 24 percent of the presidential vote here in 1992 -- all this
went over like gangbusters.
``When I first heard about him running, I thought it was going to be a
stunt,'' said Gary Isakson, a 30-year-old sales representative for a
Minneapolis concrete company. ``But I hear him in these debates, and
he really won me over. I'm sick of professional politicians voting for
specific bills just because they have to vote along party lines. I
liked what he said about if a bill comes across his desk, he'll sign
if it's good for Minnesota. He just talks straight from the heart.''
``The Body'' was born James George Janos, still his legal name, but he
began to call himself Jesse Ventura at the start of his professional
wrestling career in 1975. ``Ventura'' sounded as if it fit the
bleached-blond surfer-wrestler image he was cultivating after coming
out of a stint as a Navy SEAL commando in Vietnam.
``He wasn't really a very good wrestler, but he had charisma,'' said
Dave Meltzer, publisher and editor of Wrestling Observer newsletter.
``His best move was standing on the apron yelling at the fans while
his tag-team partner did all the work.''
Wrestling key to politics
Ventura says he believes that wrestling has laid a foundation for his
politics because it made him comfortable ad-libbing and performing.
Others see different advantages.
``The nature of wrestling is that when you make move A and someone
blocks move A, you've got to make move B, C or D,'' said Nick
Bockwinkle, a four-time heavyweight wrestling champion who lives in
Minnesota. ``You've always got to have alternatives, and I think that
translates to the political structure as well.''
In 1986, Ventura left wrestling and began to get small roles in films
like ``Batman and Robin'' and ``Predator'' with Schwarzenegger. He
went on to be Brooklyn Park mayor from 1991 to 1995.
He and his wife, Terry, own a thoroughbred-horse ranch outside
Minneapolis. He says he will continue to be the conditioning coach for
a high school football team, where one of his mantras is ``What is
pain? Pain is good!''
Ventura's greatest challenge will be to work with the state
Legislature -- a Democratic Senate and, as of Tuesday, for the first
time in years, a Republican House. But the man who as a candidate once
replied to a question about getting along with the Legislature by
baring his grapefruit-size biceps, seemed unfazed by that conundrum.
``I've jumped out of an airplane 34 times,'' he said. ``I've dove 212
feet underwater. I've done a lot of things that defied death, and this
isn't defying death. It's just common sense and hard work.''
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Northern Manhattan narcotics cops acquitted in beating of suspect
(The Associated Press says New York Supreme Court Justice Ronald Zweibel,
in a non-jury trial, acquitted the two prohibition agents Thursday of charges
they brutally beat a Washington Heights man while breaking up a drug deal,
fracturing several of his ribs and causing him to be hospitalized. Zweibel
did not explain his verdict except to say that he found that the prosecution
had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Drug charges against the
victim were eventually dismissed, and he has filed a $450 million lawsuit
against the city.)
From: "Bob Owen@W.H.E.N." (when@olywa.net)
To: "_Drug Policy --" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: Two No Manhattan narcs acquitted in beating of suspect
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 19:29:20 -0800
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net
Two Northern Manhattan narcotics cops acquitted in beating of suspect
By Samuel Maull, Associated Press, 11/05/98 19:01
NEW YORK (AP) - Two police officers were acquitted Thursday of charges they
brutally beat a Washington Heights man while breaking up a drug deal,
fracturing several of his ribs and causing him to be hospitalized.
State Supreme Court Justice Ronald Zweibel ruled in a non-jury trial that
Detective Olga Vazquez, 36, and Officer Richard Thompson, 30, were not
guilty on all counts. Both were charged with first-degree assault.
Vazquez and Thompson wept after hearing the verdict while their colleagues,
who packed the Manhattan courtroom, burst into applause and whoops of
approval. Both moved through the room hugging coworkers.
``I'm relieved,'' said Vazquez, a police officer for eight years. ``I'm
going to get my life back.''
Thompson said he was elated.``This took a year out of my life, and almost
destroyed it,'' Thompson said.
Vazquez and Thompson were accused of beating Norman Batista, 52, after they
broke into a Manhattan apartment where Batista allegedly was buying drugs
from Jose Polanco, 32, on Sept. 18, 1997.
The officers were accused of beating and kicking Batista while he lay on the
floor, his hands cuffed behind his back. Batista was admitted to
Metropolitan Hospital, where he stayed for six days being treated for seven
broken ribs.
The cops said Batista resisted arrest and they used force to subdue him.
The key prosecution witness was Polanco, who allegedly sold Batista the
drugs. Defense attorneys said Polanco, who has a lengthy arrest record, gave
a different account of the beating each time he talked about it.
The prosecution also relied on medical experts who testified that they did
not believe Batista had been injured in the way that police reported.
Zweibel did not explain his verdict except to say that he found that the
prosecution had not proven the defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
``They are not guilty as to each and every charge,'' he said.
Vazquez and Thompson work in the 400-member Manhattan North Narcotics
Initiative which is centered in Washington Heights.
Drug charges filed against Batista and Polanco were eventually dismissed.
Neither was charged with resisting arrest.
Meanwhile, Batista has filed a $450 million lawsuit against the city.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DC Won't Give Results Of Marijuana Referendum (The Baltimore Sun
notes Congress, which controls the District of Columbia, squelched
the release of election results regarding Initiative 59 because Rep. Bob
Barr, a conservative Georgia Republican, did not like the medical marijuana
measure.)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:02:36 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: MMJ: D.C. Won't Give Results Of Marijuana Referendum
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Rob Ryan
Source: The Baltimore Sun
Copyright: 1998 by The Baltimore Sun, a Times Mirror Newspaper.
Contact: letters@baltsun.com
Website: http://www.sunspot.net/
Pubdate: Thu, 5 Nov 1998
Author: Ellen Gamerman, Sun National Staff
D.C. WON'T GIVE RESULTS OF MARIJUANA REFERENDUM
Congress Barred Release Of Votes On Measure To Allow Medicinal Use
WASHINGTON -- After casting their ballots on whether to legalize the use of
marijuana for medical treatment, district residents tuned to the local news
on election night to find out the results. That's when they saw the tally:
Zero "yes" votes. Zero "no" votes.
Zero votes, period.
How could this be, when thousands remembered voting on Initiative 59 that
very morning?
It turns out that Congress, which controls the inner workings of district
affairs, squelched the release of the results after one of its most
conservative members did not like the smell of the medical marijuana measure.
The results of a district referendum that very likely passed are now a
government secret. The final printed tally is sitting off-limits at the
D.C. Board of Elections, the numbers covered from prying eyes.
The D.C. chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union yesterday filed a
Freedom of Information request to make the results public, while continuing
a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court last week to have the results of the
referendum recognized.
For now, however, the outcome of the medical marijuana vote remains hazy.
"I don't think there was ever a vote that the district could not make
public," says Kenneth McGhie, Elections Board general counsel, who this
week will file a request in federal District Court for instructions on what
the board should do next.
"I wasn't able to find anywhere else in the country where voters couldn't
see the results of a vote in an election."
The Clinton administration opposes medical marijuana use by the seriously
ill, but as this recent election shows, several states are trying to force
a change in national policy by legalizing it locally.
On Tuesday, voters in Oregon, Alaska, Nevada and Washington state approved
referendums decriminalizing marijuana for medical use. Arizona voters
Tuesday reaffirmed a similar measure after an attack by the state
Legislature. California voters approved their own proposal in 1996.
Rep. Bob Barr, a conservative Georgia Republican, got wind of the D.C.
referendum and won an amendment to the city's appropriations bill that
prohibits the district from using federal funds for any ballot initiative
that lessened the penalties for marijuana.
That was 13 days before the election -- not enough time to take the
question off the ballot.
So, the D.C. Elections Board kept the results secret, although an exit poll
by a group supporting the initiative showed 69 percent of voters supported
the measure.
Arthur Spitzer, legal director for the local ACLU, argues that Barr's
amendment is blatantly unconstitutional and advances a political agenda at
the expense of the district.
"They acted toward the district in a way they never, ever would think to
act toward their own constituents," says Spitzer. "No one in Congress would
ever think about trying to interfere in the content of an election in any
of the 50 states."
Barr has attacked the referendum as an effort to legalize mind-altering
drugs by using federal tax dollars earmarked for the city. In a statement
yesterday, he suggested the D.C. campaign sought to legalize marijuana for
more than just medical use.
"I will continue fighting to oppose any attempt to use federal funds
appropriated to the district to print or count ballots supporting the
legalization of marijuana, whether done under the guise of 'medical use' or
otherwise," the statement said.
The situation underscores the unique -- some say dysfunctional --
relationship between the district and Congress.
Because the city has only limited self-government, it is subject to
sweeping congressional oversight that allows lawmakers from far-flung
states to influence its day-to-day affairs. When Congress decided in 1992
that Washington should have a death penalty, local opponents only had 28
days to organize a referendum to defeat it. Ultimately, those opponents
were successful.
