------------------------------------------------------------------- MAMA crusade urges clear-eyed look at crutches, cures (A Cox News Service article about Mothers Against Misuse and Abuse and its founder, Sandee Burbank of Mosier, Oregon, an anti-drug abuse crusader who also crusades for legal medical use of marijuana and a re-examination of the nation's get-tough drug laws.) From: "Sandee Burbank" (email@example.com) To: (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: DPFOR: MAMA story in Waco Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 07:05:23 -0000 Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/ We are still here in Texas. In Houston today. Have meetings and more media appointments today. Last night's presentation was well attended and included a number of senior citizens. It is a relatively new experience to be speaking to this type of an older crowd, but one that is becoming more common. Here's the article the editor paper sent me this morning. Sandee *** MAMA crusade urges clear-eyed look at crutches, cures By John Young c. 1998 Cox News Service WACO, Texas - She's an anti-drug abuse crusader who also crusades for legal medical use of marijuana. She's an anti-drug abuse crusader who calls for a re-examination of the nation's get-tough drug laws. Every day of Sandee Burbank's life is a campaign against drug abuse. But every day she also lashes out at the way society tries to deal with drugs, the legal kind and the illegal kind. Just say no? Don't be ridiculous, says Sandee Burbank. For as ''no, no'' is on most parents' lips, ''yes, yes'' is in their eyes in how they deal with drugs in general, particularly alcohol. She says common-sense stewardship by parents is the key to common sense about drugs by young people. Until parents fully understand the drug culture they inhabit, replete with Madison Avenue huckstering, they will have trouble getting ahead of the curve on influences that make people slaves of their urges. Burbank in 1982 founded Mothers Against Misuse and Abuse - MAMA. It is one of the few anti-drug abuse organizations willing to put all drugs, legal and illegal, into one kettle for inspection. The nation is outraged by the deaths of 10,000 Americans a year from illegal drugs. MAMA asks for comparable alarm over the 400,000 killed each year by tobacco, 135,000 by alcohol (drunk driving not included), and, estimated by a recent study from the University of Toronto, 102,000 killed by the side effects of prescription medicine - appropriately administered, legally approved. Know your prescription On the issue of prescription drugs, the MAMA mantra is ''ask your pharmacist.'' Understand what's in your prescription. Put the brand name out of your mind and know the drug. Know the side effects. Know about correct dosage. Know how drugs interact. Ask. And be skeptical. Burbank said that like most consumers, physicians can fall prey to marketing ploys for hot new products. Patients can end up in valleys of pharmaceutical trial and error. The tendency is to want the instant fix, the push-button cure, which isn't always there. That attitude can translate into the habits of young people who seek instant escape, push-button pleasure. MAMA's appeal is clear-eyed and hysteria-free. Drug abuse is drug abuse. Americans young and old are captives of merchandizing, social symbols and the age-old repulsion of the young by authority draped around hypocrisy. TV-sanctioned abuse Though marijuana commonly is touted as a ''gateway drug'' to harder stuff, MAMA directs attention to deadly abuse advertised by social habits and TV. Gateway drug? Miller Lite. MAMA advocates that all drugs be judged by the same pharmaceutical standards, which by nature would force a re-examination of laws that put hundreds of thousands behind bars for marijuana possession. Using data from the National Institute for Drug Abuse and the University of San Francisco, MAMA offers a chart of ''hazard potential'' for common legal and illegal drugs. It rates alcohol as the most intoxicating, with the most severe withdrawal. It ranks nicotine first in the area of dependency. Heroin ranks high in every area. Marijuana barely ranks in any category. MAMA isn't promoting the weed, though. To every audience of young people, Burbank warns that based on the penalties, marijuana possession can rob a teen of his or her childhood. Or an adult can lose his or her livelihood based on a drug test. To get children past dangerous straits takes a combination of sharing and the setting of limits, said Burbank. Some parents ''are trying to be their kids' best friends instead of their parents,'' she said. For more information about MAMA, write 2255 State Road, Mosier, Ore., 97040. On the Internet, find it at http://www.mamas.org. John Young's column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. E-mail: email@example.com Story Filed By Cox Newspapers For Use By Clients of the New York Times News Service
------------------------------------------------------------------- Pot Trial Guilty Verdict (The Long Beach Press-Telegram says a jury in Orange County, California, found medical marijuana patient Marvin Chavez, the founder of a local medical marijuana dispensary, guilty Thursday of eight of 10 counts of drug-sales and drug transportation.) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:51:38 -0800 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) To: email@example.com Subject: MN: US CA: Pot Trial Guilty Verdict Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: FilmMakerZ Source: Long Beach Press-Telegram (CA) Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.ptconnect.com/ Copyright: 1998 Press-Telegram. Pubdate: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 Author: Joe Segura POT TRIAL GUILTY VERDICT Court: Jury reduces five of eight counts to misdemeanors. WESTMINSTER - A six-man, six-woman jury found medicinal-marijuana advocate Marvin Chavez guilty Thursday of eight of 10 counts of drug-sales and drug transportation. The jury, which deliberated for one day, also decided that five of the eight guilty counts should be misdemeanors rather than felonies. Defense attorney James Silva of Venice said an appeal would be filed based on the fact that Prop. 215, known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, was not allowed as a defense. Chavez's defense was tailored around the contention that he was helping seriously or terminally ill patients, by providing them medicinal marijuana through the Orange County Patient-Doctor-Nurse Support Group. Prop. 215 was not allowed to be considered by the jury, since Chavez could not prove that he was the primary caregiver to those seeking the relief drug, as mandated by Prop. 215, according to three judges who heard arguments for the measure's incorporation into the trial. Chavez will be sentenced Jan. 8, and he could face 16 months to three years for each of the felony counts. Prior to the trial, another judge offered three years probation if he would plead guilty to one count. Chavez refused. "There's no deal on Prop. 215," he said Thursday. "I'm willing to do my time." During the week-long trial, defense attorneys Silva and J. David Nick made repeated references to Chavez's activities as being in the spirit of Prop. 215. Nick, a San Francisco attorney, took the case pro bono because it was one of several cases testing the law approved by voters statewide in 1996. And, despite the instruction by Judge Thomas Borris to the jury to disregard the marijuana measure, the attorneys privately expressed beliefs that there would be a hung jury. However, shortly before noon Thursday, Deputy District Attorney Carl Armbrust was the person to savor the victory, while the defense attorneys quickly left the court to map out an appeal strategy. Following the verdict victory - coming on the day of his retirement after 26 years as a prosecutor - Armbrust made it clear that he believes Prop. 215 has a sinister goal. "I personally feel that passage of the marijuana measure is simply a step to legalize all drugs." The news of the jury's ruling was a jolt to attorneys Jon Alexander of Garden Grove and Bob Kennedy of Long Beach, who represented Chavez in his early efforts to have Prop. 215 introduced as a defense. "This is a perversion of the law," Kennedy said, adding that Prop. 215's failure to provide a distribution system is victimizing people providing an essential service. "Chavez tried to do it by the books," Alexander said.