This time the referendum called for the district to allow AIDS, cancer and
other chronic pain sufferers to take marijuana.
The initiative allows for a "buyer's club" in the district, where patients
with doctors' recommendations could purchase marijuana.
Yet even if it turns out the voters passed the referendum, Congress can
easily block it. The referendum, like any other D.C. City Council bill,
must ultimately be approved by Congress, said Spitzer.
Some referendum opponents say the issue should be decided by medical
experts and the Food and Drug Administration, not by referendums that play
on sympathy for the ill and enfeebled.
"Why wouldn't marijuana go through the same process that aspirin does?"
asks Leigh Leventhal, spokeswoman for Partnership for a Drug-Free America.
"Nobody wants to see people suffering, and I think that's what people are
voting for on this issue."
In an earlier review, the FDA rejected the use of marijuana for medicinal
purposes, although new studies now under way may change that view.
Marijuana has been shown to ease symptoms of everything from cancer to
glaucoma to cerebral palsy to a simple case of the hiccups.
Brian Murphy, who suffers from complex migraine seizures, says a few puffs
of pot ease the numbness in his hands and tongue, as well as neck
discomfort. But those few puffs also prompted a police raid of his home and
landed him before a jury.
"They found me not guilty," says Murphy, 44, who will smoke no more than
one marijuana cigarette on his worst day. "Everybody keeps talking, 'Oh
you're just smoking joints.' But it's just three or four puffs. People live
in fear of getting caught for this. In reality, it is anything but a crime."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
What's Congress Smoking? (Washington Post columnist Steve Twomey protests
Congress's decision to prevent the results of Initiative 59, the medical
marijuana ballot measure, from being certified by the Washington, DC, Board
of Elections and Ethics. The fact that Congress has the power to
disenfranchise District of Columbia voters doesn't make it right, any more
than it was right to make women and blacks powerless, which the Constitution
also did, until modern wisdom set in. How do these out-of-towners make peace
with their consciences when they do this sort of stuff? They rail about Cuba,
Iraq, China and all the other dictatorially smothered establishments, and
then turn around and vote with Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. to deny half a million
Americans in the capital the simple privilege of deciding for themselves
whether to ease a local drug law for humane reasons.)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 01:33:20 -0600
From: "Frank S. World" (compassion23@geocities.com)
Reply-To: compassion23@geocities.com
Organization: Rx Cannabis Now!
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7417/
To: DRCNet Medical Marijuana Forum (medmj@drcnet.org)
Subject: US WP MMJ STEVE TWOMEY COL: What's Congress Smoking?
Sender: owner-medmj@drcnet.org
Source: Washington Post
Contact:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Pubdate: November 5, 1998
WHAT'S CONGRESS SMOKING?
By Steve Twomey
Thursday, November 5, 1998; Page B01
Inside a computer, inside the Board of Elections and Ethics at One Judiciary
Square downtown, "lies the answer," Alice P. Miller said yesterday.
The question is whether it should be legal to use marijuana for medical
reasons. It was on the ballot Tuesday in the District, just as it was on the
ballot in Arizona, Nevada and Washington state.
They know the answer in those places by now. Their citizens went to the
polls and expressed their wishes, and computers counted the ballots and spit
out the results, and the answer was yes in all three states. In the
District, citizens went to the polls and expressed their wishes, and the
computer counted the ballots but didn't spit out the results, because Miller
didn't ask it to do so.
Miller, the election board's executive director, might be dismembered or
dispatched to a concentration camp if she asked. Okay, not quite. But Miller
hasn't asked because it might not be politically healthy for District
officials and other living things to know the outcome of the city's
Initiative 59. There's Bob Barr, after all.
U.S. Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr., as you might be aware, is a very conservative,
anti-Clinton Doberman whose Georgia constituents once again lost their grip
on reality Tuesday and rewarded the Republican with a third term as a leader
of the nation.
But that's democracy, a wonderful thing.
Barr, we presume, endorses democracy. Maybe, as I do, he gets teary about it
occasionally, about freedom and the will of the people. If so, he probably
gets teary only to a point. That point is the District.
He sponsored an amendment, which passed, that bars the District government
from spending money on any ballot initiative that would "legalize or
otherwise reduce penalties" for the use of marijuana.
I have no opinion on whether marijuana ought to be legalized to ease the
suffering of those with serious illnesses. I simply haven't thought much
about it. But I would note that two of the states that said yes Tuesday --
Arizona and Nevada -- will never be mistaken for summer camps for Che
Guevara's descendants, so the notion can't be written off as liberal
orthodoxy.
But inhaling for any reason apparently offends Bob Barr. He couldn't stop
Arizona, Nevada or Washington from dabbling in such outrageous democratic
exuberance as holding a referendum on the question, which must have been
frustrating. But he could stop the District, because Congress can do
anything to the District.
And does.
Sure, that power is in the Constitution. That doesn't make it right, no more
than it was right to make powerless Americans out of women and blacks, which
the Constitution also did, until modern wisdom set in. How do these
out-of-towners make peace with their consciences when they do this sort of
stuff? They rail about Cuba, Iraq, China and all the other dictatorially
smothered establishments, and then turn around and vote with Barr to deny
half a million Americans in the national capital the simple privilege of
deciding for themselves whether to ease a local drug law for humane reasons.
No democracy for you.
At least Sen. Lauch Faircloth (R-N.C.), one of the chief agents of absentee
rule, paid the ultimate price on Tuesday.
There is a God.
Because of Barr's amendment, the election board decided not to print and
release the results of the initiative, fearing Congress might construe that
as spending money. Even having printed the initiative on ballots could be so
construed, although Miller noted yesterday the board hasn't paid for the
printing yet. Even having had the computer count the results could be so
construed, although Miller indicated that cost was near-zero. Who knows,
maybe Barr will go after Miller for talking with me, because she's paid with
government funds and was discussing the verboten initiative.
"We can't do anything that might attempt to defy the will of Congress,"
Miller said by phone.
So we have a situation in which the people have voted fairly and the votes
have been counted fairly, but the whole thing's been impounded immediately,
lest the city feel the wrath of the House of Lords. You know how, in Third
World nations, outside observers are called in sometimes to help the locals
vote fairly and freely? Here, the locals are fine. It's the outside
observers who've stolen the election.
"We think it is an outrage," Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the local
American Civil Liberties Union, said yesterday.
The ACLU is fighting on a couple of fronts, having filed suit Friday to
prevent Congress from nullifying the initiative results and filing a Freedom
of Information request yesterday to force the Board of Elections and Ethics
to hand over what are clearly public documents, namely, the election
results.
For its part, the board is planning to ask a federal court for a ruling on
what it should obey, Barr's amendment or provisions giving District
residents the right to vote on initiatives.
You'd think the computer at One Judiciary Square was loaded with anthrax or
sarin, instead of election results. What's Congress afraid of? Free will?
(c) Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicinal Marijuana Use Undecided In DC (An article in The Collegiate Times,
in Virginia, by three members of NORML at VPI & SU, describes the fight
for medical marijuana in Washington, DC, the chapter's lobbying
for the measure in the capital, and provides some background about the NORML
chapter at Virginia Tech.)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:07:40 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US DC: MMJ: Medicinal Marijuana Use Undecided In D.C.
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: NORML at VPI & SU (NORML@vt.edu)
Pubdate: Thur, 5 Nov 1998
Source: The Collegiate Times (VA)
Copyright: 1998 Collegiate Times.
Contact: comments@collegiatetimes.com
Fax: (540) 231-5057
Website: http://www.collegiatetimes.com/
Author: Jessica Knight, Jessica Arends, Leah Root of Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University {VPI & SU, aka Virginia Tech} .
MEDICINAL MARIJUANA USE UNDECIDED IN D.C.
Prescribing Marijuana For Medicinal Purposes Made A Resurgence For Voters
Across The Nation
Controversial initiatives, which seek to legalize marijuana, were put
before voters in Tuesday's election and were approved by several states.
Voters in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada and Washington approved various
initiatives that would allow or move toward allowing the use of marijuana
for medical purposes.
Initiative 59, which seeks to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, was
voted on in Washington, D.C. which is controlled by the Federal government.
Congress is opposed to legalization so the initiative had its funding cut
and it was ignored, Krawitz said at this point the government considers any
association with marijuana illegal. Information on the exact vote on the
initiative have not been released.
NORML traveled to D.C. Tuesday to hand out literature to voters at the
polls. The sought to educate voters about initiative 59 and its benefits.
Initiative 59 protects seriously and terminally ill patients, such as
persons with cancer and AIDS, if their doctors instruct them to use medical
marijuana to ease their symptoms, including severe nausea, vomiting and
AIDS wasting syndrome. The initiative prohibits non-medical use requiring
the supervision and care of a physician. It defends the patients, not
abusers, so that law enforcement can target drug dealers and violent
criminals.