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Cannabis Club Co-Founder Convicted (The Regional Review version) From: "Bob Owen@W.H.E.N." (email@example.com) To: "_Drug Policy --" (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: Cannabis Club Co-Founder Convicted Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 20:46:53 -0800 Sender: email@example.com Friday, November 20, 1998 The Regional Review DEVELOPMENTS IN ORANGE, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND VENTURA COUNTIES Cannabis Club Co-Founder Convicted WESTMINSTER--In a case being closely watched by marijuana activists across Southern California, a jury Thursday convicted the co-founder of a local cannabis club of selling the drug. But the verdicts fell short of the full victory sought by prosecutors. The Superior Court jury took just over a day to convict Marvin Chavez, 42, in what legal experts consider one of the most significant cases of its kind since state voters legalized medicinal marijuana use two years ago. The district attorney's office portrayed Chavez as a sophisticated drug dealer operating under the guise of Proposition 215, the 1996 initiative that legalized the medical use of marijuana in the state. But jurors declined to convict him on five counts of felony marijuana sales in cases in which Chavez gave the drug to caregivers using it to treat patients. Instead, the panel convicted him of misdemeanor charges of "giving away marijuana." In addition, Chavez was found guilty on two felony counts of selling marijuana to undercover investigators from the district attorney's office and one felony count of transporting the drug. But he was acquitted on two other charges related to his sale to the officers. Chavez's case has become a rallying cry for some supporters of legalized marijuana, who have been particularly critical of the undercover operation that resulted in some of the charges. Outside the courtroom an emotional Chavez, who is free on $100,000 bail, vowed to continue his fight. *** When away, you can STOP and RESTART W.H.E.N.'s news clippings by sending an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. Ignore the Subject: line. In the body put "unsubscribe when" to STOP. To RESTART, put "subscribe when" in the e-mail instead (No quotation marks.)
------------------------------------------------------------------- OC Cannabis Club Activist Found Guilty (The Los Angeles Times version) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 05:17:41 -0800 From: email@example.com (MAPNews) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: MN: US CA: O.C. Cannabis Club Activist Found Guilty Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: FilmMakerZ Pubdate: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 Source: Los Angeles Times, Orange County Edition Contact: email@example.com Website: http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/ORANGE/ Author: Daniel Yi, Times Staff Writer O.C. CANNABIS CLUB ACTIVIST FOUND GUILTY In a case being closely watched by marijuana activists across Southern California, an Orange County jury Thursday convicted the co-founder of a local cannabis club of selling the drug, but the verdicts fell short of a full victory sought by prosecutors. The jury of six women and six men took just over a day to convict Marvin Chavez, 42, in a case that could clarify who is entitled to the legal protection that a care-giver is allowed under Proposition 215, the state's medicinal marijuana initiative passed two years ago. The district attorney's office portrayed Chavez as a sophisticated drug dealer operating under the guise of Proposition 215, the 1996 initiative that legalized the medical use of marijuana in the state. But jurors declined to convict him on five counts of felony marijuana sales in cases where Chavez provided the drug to those he believed were treating serious illnesses. Instead, the jury convicted him on misdemeanor charges of "giving away marijuana." In addition, jurors convicted Chavez on two felony counts of selling marijuana to undercover investigators from the Orange County district attorney's office and one felony count of transporting the drug by mail. But he was acquitted on two other charges related to his sale to the investigators. Chavez, who is free on $100,000 bail, will be sentenced Jan. 8. He faces up to seven years in jail. His case, one of a handful of medicinal marijuana convictions in the state, has become a rallying cry for some supporters of Proposition 215, who have been particularly critical of the undercover operation that resulted in some of the charges. Moreover, it underscores the legal maze created with the passage of Proposition 215. Interpreting and enforcing the vaguely worded initiative has been left largely to local authorities across the state. Several Bay Area counties have said they will not prosecute cases involving medical use of marijuana, while Orange County has been aggressive in prosecuting such cases. "It is a crazy quilt criteria that changes with landscape, political figures and county lines," said J. David Nick, a San Francisco attorney who represents Chavez and other marijuana activists. Chavez argued that he was simply providing marijuana to sick people, as the proposition allows. But the trial judge ruled that Chavez could not use the law as a defense because he does not fit the definition of a "primary care-giver," who under the law is protected against prosecution along with the patients themselves. Attorneys said the case could eventually set a clearer standard for what a care-giver is and whether cannabis club operators such as Chavez are protected under Proposition 215. San Francisco Dist. Atty. Terence Hallinan, who has declined to file charges in medicinal marijuana cases, said the fact that the Orange County jury reduced some felony charges to misdemeanors might indicate that they believe Chavez was actually trying to help patients. The jurors were rushed out of the Westminster courthouse after the ruling and could not be reached for comment. But Orange County Deputy Dist. Atty. Carl Armbrust expressed satisfaction with the decisions. "It's a reasonable verdict," he said. Chavez was one of several marijuana activists who founded the Garden Grove-based Doctor, Patient, Nurse Support Group as a way to provide what they term "natural medicine" to people in need. In May, David Lee Herrick, another member of the club, was convicted on two counts of felony marijuana sale and sentenced to four years in prison. Chavez first came under suspicion of authorities late last year after another member of his cannabis club was arrested for possession of marijuana. Chavez was charged as a co-conspirator in the case. He was freed on his own recognizance on condition that he would cease disbursing the drug. But undercover investigators posing as seriously ill patients later received marijuana from Chavez as part of a sting operation. "Unfortunately, he thumbed his nose at the judge and began distributing again," Armbrust said. But defense attorneys said prosecutors' undercover operation amounted to entrapment. "It is egregious the extent the Orange County district attorney's office went to catch Mr. Chavez," said attorney James Silva, another of Chavez's lawyers. "Essentially, they painted the undercover investigator as a walking time bomb of pain. So how could Mr. Chavez not feel compassionate for this person who was crying out to him?" Silva noted that Chavez's cannabis club, which has nearly 200 members, provided marijuana for illnesses including AIDS, cancer and chronic pain. Outside the courtroom, an emotional Chavez vowed to continue his fight. "I am still here for what I stand," said Chavez. "I never hid behind the law. I stood in front of the law." Dozens of Chavez's supporters in the court were disheartened by the decision. Eloise Batista, 50, a member of the Garden Grove cannabis club who said she takes marijuana to ease chronic pain, expressed concern that the verdict will force her to purchase the drug from street dealers. "I don't want to be out there with the criminal elements," a teary Batista said. "I don't want to be a criminal."
------------------------------------------------------------------- Pot-Club Founder Convicted (The Orange County Register version) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 19:22:14 -0800 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) To: email@example.com Subject: MN: US CA: Pot-Club Founder Convicted Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: FilmMakerZ Pubdate: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 Source: Orange County Register (CA) Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.ocregister.com/ Copyright: 1998 The Orange County Register Author: John McDonald POT-CLUB FOUNDER CONVICTED COURTS: Vendor who sought to defend marijuana sales under Prop. 215 is found guilty on eight counts. The founder of the Orange County Cannabis Co-op was convicted Thursday on eight counts of selling, transferring and transporting pot, in a case he plans to appeal because he was barred from mounting a Proposition 215 medical-marijuana defense. The jury verdict against Marvin Chavez, 42, was mixed: =95 He was convicted on two felony counts of selling marijuana to undercover officers, but acquitted on two other counts of selling to them. =95 Five felony charges of providing pot to medical patients on a doctor's recommendation were reduced to misdemeanors. =95 A charge that Chavez mailed 5 ounces of marijuana to an upstate cancer patient resulted in a felony conviction. Prop. 215, passed in 1996, allows for the possession, cultivation and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, but does not address distribution. Prosecutors argued that the initiative does not allow for the exchange of the drug for money or favors. Chavez contended that he accepted "donations" and sometimes provided the marijuana for free. "I'm trying to carry on in the spirit of Prop. 215," said Chavez, of Santa Ana, as he left Orange County Superior Court with a dozen supporters from the Cannabis Co-op. "I just want patients like me to be able to come out of the closet." Chavez says he smokes marijuana to ease chronic back problems. Co-op volunteer David Herricks was convicted earlier by a different jury of felonies on the same five charges for which the Chavez jury returned misdemeanor verdicts. Herricks is serving four years in prison but his case is being appealed. The Chavez trial included more testimony about using marijuana as medicine than the other case did. Chavez turned down a deal to plead guilty in return for a sentence of time served -- 60 days -- and now faces up to seven years in prison when he is sentenced Jan. 8. During the trial, jurors heard extensive evidence about the club's goal of providing marijuana to those in medical need. But the judge instructed jurors not to consider Prop. 215. "He was denied a defense" based on the initiative, Chavez's lawyer James M. Silva said. Jurors could not be reached for comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Medical-Pot Activists Protest Conviction Of Co-Op Founder (The Orange County Register says advocates for patients who use marijuana as medicine condemned the conviction of Marvin Chavez Thursday and vowed not to let their fight fade away. Some particularly ineffective activists wore cannabis-leaf leis and lit up pipes outside Orange County Superior Court in Westminster, about 100 feet from the Police Department.) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 19:42:15 -0800 From: email@example.com (MAPNews) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: MN: US CA: MMJ: Medical-Pot Activists Protest Conviction Of Co-Op Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: FilmMakerZ Pubdate: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 Source: Orange County Register (CA) Copyright: 1998 The Orange County Register Contact: email@example.com Website: http://www.ocregister.com/ Author: Gil Hopenstand MEDICAL-POT ACTIVISTS PROTEST CONVICTION OF CO-OP FOUNDER DRUGS: Supporters Of Martin Chavez Say Their Fight Centers On The Issue Of Choice For The Ill. Medical-marijuana advocates Thursday condemned the conviction of Orange County Cannabis Co-op founder Marvin Chavez on eight drug charges and vowed not to let their fight fade away. Some wore cannabis-leaf leis or lit up pipes outside Orange County Superior Court in Westminster, about 100 feet from the Police Department. "This is a miscarriage of justice. It's not what my founding fathers died for. This is a freedom issue," said Thomas Pollard, a landscaper from Fountain Valley who helped secure the drug for a friend who eventually succumbed to cancer. Pollard was a reluctant witness in Chavez's prosecution. "It's an issue of whether people have the (choice) of what makes them feel better. Who can decide that for me better than me?" he asked. Advocates hope that another local case awaiting trial will protect the use of medicinal marijuana guaranteed under Proposition 215, passed in 1996. The co-director of Chavez's co-op, Jack Shachter of Garden Grove, is accused of possessing the drug with the intent to sell. Shachter said he can prove the marijuana was his by prescription from a doctor, and he is confident a trial will conclude in his favor. "This is a victimless crime. There is no complainant," said patient advocate Steve McWilliams. McWilliams said county health officials should help ill Orange County residents get the medicinal marijuana they need. One idea advocates are considering: building a warehouse in the county where they could legally raise cannabis. Regardless of what the courts decide will be Chavez's fate, supporters said, some patients still need marijuana to cope with pain. Legal wrangling could continue for months, they said, but they're hurting now. "It's our lives, not just Marvin's," said Mira Ingram, 31, of Garden Grove, who said she needs marijuana to ease her carpal tunnel syndrome and the arthritis in her hands and feet. "We're hoping with Gray Davis as governor, maybe something can pass through the state Legislature," she said.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Deputy DA Goes Out With A Victory (The Orange County Register notes Deputy District Attorney Carl Armbrust capped his 26-year career Thursday by convicting Orange County Cannabis Co-op founder Marvin Chavez of selling marijuana.) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 18:41:20 -0800 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) To: email@example.com Subject: MN: US CA: Deputy DA Goes Out With A Victory Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: FilmMakerZ Pubdate: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 Source: Orange County Register (CA) Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.ocregister.com/ Copyright: 1998 The Orange County Register Author: John McDonald DEPUTY DA GOES OUT WITH A VICTORY COURTS: But the freshly retired prosecutor will be back for Chavez's sentencing. There was a look of glee on the face of Deputy District Attorney Carl Armbrust after a jury Thursday convicted Orange County Cannabis Co-op founder Marvin Chavez of selling marijuana. Thursday was Armbrust's last day with the District Attorney's Office. He is now retired. "I'll be back as a volunteer for the district attorney to handle the sentencing," Armbrust, 77, said before leaving for a retirement party planned for him at the El Toro Marine base Officer's Club. Armbrust has been an Orange County prosecutor for 26 years and has headed the narcotics squad for 18 years. The Chavez case touched on the hot political issues surrounding Proposition 215, but involved less than $200 worth of marijuana. "This case wasn't important enough to come to the narcotics bureau," Armbrust said. The case went to a deputy on the felony panel, but the panel was overloaded with "three strikes, you're out" cases and asked for prosecutors from other bureaus to help. Armbrust said he volunteered, and by chance was given the case. Defense lawyers filed a motion to recuse Armbrust from the case because of his crusade against drug use. A judge found no reason to remove him. "They found I'm not prejudiced against anything but crime," Armbrust said. On Thursday night, he was to receive a special commendation from Sen. Dianne Feinstein for his drug prosecutions.