The initiative preserves the confidentiality of a doctor-patient
relationship by permitting physicians to discuss all options that may ease
a patient's suffering. It also restricts that only small amounts can be
used exclusively for the medical use of the sick and dying when other
medications fail.
Krawitz joined President Clinton in June at the United Nations General
Assembly Special Session on Drugs in New York City. While there, he gave a
presentation on the medical use of marijuana. The organization also put up
displays in the General Assembly room.
It was a great opportunity for the organization to meet up with people in
politics and have their message be heard, Krawitz said.
"Our purpose is to educate the people on the proper use of marijuana,
including how not to abuse the drug," said Krawitz.
He said NORML hands out information on the proper use of the drug and
Krawitz said that if initiative 59 is approved, then by law residents of
Washington, D.C. will have the authority to possess marijuana for medical
reasons. However, a legitimate doctor who feels that it is vital to the
patients care and that all other alternatives have failed must write a
recommendation for the use of marijuana.
There is still a lot of work to be done, but Krawitz said that he and the
other members of NORML are prepared for any future challenges that arise.
The support for the approval of this initiative seems to be high here in
Virginia. According to a September 1998 quality of life study conducted at
Tech, 72 percent of Virginians polled think that marijuana should be made
available to patients for medical use.
Krawitz said most people feel this way, but they can't agree on ways to
implement medicinal marijuana.
According to Krawitz, the mission of the organization is two-fold. The
first is to educate the people of the industrial, food, fiber and medical
applications of the Cannabis Hemp plant and secondly, to actively seek
participation in the political process to reform the laws as necessary to
see that the plant is used properly and not abused.
Krawitz feels that prohibition, of marijuana in particular, is now causing
far more harm to society than the drug abuse it is intended to discourage.
He said that prohibition only equals zero regulation.
"We at NORML have adequate evidence to state with confidence that proper
regulation of marijuana would reduce underage drug use and prison
populations while making the substance available to those who have a
legitimate right to access," Krawitz said.
"I don't see any reason why they shouldn't have access to it under a
physician's supervision," said Meredith Malone, a senior majoring in
fisheries and wildlife.
Malone said she heard a man speak who had glaucoma. He said he smoked two
marijuana joints a day, which kept the pressure in his eyes down, keeping
him from going blind.
Malone said that the synthetic drug, Marinol, isn't effective because the
compound in it may not be what helps patients. According to Malone, if the
government allowed studies on marijuana they might be able to isolate the
compound that is beneficial to patients.
The Drug Use Prevention Act of 1997 was introduced by Sen. Jesse Helms,
R-N.C., Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., Sen. Lauch Faircloth, R-N.C., Sen. Kay
Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. The bill stated that physicians shall have their
registration revoked upon finding that they had administered, dispensed, or
recommended the use of marijuana to an individual in violation of Federal
or state law.
Former presidents George Bush, Jimmy Carter, and Gerald Ford are urging
Americans to not vote for the marijuana referendums.
The Justice Department has indicated that it will oppose implementing laws
that allow marijuana for medical use.
The student chapter of NORML here at Tech dates back to 1972 and is one of
the oldest chapters in the country. NORML meets every Thursday at 7 p.m. in
Squires Student Center and offers three different types of memberships. The
first is a budget membership which is $5 a year and includes weekly news
from National NORML, action alerts and updates all via e-mail and a card
with useful marijuana information on it.
The standard membership is $10 a year and offers all of the aspects of the
budget membership plus a trial year membership in National NORML. The
premium membership is $25 a year and includes standard membership benefits
plus a discount card good for a discount at participating area merchants
and either an official NORML at VPI & SU T-shirt or a marijuana Myths/Facts
book.
For more information on NORML contact 268-1162 or visit the NORML website at
http://www.vt.edu:10021/org/NORML/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DrugSense Weekly, Issue No. 72 (A DrugSense special edition
summarizes Tuesday's election victories for the reform cause -
Nine for nine - we win everywhere! Kevin Zeese writes, "Perhaps the best
examples of how politicians are out of step with the public come
from the votes in Oregon and Arizona. In Oregon last year, two-thirds
of the legislature voted to recriminalize marijuana possession. This week,
two-thirds of the voters rejected that and kept marijuana decriminalization,
a policy that has existed since 1973, in place.")
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 10:11:29 -0800
To: mgreer@mapinc.org
From: Mark Greer (MGreer@mapinc.org)
Subject: A DrugSense SPECIAL EDITION 9 FOR 9 WE WIN EVERYWHERE!
***
DrugSense Weekly, November 5, 1998, No. 72
A DrugSense SPECIAL EDITION
9 FOR 9 WE WIN EVERYWHERE!
This newsletter is available online at:
http://www.drugsense.org/dsw/1998/ds98.n72.html
This is a Special Election Edition of the DrugSense Weekly.
The issue contains a national perspective and an analysis from
California, which has been dealing with the implementation of
Proposition 215 for two years. In the next issue of the DrugSense
Weekly we will analyze the coverage of the elections.
***
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
* 2 Feature Articles
Nine for Nine A Clean Sweep for Reform
by Kevin B. Zeese
The Significance of Election '98 in California (700 words)
By Tom O'Connell
***
Feature Article
Nine for Nine - A Clean Sweep for Reform
by Kevin B. Zeese
The 1998 election was a watershed event for the reform movement a clean
sweep of electoral victories for medical marijuana and broader drug
policy reform. (See the results of the votes below.) Along with the
initiative victories, Dan Lungren, the arch enemy of Proposition 215, lost
in a landslide, garnering only 38 percent of the vote in the
California gubernatorial race.
The election highlights show the voters are ahead of the politicians
when it comes to recognizing that the drug war has become too extreme.
As a result of this election it is fair to say that medical marijuana
is more of a mainstream political issue than extreme drug war
policies. Perhaps the best examples of how politicians are out of step
with the public come from the votes in Oregon and Arizona.
In Oregon last year, two-thirds of the legislature voted to
recriminalize marijuana possession. This week, two-thirds of the voters
rejected that and kept marijuana decriminalization, a policy that has
existed since 1973, in place. In Arizona, the state legislature passed
legislation undercutting Proposition 200, which passed in 1996. This
year the voters restored both the medical prescription of all drugs and
reforming criminal laws so that incarceration is no longer an option in
drug possession cases.
The Arizona vote on prescription availability of all drugs is noteworthy
in particular. When voters went to the voting both the ballot said that
a "no" vote will result in "allowing doctors to prescribe Schedule I
drugs, including heroin, LSD, marijuana and analogs of PCP, to seriously
and terminally ill patients without the authorization of the Federal
Food and Drug Administration or the United States Congress." Over 57
percent of Arizonans voted for the measure.
Not only are drug war politicians out of step with the voters - they
know it.
Drug warriors fear public votes on reform issues. In Washington, D.C.
representatives of Congress went so far as to threaten members of the
Board of Elections with criminal contempt of Congress if they reported
the results of the election. In Colorado, even though the proponents of
the initiative demonstrated they had collected enough signatures, the
courts, without comment, upheld the state's decision to keep the vote
from counting. Drug warriors are so zealous that they are willing to
undermine democracy in an effort to prevent the seriously ill from
using medical marijuana.
This election should be a wake up call to appointed drug war
bureaucrats as well as elected officials. General McCaffrey, despite
his billion dollar advertising budget, his grant program for grass
roots drug war advocates, and the ease with which public officials get
their message out, failed to have any impact on these elections. No
doubt, the conservative wing of the Congress will take him to task for
this failure. Since he has already angered the progressive wing of
Congress, particularly the Black Caucus, which has sought his
resignation, because of his opposition to needle exchange, he will be on
very weak ground on Capitol Hill.
Elected officials should heed the example of Dan Lungren. A career
politician with a long record of successful elections, first to
Congress then to Attorney General, was defeated in a potentially career
ending, electoral landslide. He had upset a lot of groups, but the way
he handled medical marijuana surely showed he was too mean to govern
California. He was ready to put the health of seriously ill
Californians at risk and undermine a democratic vote by not
implementing Proposition 215. The character flaws he showed are showing
with other drug war politicians and they may pay a similar price as
Lungren. The days of shouting "Drug War" and getting elected may be
coming to an end.
Other politicians who recognize that the drug war has failed, but have
been afraid to say so publicly, should take heart from these elections.
The public is saying you can be in favor of drug policy reform and get
elected.
The message to reformers is that we can win. The message is not that we
have won. We have a long, long way to go before we can claim that even
when it comes to medial marijuana. But hard work, professional
campaigning and getting our message out works. The elections are a sign
of hope that America s nearly-century old drug war, which has caused so
much harm to so many, can be ended.