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Chavez Faces Prison (A staff editorial in The Orange County Register says it is not surprising that the jury in the Marvin Chavez case returned the verdicts it did, given its instructions, not to consider Proposition 215. Those instructions were unfortunate for two reasons - Mr. Chavez's personal fate, given that he now faces up to seven years in prison, and, more broadly, because they deprived the jury of the opportunity to offer some guidance to confused officials and patients as to just how the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 should be implemented.) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:54:14 -0800 From: email@example.com (MAPNews) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: MN: US CA: Editorial: Chavez Faces Prison Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: John W. Black Source: Orange County Register (CA) Contact: email@example.com Website: http://www.ocregister.com/ Copyright: 1998 The Orange County Register Pubdate: 20 Nov 98 THE CHAVEZ TRIAL Given the instructions the jury received in the Marvin Chavez case-that it was not to consider Proposition 215 during its deliberations - it is not surprising that the jury returned the verdicts it did. Those instructions were unfortunate for two reasons - Mr. Chavez's personal fate, given that he now faces up to seven years in prison, and, more broadly, for the fact that they deprived the jury of the opportunity to offer some guidance to confused officials and patients as to just how the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 should be implemented. Prop. 215 included as one of its purposes encouraging the government to set up a "safe and affordable" system of distribution of marijuana to patients who, under the new law, had the right to use it so long as they had a recommendation from a licensed California physician, but might not know how to grow or obtain it. Except for a few cities, the government failed to comply with this encouragement, quite notably in Orange County. Instead of working with people like Marvin Chavez who were attempting to compensate for the government's failure, Orange County officials filed criminal charges against him and others. So a jury instructed to ignore this lamentable history found Mr. Chavez not guilty of selling marijuana on the first five counts, (involving other members of the Orange County Patient Doctor Nurse Support Group), but did find him guilty of the lesser misdemeanor count of giving away marijuana. On the first two counts involving cover investigators, they found him guilty of selling, but on the second two counts they found him not guilty. On the 10th count, of transportation (by mail to Chico), they found him guilty of a felony. The defense plans to appeal on the basis of denying the jury the opportunity to consider a Prop. 215 defense. Sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 8 in Department 16 of the West Orange County court in Westminster, with Judge Thomas J. Borris, who presided over the trial. We hope Judge Borris approaches the sentencing with compassion and common sense. We hope even more strongly that local officials will move quickly and establish guidelines and oversight procedures for marijuana to patents with a legal right to use it under Prop. 215. State and local legislative and regulatory agencies also could develop more rigorous definitions for terms such as "primary caregiver," which turned out to be a source of contention in this case as it has in other recent lawsuits. The Chavez case has demonstrated that there are at least hundreds - and probably more - of patients in Orange County whose doctors are willing to recommend that they use marijuana. It takes about six months to grow it. The law says patients have a legal right to it, but how will they get it? Unless local officials make some provisions, the only alternative will be the black market, which is too strong already and carries significant risks of many kinds, not the least of which is prosecution. How much longer will they delay?
------------------------------------------------------------------- Verdict In, Jury Still Out On Prop. 215 (Los Angeles Times columnist Dana Parsons says he doubts the jurors or police or judge or even the prosecutors who convicted medical marijuana patient Marvin Chavez really thought he was a threat to anyone. He suspects prosecutors are really trying to stamp out a social movement toward liberalizing marijuana usage, but they won't say that, because it butts heads with the public's will.) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 05:17:41 -0800 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) To: email@example.com Subject: MN: US CA: Verdict In, Jury Still Out On Prop. 215 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: FilmMakerZ Pubdate: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 Source: Los Angeles Times, Orange County Edition Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/ORANGE/ Author: Dana Parsons VERDICT IN, JURY STILL OUT ON PROP. 215 The cops and prosecutors got their man: Marvin Chavez is facing prison. To hear them tell it, a drug dealer has been taken off the streets. At moments like these, the rest of us are supposed to feel good because our law enforcement people have used their cunning and muscle to nail a criminal - especially one like Chavez, who, according to the prosecutor, ran "a very sophisticated marijuana-selling business." Or did he? I'd be surprised if the jurors who convicted him Thursday, the police, the judge, or even the prosecutors - really believe that. I'd be surprised if any really believe that Chavez is a threat to anyone. The prosecutors and cops will say they only wanted to remove Marvin Chavez from society; I suspect they're trying to stamp out a social movement toward liberalizing marijuana usage. They won't say that, because it butts heads with the public's will: In 1996, California voters by a 56%-44% margin approved Proposition 215, which enables patients to grow and use marijuana for medical reasons. The sale of it remains illegal. District attorneys across the state opposed Proposition 215, and Orange County Sheriff Brad Gates chaired the statewide anti-215 campaign. At the time, Gates said, "We see this purely as a legalization effort. They want a crack in the door. Once marijuana is there, then why not decriminalize heroin or whatever else?" Against that backdrop, the muscle of the Orange County legal establishment set up an undercover operation against Chavez, 43, who had made no secret of a "club" he headed that provided marijuana to people who said they were in pain and could support that claim with a doctor's letter. Using undercover agents as part of its case, the district attorney's office brought nine counts of selling marijuana against Chavez and a 10th count of transporting it by mail. Chavez argued that in all cases, he provided the marijuana for medical reasons and only took payments as "donations" to finance his organization. On Thursday, an Orange County jury convicted him on two felony counts of selling marijuana but reduced charges to misdemeanors on five of the other seven sales counts and tossed out the other two altogether. It also found him guilty of the felony mail charge. Chavez faces up to seven years in prison on the convictions. The verdict raises puzzling questions. If the jury agreed with prosecutor Carl Armbrust that Chavez was a drug dealer in disguise, why not convict him of all charges of selling? Conversely, if it believed Chavez was acting out of compassion and truly taking only monetary donations, why convict on any sales counts? The answers no doubt lie in the nuances of each transaction, but it must be worrisome to law enforcement that Chavez was acquitted on most of the serious charges, even when testimony showed he gave marijuana and received money in exchange. I wonder if the jurors were swayed by the daily courtroom presence of 20 or so Chavez supporters. If Chavez were a drug seller, they symbolically represented his "buyers." What jurors saw were people in wheelchairs, people with arm braces, people on crutches, and people, like Chavez, wearing back braces. One of them was Don Lawrence, a 59-year-old Garden Grove man who brought his own lawn chair and cushion on which to sit. "Marijuana helps me tolerate this chronic pain I have," Lawrence told me after the trial. Chavez has supplied him with marijuana, and Lawrence said he's made donations to Chavez. "He made the point that if I couldn't afford it, I would get the medicine one way or another," Lawrence said, adding that it never crossed his mind that the arrangement was improper. The trial marked a swan song for Armbrust, who is retiring after 26 years in the Orange County district attorney's office. He said he's convinced Chavez is a drug dealer using Proposition 215 as a prop. When I asked why he couldn't convince the jury of that on all counts, Armbrust said, "I could have done a better job on that," but also thinks jurors felt sorry for Chavez. Armbrust disputed the suggestion Chavez was targeted as a way to thwart Proposition 215 momentum. "He's no different than anyone else who is peddling marijuana," Armbrust said. "Every time we find one, we arrest them." Prosecutors Must Feel Winds of Change Chavez attorney James M. Silva said the several instances in which the jury reduced charges were significant. "That means they believed that he was not receiving the money for marijuana, but that it was to support the organization that was set up to care for them," Silva said. I'm disappointed, but only because I wanted perfect clarity from the jury. Did it think Chavez was a con man, or did it believe that he provided marijuana only to people he thought were in serious pain? Had they settled on the latter, people like Brad Gates would have a big problem on their hands. Had this decidedly middle-aged Orange County jury sided with Chavez, Gates and those fighting initiatives like Proposition 215 couldn't have helped but feel the winds of change at their necks. But given that they wanted a knockout of Chavez and got only a split decision, you've got to think that maybe they already do. Dana Parsons' column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821 or by writing to him at the Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or by e-mail to email@example.com
------------------------------------------------------------------- SJC Deals Blow To State Law Imposing Tax On Drug Dealers (The Boston Globe says the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 7-0 yesterday that the state's "controlled substances tax" constitutes double jeopardy when applied in concert with a criminal prosecution.) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 03:04:51 -0800 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) To: email@example.com Subject: MN: US MA: SJC Deals Blow To State Law Imposing Tax On Drug Dealers Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: firstname.lastname@example.org (Dick Evans) Source: Boston Globe (MA) Contact: email@example.com Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/ Copyright: 1998 Globe Newspaper Company. Author: Globe Staff Pubdate: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 SJC DEALS BLOW TO STATE LAW IMPOSING TAX ON DRUG DEALERS Robert W. Mullins once dealt marijuana in pounds, not ounces. He spent six months in prison once he got caught. He forfeited $145,000 in cash - and then he got a $282,000 bill from state tax collectors. Yesterday, however, the Supreme Judicial Court effectively told Mullins to forget about it. In a 7-0 decision, the court said the state's ''controlled substances tax'' is unconstitutional when used in concert with a criminal prosecution and that Mullins no longer has to pay the tax bill. Mullins ''was very happy, of course,'' after learning about the SJC decision, said his Boston attorney, William B. VanLonkhuyzen. The attorney also said the SJC ruling essentially guts the 1993 law. ''I think in practical terms, it's dead and gone,'' he said. The controlled substances tax has been largely ignored by the Department of Revenue - and the drug dealers who are supposed to voluntarily pay a tax on their illegal drugs to the state. Backers of the law envisioned it as another way for law enforcement to go after drug dealers, by prosecuting them for failing to pay drug taxes. But Mullins and one other person are the only two people whom the state tax collectors moved against. Both cases were referred to the state by local prosecutors, and the SJC said that connection made the drug tax a form of double jeopardy. Enforcement of the drug tax ''is invariably limited to individuals who have been arrested for drug crimes,'' Justice John M. Greaney wrote for the court. Mullins thus was being punished twice for one crime.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal court strikes down Louisiana drug test law (The Associated Press says a federal judge in New Orleans on Friday struck down a Louisiana law requiring random drug testing of elected officials, saying the state failed to show a special need to single them out.) From: "Bob Owen@W.H.E.N." (firstname.lastname@example.org) To: "_Drug Policy --" (email@example.com) Subject: Fed court strikes down LA drug test law Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 20:17:20 -0800 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Federal court strikes down Louisiana drug test law By RAYA TAHAN The Associated Press 11/20/98 7:37 PM Eastern NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- A federal judge on Friday struck down a Louisiana law requiring random drug testing of elected officials, rejecting arguments that the governor made in court in support of the law. U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon said the law violates the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizures. He said the state failed to show a special need to test elected officials. Ruling after a hearing Friday, Fallon quoted from writings by George Washington as well as a 1997 Supreme Court decision that forbade Georgia from drug testing political candidates. "There is established law that a drug test is a search," Fallon said. "Warrantless searches must depend upon reasonableness." The judge ruled on a lawsuit brought by two state representatives and the American Civil Liberties Union. The state said it will appeal. Republican Gov. Mike Foster said he feared for the future of private industry drug testing programs if the ruling stands. "I wonder if, in fact, the majority of all drug testing programs all over the country might fail," he said. Foster, who is not a lawyer, had backed the legislation and sought permission to speak on its behalf in court. "Why not test elected officials?" Foster said to the judge. "I can't think of a profession that can influence our lives more." Foster noted that drug testing is often a part of corporate life in America, an argument lawyer Bill Rittenberg said was irrelevant. "Governor, you didn't take an oath of office to defend corporations. You took an oath of office to defend the Constitution," said Rittenberg, who argued for Rep. Arthur Morrell, D-New Orleans, and the ACLU. The law, which was to go into effect in January, required 10 percent of state and local officials to be randomly tested each year. An official who refused would have faced a $10,000 fine and censure. Challenges are in the works against two other laws that require random testing of welfare recipients, students on state scholarship and virtually anyone else who gets state benefits.