***
Election Returns
ALASKA
Proposition 8. Allows the medical use of marijuana (Yes is the reform
position)
YES 111,166 57.75% REFORM WINNER
NO 81,319 42.25%
ARIZONA
Proposition 300 Allows medical use of all Schedule I drugs (No is the
reform position)
YES 385,014 42.6%
NO 517,876 57.4% REFORM WINNER
Proposition 301 Prevents incarceration in drug possession cases (No is
the reform position)
YES 427,348 48.3%
NO 456,631 51.7% REFORM WINNER
COLORADO
Initiative 19 Allows the medical use of marijuana (This vote was
counted, but will not count unless ordered by a Federal court) (Yes is
the reform position)
YES 118,352 57% REFORM WINNER
NO 89,614 43%
NEVADA
Question 9 Allows the medical use of marijuana (Yes is the reform
position)
YES 241,463 59% REFORM WINNER
NO 170,234 41%
OREGON
Measure 57 Recriminalization of possession of marijuana (No is the
reform position)
Yes 161,651 33%
No 325,915 67% REFORM WINNER
Measure 67 Allows the medical use of marijuana (Yes is the reform
position)
Yes 270,787 55% REFORM WINNER
No 220,944 45%
WASHINGTON
Initiative 692 Allows medical Use of marijuana (Yes is the reform
position)
Yes 826,689 58.70% REFORM WINNER
No 581,743 41.30%
WASHINGTON D.C.
Initiative 59 Allows the medical use of marijuana (Yes is the reform
position.
NOTE - Congressional action has prevented results from being published.
An independent exit poll conducted for Americans for Medical Rights
found:
Yes 69% REFORM WINNER
No 19% (assumed)
No Vote 12%
The poll's margin of error is 3.6 percentage points.
***
Feature Article #2
The Significance of Election '98 in California (700 words)
By Tom O'Connell
California has led American social and political change since the
middle of this century. This was reconfirmed Tuesday when voters in six
other states and the District of Colombia upheld California's 1996
challenge to doctrinaire federal drug prohibition via Proposition 215:
marijuana is indeed medicine.
People outside the state might have assumed that patients have had free
access to legal marijuana ever since January 1997, but such isn't the
case. Attorney General Dan Lungren,intent on succeeding Governor Pete
Wilson, had gone out of his way to harass the 215 campaign. Undaunted
by the fact that the proposition received 56% of the popular vote, he
continued to implacably oppose the measure after it became law. Under
his leadership, and following collapse of the federal threats against
physicians in early 1997, a series of lawsuits was brought by his
office against buyers' clubs to exploit deficiencies in the loose
wording of the proposition. In the absence of any legislative help for
the initiative, and abetted by a craven judiciary, he succeeded in
attaining the most restrictive possible rulings: patients unable to
"grow their own" basically risked arrest whenever they bought or
possessed cannabis.
This was, of course, subject to the attitudes of local law enforcement;
in hostile venues, such as Lake County, San Jose and Orange County,
sting operations led to felony prosecutions against distributors and
patients. Some clubs such as Santa Cruz, simply closed. Others (San
Mateo), hung up by timid local politicians, never opened. A
particularly egregious prosecution in Orange County sent former deputy
sheriff David Herrick to State Prison for 4 years. By judicial order,
his obvious status as a worker for a duly constituted club couldn't
even be mentioned, nor could the protection of 215 be invoked.
On the heels of Lungren's success, the US Attorney launched an attack
in federal court, targeting those venues where friendly local
governments had kept clubs open, notably San Francisco and Oakland. The
net result was that by the '98 elections, only a few small distribution
operations were still functional in California and a number of
distributors face trial on felony charges and are in danger of
following David Herrick into state prison.
The smashing success of medical marijuana initiatives in other states
signal a momentous change, not only nationally, but in California. The
endorsement of the other initiatives, coupled with the defeat of
Lungren for governor and Stirling for attorney general, open the way
for 215 to finally protect patients as originally intended.
The thing politicians do best is count votes. Reefer madness had been a
winner for so long that people like Lungren couldn't believe times were
changing. It's likely that both he and some friends of reform had
dismissed the '96 MMj votes as aberrations. It's also probably
understandable that in California, our friends stood by impotently and
watched as Lungren and Stirling didn't just turn their backs on 215,
but attempted to destroy it- in clear violation of their oath to uphold
all the laws of California.
Now that Pete Wilson is about to fade into political oblivion and
Lungren and his deputy are also political history- undone by hubris and
thwarted in their bids for state office- we should immediately remind
their successors that the politics of medical marijuana have changed.
The new AG and governor should be contacted immediately for their
thoughts on approaching 215 as the expressed will of the people of
California, a will echoed nationally in every venue where the issue has
ever been put to a vote.
We should demand that legislative leaders enact the enabling
legislation necessary to translate the will of the voters, expressed in
215, into functional reality.
We should also request of Attorney General Lockyer that Dan Lungren's
enforcement policies be disavowed. To the extent possible, the state's
DAs, who take direction from his office, should be instructed to drop
pending prosecutions. In the case of at least one man, David Herrick,
amnesty or pardon should be considered.
November 3rd confirmed that Proposition 215 was no fluke, it's an issue
that resonates with voters throughout America. Politicians ignore that
message at their peril. Just ask Dan Lungren.
***
ONGOING COVERAGE
Current articles related to the medicinal marijuana initiatives are
available at: http://www.mapinc.org/props.htm
***
DS Weekly is one of the many free educational services DrugSense offers
our members. Watch this feature to learn more about what DrugSense can
do for you.
News/COMMENTS-Editor: Tom O'Connell (tjeffoc@drugsense.org)
Senior-Editor: Mark Greer (mgreer@drugsense.org)
We wish to thank all our contributors and Newshawks.
NOTICE:
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes.
***
REMINDER:
Please help us help reform. Send any news articles you find on any drug
related issue to editor@mapinc.org
***
NOW YOU CAN DONATE TO DRUGSENSE ONLINE AND TAX DEDUCTIBLE
DrugSense provides many services to at no charge BUT THEY ARE NOT FREE TO
PRODUCE.
We incur many costs in creating our many and varied services. If you are
able to help by contributing to the DrugSense effort visit our convenient
donation web site at
http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm
-OR-
Mail in your contribution. Make checks payable to MAP Inc. send your
contribution to:
The Media Awareness Project (MAP) Inc.
d/b/a DrugSense
PO Box 651
Porterville,
CA 93258
(800) 266 5759
MGreer@mapinc.org
http://www.mapinc.org/
http://www.drugsense.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ballot Battle - Initiatives Bypass Traditional Lawmaking (A Washington
Post roundup on the fate of ballot measures around the nation says it appears
that six of every 10 measures passed, the first time a majority of
initiatives were approved. Ethan Nadelman, director of the Lindesmith Center,
a drug policy reform group in New York, pointed to nine measures around the
country that either enabled the medical use of marijuana or rejected efforts
to recriminalize marijuana possession, as happened in Oregon. "Yesterday's
clean sweep of victories for medical marijuana and drug policy reform herald
a new era in the electoral politics of the drug war," said Nadelman. "These
results represent a wake-up call to politicians, both those accustomed to
engaging in drug war demagoguery and those who have so far been fearful of
proposing pragmatic alternatives.")
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 06:04:02 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US WP: The Ballot Battle Initiatives Bypass Traditional
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: DrugSense http://www.DrugSense.org/
Pubdate: Thur, 05 Nov 1998
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Page: A33
Contact: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Copyright: 1998 The Washington Post Company
Author: William Booth Washington. Post Staff Writer
Note: Special correspondent Cassandra Stern contributed to this report.
THE BALLOT BATTLE INITIATIVES BYPASS TRADITIONAL LAWMAKING
LOS ANGELES, Nov. 4-From Hawaii to Maine, in hundreds of local and state
ballot initiatives, on death and taxes, gays and gambling, on marijuana,
abortion, smoking, campaigning and the right of muskrats to die humanely,
voters made the tough calls Tuesday.
In a process that is circumventing the traditional power of elected
officials, thus spoke the electorate in 1998:
Many like the idea of letting physicians prescribe marijuana to the infirm,
which voters approved in Nevada, Washington and Arizona. But they don't
want doctors to help patients commit suicide in Michigan, even in the land
of Jack Kevorkian. In a snub to the Christian Coalition, the voters told
the government not to interfere with even late-term abortions in Washington
and Colorado.
On the emotional question of fairness, the people in Washington state don't
think women or minorities should be given "preferential treatment" in
hiring and contracts for state jobs, another strike against affirmative
action programs after the passage of a similar measure in California two
years ago.
Americans again showed their environmental bent. Corporate hog farmers were
ordered to clean up their stink in South Dakota and Colorado, while in
Montana, the people told mining companies they cannot use cyanide in gold
mines, thereby halting new projects on the Blackfoot River, famed as a
fly-fishing mecca. Oregon bucked the trend. There, voters rejected limits
on forest clear-cutting.
In California, people believe Indians should be able to run casinos on
tribal lands; that smokers ought to cough up 50 cents a pack in new taxes
to support early childhood development programs; and that using steel-jawed
leg traps to kill muskrats and other varmints is inhumane.
On the political front, the electorates in Massachusetts and Arizona want
to give public money to candidates who agree to limit their campaign
spending and refuse big-money donations. In Oregon, they want to do away
with the ballot box and mail in all the votes. The people asked for term
limits in Idaho and Colorado.
And finally, people in Alaska and Hawaii are not crazy about sanctioning
gay marriages. The Denver Broncos get a new taxpayer-financed stadium. It
will be all right to keep "boats in moats" as floating casinos in Missouri.
And the days of fighting roosters and baiting bears are over in,
respectively, Arizona and Missouri.
This is the new reality of politics and policy in America, where
increasingly the nation's hottest topics are going directly before voters,
whose decisions at the ballot box circumvent the traditional way that laws
get made by elected officials.
There were 61 major statewide initiatives in 16 states, plus hundreds more
referendums and propositions. It appears as if six of every 10 measures
passed, the first time a majority of the initiatives were approved.
"The voters addressed the tough issues that elected officials have been
unwilling to deal with as well as voted down those they weren't quite ready
for," said M. Dane Water, president of the nonpartisan Initiative and
Referendum Institute in Washington. "The people spoke on Election Day and
made it clear they were hungry for true reform."
Proponents of many measures saw in their passing clear signs that voters
wanted to send a message to statehouses and Washington.
Ethan Nadelman, director of the Lindesmith Center, a drug policy group in
New York, pointed to nine measures around the country that either supported
the use of medical marijuana or rejected efforts to recriminalize marijuana
possession, as was the case in Oregon.
"Yesterday's clean sweep of victories for medical marijuana and drug policy
reform herald a new era in the electoral politics of the drug war," said
Nadelman, who also works closely with billionaire George Soros, who has
bankrolled initiatives supporting medical marijuana. "These results
represent a wake-up call to politicians, both those accustomed to engaging
in drug war demagoguery and those who have so far been fearful of proposing
pragmatic alternatives to the war on drugs."
But if the experiment in California is any indication, a vote for medical
marijuana does not mean it will become widely available. Over the past two
years, most of the "healing centers" that sold "prescriptions" of marijuana
to ailing patients and others in California have been closed by federal law
enforcement officials, who maintain that the drug is still illegal and
cannot be distributed. The measures' opponents assert that they are Trojan
horse initiatives designed to loosen the nation's drug laws.
Another measure with potential national repercussions is the decision by
Washington state voters Tuesday to ban racial or gender preferences by the
state. Ward Connerly, a black businessman who led the drive to pass a
similar measure in California in 1996 and championed the Washington
proposition, said he hopes the vote in Washington will push GOP leaders to
embrace the issue.
"With this election, Washingtonians have signaled to the country that the
principle of fairness and equality for all, not just a chosen few, is not
just a California idea -- it's an American value that we can all embrace,"
Connerly said. "The Washington . . . vote demonstrates that the national
movement to end racial and gender preferences has universal appeal."
The measure to effectively end affirmative action in state hiring and
contracts, as well as university enrollment, passed in Washington 58
percent to 42 percent, in a state that is almost 90 percent white. It
passed in much more racially and ethnically diverse California two years
ago 54 percent to 46 percent.
The measure was emotional and hard-fought. National civil rights leaders
Jesse L. Jackson and Julian Bond came to the state to urge voters to keep
affirmative action in place. The state's most popular politician, Gov. Gary
Locke (D), a Chinese American, warned voters that the measure would "hurt
real people." Opponents of the measure pointed out that most of the
beneficiaries were not minorities, but women. Opponents also argued that
when voters were surveyed, they said they'd like to keep affirmative action
outreach programs. However, the way the measure was written, it simply
asked voters to reject "preferences" based on race or gender, the opponents
argued.
After success in Washington state, Connerly plans to push a similar ban in
Michigan, Arizona or Nebraska.
But as is often the case in voter initiatives, the opponents of ending
affirmative action in Washington threatened yesterday to take the issue
before the courts.
California experienced one of the most expensive ballot campaigns in the
nation. Combined, opponents and proponents of Indian gambling spent as much
as $100 million, most of it poured into television ads that were rerun
relentlessly.
The Indian tribes, some of which are transforming their reservations into
glitzy Las Vegas-style casinos, complete with video slot and poker
machines, won handily with 63 percent of the vote. The issue was on the
ballot because Gov. Pete Wilson (R) has maintained that the Las Vegas-style
gambling halls are illegal. But the voters seem to say that gambling is all
right in California, as long as it is restricted to the Indian reservations.
The victory "is the first time that wealthy business interests have not
been allowed to sacrifice the lives of Indians and future Indians to
satisfy their greed," said Anthony Pico, chairman of the Viejas tribe in
San Diego County.
The Indians, however, were not exactly poor themselves. They outspent their
opponent, the Nevada gaming industry, which feared that an increase in
casinos in the Golden State would mean fewer Californians would be willing
to make the trek to Vegas or Reno to lose their money.
Opponents of Indian gambling said today that they also would challenge the
proposition and seek to have it overturned on constitutional grounds. "The
handful of very wealthy gambling tribes that back [the proposition] spent
$70 million to convince voters that they are poor Indians," said Cheryl
Schmit of the citizens' group Stand Up for California. "They cynically
played to the emotions of voters and led them down the path to approving an
initiative they have known for months is blatantly illegal."
In another measure that could spread from California to other states,
Hollywood film maker Rob Reiner and his coalition of movie stars and health
activists appeared ready to declare the narrowest of victories over the
tobacco industry. Californians voted 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent to
support Reiner's measure, which would tax a pack of cigarettes by 50 cents
and use the estimated $750 million annual revenue to fund early childhood
development programs. With about 7 million ballots cast, the measure
appears to have won by 13,214 votes.
The initiative was ravaged for weeks on the airwaves by television
commercials paid for by the tobacco industry, which spent more than $30
million to Reiner and company's $7 million. The industry alleged that the
measure was a regressive tax that would create a huge bureaucracy to spend
the windfall. Many observers of the long-running tobacco wars in the most
anti-nicotine state were surprised at the vote's closeness.
And finally, Newport, Maine sought to outlaw the display of "female breasts
. . . visible from a public way," in a local initiative prompted after a
woman was seen mowing her lawn topless. The voters rejected the
bare-breasted ban. As Maine goes, so goes the nation?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Election Day Was Not A Bad Day For Tolerance (Syndicated Chicago Tribune
columnist Steve Chapman says Tuesday's election shows the real preference
among voters is for a third party - one that is willing to live and let live.
According to Bill Clinton's pollster, Mark Penn, the percentage of people
who agree with the statement "The best government is the government that
governs least" has risen from 32 percent to 56 percent in the last 25 years.
The clearest evidence of the "leave us alone" trend came from the states
that voted on marijuana policy.)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 20:15:26 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: OPED: VOTING ACTS: Election Day Was Not A Bad Day For
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Steve Young
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: tribletter@aol.com
Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Copyright: 1998 Chicago Tribune Company
Pubdate: 5 Nov 1998
Author: Steve Chapman
Section: Sec. 1
VOTING ACTS: ELECTION DAY WAS NOT A BAD DAY FOR TOLERANCE
In America, we have the Democratic Party, which can't keep its hands off
our wallets, and the Republican Party, which can't keep its nose out of our
personal lives. Each had its victories and defeats on Tuesday, but the real
preference among voters is for a third party: one that is willing to live
and let live.
This is a growing segment of the electorate. In the last 25 years,
according to Bill Clinton's pollster, Mark Penn, the percentage of people
who agree with the statement "The best government is the government that
governs least" has risen from 32 percent to 56 percent. But neither of the
two major parties gives Americans a consistent choice between being
governed more and being governed less.
So voters have to pick and choose from the available options. The clearest
evidence of the "leave us alone" trend came from the states that voted on
marijuana policy. In five referendums, citizens voted in favor of allowing
the medical use of cannabis, despite the bitter opposition of die-hard
prohibitionists from drug czar Barry McCaffrey on down. In Oregon, which
has decriminalized marijuana use, voters also overwhelmingly rejected an
attempt to make it a crime once again.
Arizonans, who saw their legislature try to overturn their 1996 vote for
medical marijuana, thumpingly reaffirmed it. In the District of Columbia,
where the same issue was on the ballot, the Republican Congress was so
afraid of the results that it barred district officials from reporting the
vote count.
Citizens of Washington state did something that may sound liberal when they
approved letting patients use pot to cure ailments that don't respond to
conventional treatment. But they did something that is regarded as
conservative by supporting a ban on racial and sexual preferences in
government contracting and college admissions. What do the two positions
have in common? Nothing, except a respect for the rights of the individual
and a distrust of government power.