------------------------------------------------------------------- How Drug Testing Has Changed The Job Market (The Christian Science Monitor says the rise of mandatory drug testing at businesses across the United States during the past decade has radically changed the size and makeup of many companies' applicant pools. After all, who wants to work for a company committed to reducing its productivity by nearly 20 percent?) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 18:58:42 -0800 From: email@example.com (MAPNews) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: MN: US CO: How Drug Testing Has Changed The Job Market Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Steve Young Pubdate: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 Source: Christian Science Monitor (US) Copyright: 1998 The Christian Science Publishing Society. Contact: email@example.com Website: http://www.csmonitor.com/ Author: Jillian Lloyd HOW DRUG TESTING HAS CHANGED THE JOB MARKET Fearing A Bad Result, Many Job Seekers Are Not Applying For Positions That Require Mandatory Testing. And With Jobless Rates Low, Many Firms Are Now Feeling The Crunch. DENVER When Noel Ginsberg, president of Intertech Plastics Inc., discovered that half the candidates for jobs at his firm are eliminated because they fail or refuse to take a drug test, he was astonished. "I never realized how widespread the drug problem was until we started drug testing," Mr. Ginsberg told a group of businesspeople at a conference here recently. While the statement apparently startled many attendees, others nodded knowingly. The rise of mandatory drug testing at businesses across the United States during the past decade has radically changed the size and makeup of many company's applicant pools. Many job hunters, fearful of a positive result, are simply staying away from companies that test. Combine that with a tight labor market - the unemployment rate is just 2.7 percent here, for example -and clean workers are an increasingly precious commodity. "All the reports say the drug-free worker is in high demand," says Mike Avery, who oversees the Colorado Department of Transportation's drug-testing program. Fewer applicants Asked if drug testing has any effect on the number of applicants, Mr. Avery says "it absolutely does." Before his department began a federally mandated screening program in 1993, it typically received about 3,000 applicants for any given job. Today, that's down to about 300. Also, in the first year of the drug-free workplace program, the test-failure rate was nearly 50 percent. Since then, that rate has dropped to 2 percent, mostly because habitual drug-users have figured out that they needn't bother applying, he says. But in industries like construction and manufacturing, where drug testing is not mandatory, a 50 percent elimination rate is not surprising, Avery adds. According to statistics from the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information, 70 percent of illicit drug users are employed. That's about 10 million Americans. The Clearinghouse, based in Rockville, Md., also reports that the highest rates of substance abuse occur in the construction industry: 17.3 percent of construction workers abuse drugs or alcohol in the workplace. Runners-up are in the manufacturing, labor, food service, and retail industries. A multibillion-dollar problem Although strides are being made in prevention of substance abuse, it remains "an ongoing chronic situation" in the US, says Bruce Mendelson, director of data evaluation for the Alcohol and Drug Abuse division of the Colorado Department of Human Services. Alcohol and marijuana are far and away the most commonly abused substances by Americans. Since 1990, trends show an increase in heroin and methamphetamine use, a slight increase in marijuana use, a slight decrease in cocaine use, and stable levels for alcohol abuse. "Drug use is a huge problem, a multibillion problem," says Mr. Mendelson. "Lost productivity, treatment, incarceration, law enforcement, health care - the costs are staggering," When labor is tight, however, employers are more likely to relax their hiring standards and forgo pre-employment drug tests, experts say. "With the market the way it is, they may say, 'Why test?' " says Daryl Grecich, spokesman for the Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace in Washington. "Drug testing tends to be low in industries where there are high turnover rates and labor shortages." Yet these industries usually have the highest rates of drug use. "In certain job areas where there is a dearth of hirees, that's where employers may not push drug-testing as much," says Richard Keil, a drug treatment specialist with the Colorado Department of Human Services. Still, the risks of hiring without a drug test - especially in labor industries where use of machinery is involved - aren't worth it, he says. "Nowadays, hiring without a drug program is in itself a liability risk for a company. Business is business," Mr. Keil says. "They want to have competent workers that don't put the company or the public at risk." Rise of drug testing Nationwide, workplace drug-testing is more prevalent than ever. Some 43.7 percent of American workers are subject to drug tests, and 98 percent of Fortune 200 companies have some sort of drug-testing. Nearly 70 percent of workers in companies with 500 or more employees are now subject to testing, a threefold increase since 1987. Typically, the larger the company, the more likely it is to test workers for drugs. "Many people won't even apply for jobs at large companies because they know they're going to be tested," he notes. "[Users] tend to go to smaller companies that don't test." But as more businesses rely on drug-testing programs to protect their bottom line, drug-addicted workers may place themselves out of the hiring pool. This is especially true in safety-sensitive industries, where regular testing has bee mandatory since 1993. "In the transportation industry, someone who uses drugs is unemployable," says Avery. "If they can't beat their addiction, they're out."
------------------------------------------------------------------- Drug-Test the Chess Club? (USA Weekend says school districts around the United States are increasingly requiring high-school students to submit to urine tests in order to participate in extracurricular activities.) Newshawk: DrugSense Source: USA WEEKEND Copyright: 1998 USA WEEKEND Pubdate: 20-22 Nov 1998 Author: Steve Rhodes Contact: http://www.usaweekend.com/about/email_usaw.html Website: http://www.usaweekend.com/ Note: USA WEEKEND is carried by more than 500 local newspapers across the country. This article is tied to an online poll about drug testing. You may exercise your right to vote at: http://www.usaweekend.com/ DRUG-TEST THE CHESS CLUB? More and more schools require students to pass a drug test to participate in extracurricular activities - even the honor society. While most teens simply adjust, a few outraged families just say no. Delaware Valley High School in Pike County, Pa., 70 miles northwest of New York City, is deploying a new weapon in its war against drug use by students: drug-testing them for extracurricular activities. Starting this year, every student who wants to join in activities - from yearbook and chess club to sports and drama--must take a school-administered drug test. The practice, an expansion of the more common testing of student athletes, is gaining acceptance in a small but growing number of districts around the nation: Rushville, Ind. Rush County High School began testing all students involved in extracurricular activities in 1996. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge in October. San Bernardino, Calif. This is perhaps the largest school district (10,000 students; four high schools) with a mandatory drug-testing program. Only two students have tested positive in two years. Plummer, Idaho. The Plummer-Worley district began mandatory testing this year of athletes, cheerleaders and student body officers. Dade County, Fla. Miami-Dade Public Schools this year launched a voluntary drug-testing program for all high school students, requiring consent from both parents and students. In Pennsylvania's Pike County, schools launched the new anti-drug effort for middle and high school students after a teenager was arrested last year for selling heroin on school grounds. "The community was appalled," says Superintendent Candis Finan. In addition, 3 percent of the district's sixth-graders said in a survey that they had smoked marijuana at least once in the past 30 days, a rate slightly higher than the national average. Of the 1,000 students tested so far, one has come up positive. Students still are adjusting to the new requirement. On a recent afternoon at Delaware Valley High School, while students on the yearbook staff were scrambling to meet deadlines, two girls dropped by to offer help. One small problem: "You haven't been drug-tested yet," teacher Jacquelyn Weston reminded one of the girls. The upshot: She couldn't participate. Despite broad acceptance among students and parents, there are pockets of resistance. "To test everybody just because they volunteer for something shows a basic lack of trust in students and families," says Sarah Casey, a 17-year-old senior who passed a drug test to participate in the environment club and the National Honor Society. Adds her mother, Sue Casey, one of two school board members who opposed testing: "If a kid smokes a joint on a Friday night and shows up Monday and fails a drug test, but performance in school is never affected, is that the school's responsibility?" At least one family is preparing to sue the school system, saying drug testing amounts to unreasonable search and seizure, according to its attorneys. "It's an invasion of privacy," says 17-year-old Jen Stangl, a senior who took the test to get a parking permit. "It was disgusting. I felt violated. They just presumed everyone was guilty."
------------------------------------------------------------------- Saying 'No' To Drug Surveys (The Colony Leader, in Texas, says Lewisville Independent School District officials have refused to administer a Texas A&M University drug-use survey for students in grades seven through 12, saying the survey is unscientific and too easy to manipulate.) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 16:15:47 -0800 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) To: email@example.com Subject: MN: US TX: Saying 'No' To Drug Surveys Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: firstname.lastname@example.org Pubdate: 20 Nov 1998 Source: The Colony Leader (TX) Page: 1A - Front Page Contact: HolguinR@scripps.com Author: Randy Evans, staff writer SAYING 'NO' TO DRUG SURVEYS County Drug Survey Called 'Unscientific' by LISD Officials The Denton County Substance Abuse Commission and Lewisville Independent School District officials agree that the county has a drug problem. What they don't agree on is the method of obtaining information from students on just how bad the problem is. "Our job is to work with the different entities to find out information", County Commissioner Jeff Krueger said. "That is the goal of the (substance abuse) commission and that's why it was formed." At issue is the use of a drug survey issued by Texas A&M University for students in grades seven through 12. The commission asked all school districts in Denton County - Lewisville, Denton, and Carrollton-Farmers Branch - to participate in the survey. Denton and Carrollton-Farmers Branch obliged; Lewisville, however, refused. LISD officials cite the survey as being unscientific and too easy to manipulate. The commission, made up of elected county officials, clergy, Parent Teacher Association presidents and others, believes the survey is as scientific as any other of its kind. "You may have one or two students (lie), but overall the students respond honestly," Krueger said. "The survey takes out the high and the low and gets the average anyway." LISD board member Fred Placke, who was informed about the issue by a parent, said he heard district officials think the survey has "too many weaknesses." "The district believed there was too much space for error and it would be too easy to manipulate", Placke said. "We don't need a survey to tell us we have a drug problem, and we're certainly going to be doing a lot of things towards (solving) the problem. But I don't know what they survey could have told us." Executive Director of Secondary Instruction Harry Crenshaw served as the district's representative during the commission's recent meeting, but could not be reached for comment Thursday. The commission is in its first year of operation and was formed as a result of the Denton County Drug Summit conducted last year. The organization's mission statement is to reduce the impact of alcohol and other drugs in the county. In addition, the commission plans to provide public policy direction, planning and advocacy for enhanced substance abuse prevention, intervention, and treatment services for Denton County youth and their families. County officials believe the survey provides school districts and the county with knowledge of how bad the drug problem is. "Results tell you a lot", Krueger said. "It tells you whether or not what you're doing is working". Larry Mankoff, coordinator of Denton ISD's Mental health and Substance Abuse Program, said the survey has provided Denton with a starting point in determining numbers. "We as a district want to have a baseline of information to find out the level of drug use and trends," said Mankoff, who is also vice chairman of the commission. "One of the valuable things about the survey is that A&M provides you with information from districts across the state so you can compare results." Krueger, who also serves on the substance abuse commission, said LISD's absence is hindering it from providing numbers for state grant applications that could benefit county drug programs. "I'm not saying if we had their data we would get the grants, but without them we can't even apply," he said. Commission officials have told LIDS officials if they find a survey they consider suitable then they will switch. "We simply need a system where we're comparing apples to apples", Mankoff said. "We would be glad to switch over". Commission members said by not having the participation of the largest school district in the county, they're hindered in their ability to provide cross-county data. "The district (LISD) has to make a decision on how its going to get information", Mankoff said. "If you don't collect information, you're just guessing".
------------------------------------------------------------------- Champion Shop Pulls Out Of Cannabis Cup Contest (The Associated Press says the unspecified winner of last year's "Cannabis Cup" in Amsterdam, Holland, withdrew from this year's competition Friday, saying the annual marijuana-cultivation competition sponsored by "High Times" magazine had become a "commercial circus" in which only about 20 of Amsterdam's 356 coffeeshops could afford to participate.) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 06:45:04 -0800 From: email@example.com (MAPNews) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: MN: Netherlands: Wire: Champion Shop Pulls Out Of Cannabis Cup Contest Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: email@example.com (David Hadorn) Pubdate: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 Source: Associated Press Copyright: 1998 Associated Press. CHAMPION SHOP PULLS OUT OF CANNABIS CUP CONTEST AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) -- Marijuana users are rolling into town for the annual contest to crown the Dutch capital's best drug ``coffee shop.'' But a cloud of controversy hangs over the usually mellow Cannabis Cup. Last year's winner withdrew Friday, saying the yearly smoke-out has become a ``commercial circus.'' During Cannabis Cup week, an event sponsored by the American magazine ``High Times,'' hundreds of people, mostly Americans, descend on Amsterdam to sample the best brands of marijuana and hashish the shops have on offer. Dutch authorities tolerate the shops, saying they allow police to keep tabs on the trade in soft drugs and deter cannabis users from hard drugs such as heroin. But 2 1/2 days of judging by cannabis connoisseurs can lead to -- believe it or not -- a ``stressed atmosphere'' in some of the ``coffee shops'' where marijuana and hashish are freely sold, said two-time winner cafe De Dampkring. ``With grave concern we see how the event, which started in 1988 as a harvest festival ... gradually deteriorates into a commercial circus in which the economic interests of coffee shops and seed companies pull most weight,'' the cafe said. ``We hate the stressed atmosphere, the favoritism and the buttering-up to the media,'' it added. During the cup, which begins Monday, coffee shops slash their prices and often dole out free marijuana samples. De Dampkring argued that such extravagance means only about 20 of Amsterdam's 356 coffeeshops can afford to participate.