The same outlook found expression in the upset triumph of former
professional wrestler Jesse "The Body" Ventura in the Minnesota
gubernatorial race. He was running against Hubert H. Humphrey III, who in
addition to having a golden Minnesota name had used his position as state
attorney general to sue the tobacco industry.
Ventura talked about legalizing prostitution and drugs and respecting gay
rights; Humphrey bragged about punishing an industry for selling people a
legal product they choose to consume. Even in strait-laced Minnesota, the
case for individual choice prevailed. Ventura got 37 percent of the vote,
while Humphrey came in third with 28 percent.
Down in the Bible Belt, there were other surprises. Alabama is one of the
most conservative and most Republican states in the country, but it has its
limits. Voters there evicted Republican Gov. Fob James, who defended a
judge's display of the 10 Commandments in his courtroom and argued for
restoring organized prayer in public schools. James had the endorsement of
religious right leaders Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson,
which may do him some good with St. Peter but failed to impress Alabamans.
By a gaudy 16-point margin, they abandoned James for Democratic Lt. Gov.
Don Siegelman.
Another favorite of the Christian Coalition was South Carolina Gov. David
Beasley, a Republican who proclaimed his moral opposition to gambling,
refused to allow a referendum on whether to establish a state lottery and
tried to outlaw video poker. Despite being governor at a time when South
Carolina is booming, and despite being a Republican in a Republican state,
he was trounced by an unknown Democrat whose most potent campaign theme was
that South Carolinians should be allowed to decide for themselves whether
to allow these forms of gambling.
California Republican Matt Fong, who publicly endorsed a law banning
anti-gay discrimination, looked like he had a very good chance of beating
incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer. But then the news broke that he had made a
$50,000 contribution to the Traditional Values Coalition, which is best
known for opposing gay rights and urging the teaching of creationism in
public schools. The connection was not a boon to Fong, who on Election Day
found he was about as popular as an oil spill.
The most conspicuous Republican victors Tuesday were those with a
reputation for independence from the party's puritans and
busybodies--George Bush in Texas, George Pataki in New York, George Ryan in
Illinois. The ones who lost were those most closely identified with Newt
Gingrich, who often sounds like he's leading a jihad. Judging from this
year's results, the party that wins in the year 2000 will be the one that
can portray itself as the party of freedom and tolerance--two traditional
values that are still very much in style.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
US Tempers Reaction After 5 States OK Medicinal Pot (The Chicago Tribune
says that in response to medical marijuana initiatives passed by voters
in five states Tuesday, federal authorities seemed to be backing off the
fire-and-brimstone rhetoric they used to attack similar measures two years
ago. "I think the doctors have been scared by the science," said Jim
McDonough, strategy director for the White House drug czar, General Barry
McCaffrey. But his dishonesty was evidenced by the continued refusal of the
Clinton Administration to withdraw its threat to prosecute doctors who
recommend cannabis - McCaffrey v. Conant is still being litigated.)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 14:40:35 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US DC: U.S. Tempers Reaction After 5 States Ok Medicinal Pot
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Steve Young
Pubdate: Nov 5, 1998
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: tribletter@aol.com
Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Copyright: 1998 Chicago Tribune Company
U.S. TEMPERS REACTION AFTER 5 STATES OK MEDICINAL POT
WASHINGTON -- In the face of medical marijuana initiatives that sailed
through in five states Tuesday, federal authorities seem to be backing off
the fire-and-brimstone rhetoric they used to attack similar measures two
years ago.
Although they still are debating how to respond, federal officials said
Wednesday they never have prosecuted minor marijuana possession and probably
won't start now, although several states no longer can prosecute it under
certain circumstances.
Federal drug officials reacted so mildly in part because they are skeptical
that physicians will recommend marijuana to patients in large numbers.
"I think the doctors have been scared by the science," said Jim McDonough,
strategy director for federal drug czar Barry McCaffrey.
"They are not willing to put their name on marijuana and say, `This is
medicine.' If something happened, they would be so liable it would make your
head spin," McCaffrey said.
This is a far cry from the federal government's stern warnings of just a
week ago and from its fierce reaction in 1996 when California and Arizona
passed medical marijuana initiatives.
At that time, top administration officials, including Atty. Gen. Janet Reno
and Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, condemned the
measures and announced a crackdown against doctors who recommended
marijuana. A court temporarily blocked authorities from going forward with
the crackdown, and a lawsuit is pending.
No major lawsuits are planned this year, at least so far, and no sweeping
enforcement actions are expected against doctors or patients.
That could change if members of Congress begin pressuring the administration
to take action, and it is not yet clear if that will happen.
"It is virtually impossible for me to give you the coordinated, `This is
what the federal government is going to do,' " McDonough said.
The approval of laws in a total of seven states--covering one-fifth of the
nation's population--that directly contradict federal drug laws creates a
novel situation.
Voters in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Colorado, as well as the
District of Columbia, passed referendum proposals Tuesday, joining
California and Arizona. In D.C. and Colorado, exit polls showed voter
approval, but the actual results were withheld, pending legal challenges.
The situation is even murkier because the measures protect certain patients
who buy marijuana, but selling the drug remains illegal.
Under the initiatives, a patient can be certified that he has one of five
diseases--AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis or epilepsy--and that
he or she would benefit from marijuana. If so, the state must issue the
patient a card authorizing possession and use of marijuana.
"If the federal government wants to intervene and block enforcement of these
initiatives, it will have to sue and take legal action against the states,"
said Bill Zimmerman, director of Americans for Medical Rights, which
coordinated several of the initiatives. "It remains to be seen what the
federal government will do."
In three of the jurisdictions that approved medical marijuana measures, they
will not take immediate effect.
Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) inserted a measure in a large federal spending bill
forbidding the District of Columbia from spending any money on its
initiative; his action has been challenged in court.
In Colorado, a dispute over the validity of petition signatures also is in
court.
In Nevada, the state constitution requires voters to pass any amendment
twice, so the marijuana initiative will not be final until 2000.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Voting Acts - Fighting The Disenfranchisement Of America's Future Generations
(An op-ed in The Chicago Tribune comments on the recent report
by the Sentencing Project and Human Rights Watch about the devastating
effects of felony disenfranchisement laws. In many ways, the recent report
actually understates the impact of such laws because of juvenile-justice
trends. In 41 states that make it easier to transfer children to adult
courts, for example, the practical effect will be to disenfranchise hundreds
of thousands of adults for acts they committed as children.)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:15:48 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US IL: OPED: Voting Acts: Fighting The Disenfranchisement Of
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Steve Young
Pubdate: 5 Nov 1998
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Section: Sec. 1
Contact: tribletter@aol.com
Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Copyright: 1998 Chicago Tribune Company
Author: Steven Drizin
VOTING ACTS: FIGHTING THE DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF AMERICA'S FUTURE GENERATIONS
Last month, the Sentencing Project and Human Rights Watch released a
report on the devastating effects of felony disenfranchisement laws.
These laws, which vary from state to state, preclude convicted felons
from voting.
Some felons can never vote, others can't vote as long as they are on
probation or parole, and others can't vote while they are imprisoned.
Many of the report's findings are staggering, including that 13
percent of all black men are presently disenfranchised, and if current
incarceration rates continue, 30 percent of the next generation of
black men will be disenfranchised.
In several Southern states, including Alabama, Florida, Mississippi
and Virginia, these laws permanently deprive between a fourth and a
third of all black men of the right to vote.
In many ways, the report actually understates the impact of these laws
on the next generation of poor, primarily minority children who are
now or will soon be coming into contact with our justice system. The
trend to "criminalize" our juvenile justice systems, most notably the
near-universal trend in the states to make it easier to transfer
children to adult court, will have the practical effect of
disenfranchising hundreds of thousands more adults for acts they
committed as children.
Between 1992 and 1995, 41 states passed laws making it easier to
transfer children to adult court. These states lowered the age at
which juveniles can be transferred, expanded the list of transferable
crimes and changed the transfer decision-making process, typically by
taking discretion from judges and giving it to prosecutors. Twenty six
states have no bottom age limit for transferring children charged with
certain crimes. If convicted in adult court, these children receive
permanent felony convictions on their records. In 10 states, including
five Southern states, absent a pardon from the governor, this will be
bar them from voting for life--even if they never served a day of jail
time.
This combination of felony disenfranchisement and transfer laws leads
to the absurd result of depriving persons of a fundamental right of
citizenship - in some cases for life - even before they have reached the
age when they can exercise the right to vote. In fact, in the majority
of our states, adults may be deprived of this right for acts they
engaged in before reaching the age of reason.
At least two factors act to multiply the number of adults who are
disenfranchised for crimes committed as youths. First, many more
crimes are treated as "felonies" than ever before, including
schoolyard fights, possessing small amounts of drugs and innocuous
adolescent sexual encounters. Second, juveniles, unlike adults, commit
crimes in groups.
Within each group, there's the unknowing tag-along, the more informed
wanna-be and the all-knowing perpetrator. Typically, these children
are all charged with the same crime under broad state "accountability"
laws and tried as adults.
Two other trends work together to expand the duration of this
disenfranchisement. In most states, juveniles convicted in adult court
must be given the same long mandatory minimum sentences as adults.
"Truth-in sentencing" provisions require that they serve between 85
and 100 percent of their sentences for many crimes. Together, these
provisions prevent judges from considering youth as a mitigating
factor in sentencing and prevent parole boards from reducing time
served after sentencing. The net result is that even in those states
which only prevent prisoners from voting, like Illinois, there are
many adults who can't vote for a long time.
Finally, trends in juvenile court further multiply the numbers of
disenfranchised felons. Many state juvenile codes now incorporate the
adult lexicon of "felonies" and "convictions" instead of the less
stigmatic terms historically used to describe juvenile delinquency. In
many states, juvenile court judges now have the power to impose long
incarcerative sentences on juveniles convicted of felonies. These
juvenile court "felony convictions" may also be a bar to voting.
It's hard to tell just how many adults can't vote as a result of acts
they committed as children because the data on numbers of children
tried as adults is sketchy and because the full effects of these laws
are just beginning to be felt. But the Justice Department's figures
suggest conservatively that at least 200,000 youths under 18 are tried
each year as adults. And this figure is based on data from 1994, which
was before the tidal wave of transfer laws had crested.
The upcoming centennial of the juvenile court provides a compelling
reason for researching more fully the combined effect of felony
disenfranchisement laws and the laws "adultifying" juvenile
delinquency.
Jane Addams, the Chicago crusader who played key roles in both the
juvenile court and women's suffrage movements, must be turning over in
her grave at the thought that so many men and women are being deprived
of their right to vote for acts they committed as children.
Steven Drizin is a supervising attorney at Northwestern University
School of Law's Children and Family Justice Center, where he
represents children charged with crimes in the juvenile and criminal
courts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug Enforcement Administration Proposes Reclassifying Unimed's Synthetic THC
Compound, Marinol, Two Days after Marijuana Referendums Pass (A company press
release on Business Wire says the DEA today issued a "Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking" recommending a reclassification of Marinol from Schedule II
to Schedule III, admitting it has a "very low potential for abuse" and no
illicit market. In addition to currently accepted uses for the synthetic
cannabinoid, Marinol now is being tested on people diagnosed with Alzheimer's
disease and other dementias.)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 17:30:40 -0800 (PST)
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: Dave Fratello (amr@lainet.com)
Subject: Marinol to Sch. III?
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
Thursday November 5, 4:39 pm Eastern Time
Company Press Release
Drug Enforcement Administration Proposes Reclassifying Unimed's Synthetic THC
Compound, Marinol, Two Days after Marijuana Referendums Pass
Ruling Would Provide Increased Patient Access to Marinol
BUFFALO GROVE, Ill.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 5 1998-- The Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) today issued a ``Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'' in which
the DEA is proposing to reclassify Marinol(R) (dronabinol) from Schedule II to
Schedule III, a ruling that would provide increased patient access to this
FDA-approved synthetic THC compound. THC is an active ingredient in marijuana.
This proposed ruling comes on the heels of voter-approved referendums in which
residents of Arizona, Washington, Colorado, Alaska, Nevada, Oregon and the
District of Columbia supported measures that endorse the use of medical
marijuana.
Marinol, manufactured by Unimed Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:UMED - news), is an
oral medication that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved for
patients requiring appetite stimulation and for patients undergoing
chemotherapy that causes them to become nauseated. Marinol also is being
tested to assess its positive effects on behavior in people diagnosed with
Alzheimer's disease and other dementias.
Schedule II drugs are those that are recognized to have medical indications,
but have a high potential for abuse (examples include morphine, cocaine,
methadone and methamphetamine). Schedule III drugs have accepted medical uses
and a lesser potential for abuse (examples of drugs in this class include
codeine with aspirin or codeine with Tylenol(R)).
The DEA consulted extensively with the FDA before making this recommendation.
A study presented earlier this year at the College of Problems of Drug
Dependency's Annual Meeting showed that because Marinol has a gradual onset of
action, it has a very low potential for abuse. The study also found that based
on information gathered from law enforcement officials in major cities across
the U.S., there is no street market for Marinol, and no evidence of any
diversion of Marinol for sales as a street drug.
``Adoption of the DEA proposal would represent a real pharmacoeconomic benefit
to both patients and to the healthcare system as a whole by reducing the
number of costly office visits by patients for whom Marinol is a medical
necessity,'' said Ronald Goode, Ph.D., president and CEO, Unimed
Pharmaceuticals. ``Furthermore, because the proposed change would allow
prescriptions for Marinol to be refilled up to three times per prescription,
patient convenience would be greatly enhanced.''
The public has until December 7, 1998 to file comments, objections and
requests for a hearing on the proposed reclassification. The DEA will then
rule on the proposed reclassification.
Unimed is an emerging, Chicago-area pharmaceutical company that develops and
markets life-enhancing pharmaceutical products to address unmet medical needs
in patients with chronic conditions. The company focuses on drugs that have
multiple indications and fall within the areas of endocrinology, urology, HIV
and other infectious diseases, hematology and oncology. Unimed currently
markets Marinol(R) as an appetite stimulant for people living with HIV disease
and as an antiemetic for people with cancer, Anadrol(R)-50 (oxymetholone) for
the treatment of various anemias, and Maxaquin(R) (lomefloxacin HCl) for both
complicated and uncomplicated urinary tract infections.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug Lords Target Nuevo Laredo Cops (According to The San Antonio
Express-News, the mayor of Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, said Thursday
that the border city is under attack and state police are being deployed
to combat a wave of drug-related violence that includes the execution
of two police officers and the disappearance of two others.)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:18:27 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Mexico: Drug Lords Target Nuevo Laredo Cops
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: adbryan@onramp.net
Pubdate: Thur, 5 Nov 1998
Source: San Antonio Express-News (TX)
Contact: letters@express-news.net
Website: http://www.expressnews.com/
Copyright: 1998 San Antonio Express-News
Author: Dane Schiller, Express-News Border Bureau
DRUG LORDS TARGET NUEVO LAREDO COPS
Mayor pleads for federal and state assistance
NUEVO LAREDO, Mexico-This border city is under attack and state police are
being deployed to combat a wave of drug-related violence that includes the
execution of two police officers and the disappearance of two others, the
mayor said Thursday.
"We are concerned about this lack of respect," Mayor Marcos Garcia said at
City Hall.
"Naturally, a border city will have problems with drug traffickers. They
aren't attacking citizens, but we consider this the time to be worried," he
added.
Garcia said he had asked the governor of Tamaulipas to send in more state
police, and is seeking investigative assistance from the Mexican army.
Nuevo Laredo also needs money to arm its own officers, the mayor said.
Two police officers haven't been seen in almost a month and are believed to
have been kidnapped by drug traffickers. Two others were killed in late
October when AK-47 fire shredded their patrol car.
The latest violence came Tuesday when the windows of a police commander's
car were shot out, but no one was injured.
No one has been arrested in connection with any of the incidents.
Police vowed they would not be intimidated by what they believe are the
efforts of international drug smuggling cartels to scare them off the job
and control this city, which has long served as a launching pad for sneaking
cocaine and marijuana into Texas.
"All we know is that someone has something against the police," said Ricardo
Gloria de la Garza, a spokesman for the Nuevo Laredo police force.
"We are professional officers. We will not be intimidated," he said.
The officers' bullet-riddled patrol car is sitting in a federal police lot
and their names have been posted in a place of honor at the Police
Department.
Meanwhile, a heavily armed team is being created to defend officers, and the
city is exploring ways to purchase weapons for a police force that is so
poor some officers don't even have handguns, including one who was recently
killed.
Blood flowed after Mexican federal police confiscated about $1 million
stashed in the ceiling of a tractor-trailer rig and, in a separate seizure,
1,000 pounds of cocaine in early October.
The drugs and cash were taken to a federal building where they were guarded
by a ring of heavily armed soldiers before being transferred to military
custody.
Preliminary information shows Nuevo Laredo is caught in a battle between the
Arrellano Felix cartel, based in Tijuana, near San Diego, Calif., and the
cartel formerly headed by Amado Carrillo Fuentes, which is based in Juarez,
across the border from El Paso.
"Those who succeed control certain parts of the river and probably have
tremendous influence over police," said Leonard Lindheim, head of U.S.
Customs Service investigations for South Texas.
"The drug business is a dangerous business. The price for crossing these
people is a piece of lead," said Lindheim, who added that U.S. Customs has
no jurisdiction in Mexico.
Events in Nuevo Laredo still are less brutal than the carnage in Juarez,
where dozens of people have been killed in machine gun attacks in bars,
restaurants and on the streets.
Other incidents that may be connected to the drug violence in Nuevo Laredo
are the death of an attorney whose body was found along a highway in early
October, as well as the shooting of a Laredo man in late October.
The Laredo man had worked with Customs during the summer as a member of the
National Guard.
There was caution and fear among Nuevo Laredoans who are aware of the
violence, which they don't expect to end anytime soon.
"There are many eyes and many ears. No one wants to talk," a man said in a
hushed tone as he shined shoes downtown. "There are at least five dead and
no one is investigating. We need someone here with guts."
Laredo Police Chief Agustin Dovalina said his officers are on alert.
"It may spill over, it may not. So far we've been lucky," he said. "It could
happen at any time. I don't want to put the community on alert. Violence can
happen at any time."
Laredo police are sharing information about drug traffickers with
authorities across the border and also have assisted in making sketches of
suspects, he said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jailed Cali Drug Trafficker Killed (The Associated Press
says Helmer "Pacho" Herrera, the No. 3 man in the Cali cartel,
was killed Thursday in a Colombian prison yard, two years
after he surrendered and began fingering ex-associates.)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:15:48 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Colombia: WIRE: Jailed Cali Drug Trafficker Killed
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Marcus/Mermelstein Family (mmfamily@ix.netcom.com)
Pubdate: Thu, 5 Nov 1998
Source: Associated Press
Copyright: 1998 Associated Press.
Author: The Associated Press
JAILED CALI DRUG TRAFFICKER KILLED
BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) -- A former top Cali cocaine boss was killed
while watching a soccer game in a prison yard Thursday, two years
after he surrendered and began fingering ex-associates.
Helmer ``Pacho'' Herrera was shot at least five times in the face by a
man who gained entry to the Palmira prison outside Cali by claiming to
be a lawyer for another inmate, officials said.
Herrera, 47, had been the No. 3 man in the Cali cartel, one of the
world's biggest criminal organizations, and had set up and managed
cocaine distribution rings in major U.S. cities, beginning in the 1980s.
The assailant appeared to be ``an acquaintance of Herrera because he
greeted him first,'' national police spokesman Carlos Perdomo said.
Herrera died on the way to the hospital, emergency room director Dr.
Gustavo Paredes said. Television video showed the body, in uniform and
cleats, on a gurney, the floor beneath soaked in blood.
The killer, identified as Rafael Angel Uribe, 32, was beaten by other
inmates before guards took him away. He had entered the prison a half
hour before the attack during a prison soccer match, national prisons
director Carmen Lucia Tristancho said.
She said it was unclear whether the murder weapon, a 9mm pistol, was
smuggled into the penitentiary or whether it was already inside.
Herrera surrendered to authorities in September 1996, the last of
seven major cartel members to either turn themselves in or be arrested.
He was convicted of drug trafficking in March and sentenced to six
years and eight months in prison after incriminating at least 20
former associates.
Herrera continued to seek sentence reductions, fingering his
wheelchair-bound half-brother from jail. But in September, his prison
term was increased to 14 years and eight months, following an appeal
by prosecutors.
When he surrendered, Herrera said he was tired of being on the run
from enemies and thought he would be safer behind bars. Known as a man
with a thousand faces, he had dodged hundreds of police raids, even
dressing up as a woman to elude authorities.
Drug Enforcement Administration officials in Washington said
investigators believed Herrera had continued to traffic cocaine from
prison and could have been killed by a competitor. ``It's an
occupational hazard,'' said the agency's South American operations
chief, Ron Lard.
Lard said Herrera had over the years moved many tons of cocaine into
the United States, where he was wanted for trial on murder, drug
trafficking, and money-laundering charges.
A decade ago, Herrera played a key role in the Cali cartel's secret
alliance with the government to wipe out the more violent Medellin
drug gang. His lawyer, Gustavo Salazar, said Thursday the killing
could have been related to that rivalry.
Herrera was believed responsible for a 1988 car bomb attack on a
building where the family of the late Medellin drug boss Pablo Escobar
was living. The family escaped unhurt.
He survived a September 1990 raid by Medellin cartel hit men on a
ranch he owned outside Cali in which 19 people were killed.
In the 1980s, Herrera directed cocaine distribution and
money-laundering in the New York City area for the cartel, which at
its peak exported about 80 percent of the cocaine sold in the United
States, according to the DEA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Why We Must Have Drug Tests At Work (An op-ed in The Times, in Britain,
falsely asserts that urine testing employees for illegal drugs achieves
its stated objectives, though the writer backhandedly admits that drug abuse
is increasing in tandem with the phenomenon. The author claims that within
two years it will be almost impossible for illegal-drug users to get a job
with larger companies in Britain. The British drugs czar and government
ministers have started encouraging drug testing by employers. They are
following a quiet revolution, largely unreported because firms have been
scared of bad publicity.)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:27:27 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: UK: Why We Must Have Drug Tests At Work
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Martin Cooke (mjc1947@cyberclub.iol.ie)
Pubdate: Thu, 05 Nov 1998
Source: Times, The (UK)
Contact: letters@the-times.co.uk
Website: http://www.the-times.co.uk/
Author: Patrick Dixon
WHY WE MUST HAVE DRUG TESTS AT WORK
ON CURRENT trends, within two years it will be almost impossible for
recreational drug users to get a job with larger companies.
Drug testing at work is probably the most effective weapon we have against
adult substance abuse. It is a proven, low-cost strategy, which identifies
those needing help, reduces demand, cuts down on accidents and sick leave,
improves attendance and increases productivity.
Yet testing is controversial: it penalises users with positive tests that
can bear little or no relation to performance, encourages knee-jerk
dismissal, and discrimination at interviews. It costs money, invades
privacy and smacks of authoritarianism.
In a dramatic policy shift, Keith Hellawell, the drugs czar, and government
ministers have started encouraging drug testing by employers. They are
following a quiet revolution, largely unreported because firms have been
scared of bad publicity.
The Government's Forensic Science Agency carried out more than a million
workplace tests last year, with great interest from industry. Last month
the International Petroleum Exchange joined London Transport and many
others in random testing.
This follows huge success in America where 80 per cent of big companies
spend more than UKP200 million a year testing for drugs at work, affecting
40 per cent of the workforce. By 2005 up to 80 per cent of workers will be
covered.
But Britain also has a growing problem with addiction: 8 per cent of men
and 2 per cent of women abuse drugs or alcohol, costing at least UKP3
billion a year in accidents and absence alone.
Every office, factory, train operator, airline, construction company and
hospital is affected with risks to public health and
profitability.Workplace testing in America is being forced on employers for
economic and safety reasons. Drug companies that don't test will go bust.
Their insurance premiums will go through the roof.
American studies show that substance abusers (including alcohol) are 33 per
cent less productive, three times as likely to be late, four times as
likely to hurt others at work or themselves, five times as likely to sue
for compensation and ten times as likely to miss work.
A Wisconsin cardboard factory was contacted recently by its insurers, who
were worried about high levels of injury. Random testing was introduced and
accidents fell 72 per cent the following year, with an 80 per cent decrease
in days lost.
A recent report in The Lancet revealed that 37 per cent of male junior
doctors were using cannabis and 14 per cent cocaine, amphetamines,
barbiturates, LSD, eCstasy, magic mushrooms or other substances. The figure
for women was 12 per cent. The BMA's figures suggest up to 10 per cent of
all doctors may abuse either alcohol or illegal drugs, including cocaine,
crack and heroin. That's almost 10,000 doctors, treating perhaps 200,000
patients every day. If you're too drunk or doped to drive, you shouldn't be
operating - nor working a crane or cement-mixer for that matter. Nor making
decisions on which other people's futures depend. Testing is cheap.
Breathalysers cost UKP40 with virtually no running costs while UKP30 urine
tests for drugs only have to be carried out on a few to be effective.
London Transport tests just 5 per cent of drivers a year.
That means each worker is checked on average once every 20 years. Hardly a
mass invasion of privacy, yet more than enough to be a powerful deterrent.
In America positive test rates have fallen from 13.6 per cent to 4.9 per
cent in a decade. This is a method that works.
However, testing is barbaric unless introduced as part of a package of
education and access to confidential treatment. The primary aim should not
be to sack, but to discourage abuse, offer help and treat. Effective
programmes are those where the workforce approves a humane, compassionate
and fair anti-drugs policy.
There are many problems with testing: for example, cannabis tests are
almost useless, with positive tests weeks after use. What blood levels are
acceptable for illegal drugs? Who should be tested? How often and what
action should be taken?
One thing is clear: drug and alcohol testing will continue to spread
regardless of government support, as the most practical and cost effective
way to strengthen existing drugs and alcohol policies at work. Either we
take hold of the issue now or the issue will take hold of us.
Dr Patrick Dixon is director of Global Change Ltd and author of The Truth
about Drugs, Hodder UKP7.99.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[End]
to the 1998 Daily News index for November 5-11