------------------------------------------------------------------- First Question - What Are The Implications For Health? (A translation of excerpts from an article in Frankfurter Rundschau, in Germany, says the newly appointed federal 'drug czar,' Christa Nickels, will proceed on the principle that addiction is a sickness. The new 'Red-Green' federal government will have a more liberal drug policy than its predecessor, and will follow the example of the Swiss, emphasizing education and assistance, not punishment.) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 06:54:51 -0800 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Pat Dolan (email@example.com) Subject: Germany: First Question: What Are The Implications For Health? Newshawk: Harald Lerch (HaL@main-rheiner.de) Source: Frankfurter Rundschau Copyright: Frankfurter Rundschau 1998 Pubdate: 20 Nov 98 Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Fax: +49 +69 2199 3421 Author: Jutta Redmann Translator: Pat Dolan (from German text) (Translator's Note: Main points summarised. Direct speech given in quotes. pd) FIRST QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH? The 'Red-Green' way to a more liberal drug policy What all the experts have been demanding for a long time is now a step closer. The 'Red-Green' federal government will hold to a more liberal path in its drug policy than its predecessor. Proceeding on the principle that addiction is a sickness, the newly appointed federal 'drug czar', Christa Nickels, will emphasize education and "Assistance not Punishment". Christa Nickels is satisfied. Her office has been transferred from the Home Office to the Department of Health. That sends the signal that drug policy will henceforth be based on a humanitarian, health model, not a law enforcement model. Eduard Lintner, her predecessor, saw things quite differently. The Swiss model he regarded as a "Horror," as he announced after a visit. The number of drug related mortalities rose steadily during his term in office. A Swiss model will be followed also in the proposed clinics where addicts can inject in a safe, supportive environment. Heroin will also be provided as soon as the law has been revised. Frankfurt's experience with its trial since 1994 has been very encouraging. It is expected that Hamburg and many other large cities will be adopting similar models. Copyright (c) Frankfurter Rundschau 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------- The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue No. 68 (The Drug Reform Coordination Network's original summary of drug policy news and calls to action, including - Federal court to decide on legality of testimony for leniency deals; Amnesty International report - too many children incarcerated in America; Government health officials deny marijuana and pain study, again; Swiss to vote on drug legalization; Australian officials call for heroin maintenance; Methadone support and advocacy network request for proposals - RFP; Philadelphia Bar Association holding medical marijuana forum Dec. 1; And the winner is . . .; plus an editorial by Adam J. Smith, Thanksgiving in a time of drug war) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 07:32:42 -0500 To: email@example.com From: DRCNet (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue #68 Sender: email@example.com The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue #68 -- November 20, 1998 A Publication of the Drug Reform Coordination Network -------- PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE -------- (To sign off this list, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org with the line "signoff drc-natl" in the body of the message, or mailto:email@example.com for assistance. To subscribe to this list, visit http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html.) (This issue can be also be read on our web site at http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html. Check out the DRCNN weekly radio segment at http://www.drcnet.org/drcnn/.) PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the contents of The Week Online is hereby granted. We ask that any use of these materials include proper credit and, where appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet requests checks payable to the organization. If your publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification for our records, including physical copies where material has appeared in print. Contact: Drug Reform Coordination Network, 2000 P St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org. Thank you. The Week Online will take a one week hiatus next week, for the Thanksgiving holiday, and will return on December 4. If you are looking for something to read in the meantime, try browsing some of the many documents in the DRCNet Online Drug Policy Library at http://www.druglibrary.org. One of our favorites is The History of the Marijuana Laws, a speech by Prof. Charles Whitebread of the University of Southern California School of Law, to the California Judges Association's annual conference, online at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm, with links to many more important documents, including the full text of the 1972 Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, the Hearings of the Marihuana Tax Act and more. All of us, Dave, Adam, Karynn and Kris wish all of you a happy and a healthy Thanksgiving! See article 8 for the winners of our Drug Crazy Giveaway Contest! TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Federal Court To Decide on Legality of Testimony for Leniency Deals http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html#testimony 2. Amnesty International Report: Too Many Children Incarcerated in America http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html#amnesty 3. Government Health Officials Deny Marijuana and Pain Study, Again http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html#nostudy 4. Swiss to Vote on Drug Legalization http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html#droleg 5. Australian Officials Call For Heroin Maintenance http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html#australia 6. Methadone Support and Advocacy Network Request for Proposals (RFP) http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html#methadonerfp 7. Philadelphia Bar Association Holding Medical Marijuana Forum, 12/1 http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html#philadelphia 8. And the Winner is... http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html#thewinners 9. Editorial: Thanksgiving in a Time of (Drug) War http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html#editorial *** 1. Federal Court To Decide on Legality of Testimony for Leniency Deals In what has the potential to be one of the most important legal decisions of the century, the full 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on Tuesday (11/17) in the case of U.S. v. Singleton. The issue to be decided is whether prosecutors are committing bribery when they exchange cash and or leniency for testimony in criminal cases. A sampling of federal criminal cases by the Dallas Morning News found that such testimony was used in 86% of those trials. If the court finds that such deals are illegal, it could affect the status of hundreds of thousands of cases and convictions. Federal officials are understandably concerned. Leniency deals are particularly important to the prosecution of drug cases, in part due to the consensual nature of most drug offenses and the lack of a "complaining victim". While the exact numbers are unknown, experts claim that it is likely that thousands of Americans are currently incarcerated on the word of an informant alone. Nora Callahan, director of the November Coalition, an organization of drug war prisoners, family and friends, told The Week Online, "While no one is keeping statistics on this, it is safe to say that there are thousands upon thousands of cases in which the word of an informant is the only evidence against someone who is serving jail time. There are even more people who plead guilty, and who serve five, eight or ten years in prison rather than face 25 years or more, once they are threatened by prosecutors with the prospect of this type of bought testimony." Callahan continued, "The government wins 97% of all of the drug cases that they bring to trial. That success rate is higher than for any other type of offense. The reason for this is that if you are prosecuting, say, a murder, you need real evidence, you need motive. In a drug case, the motive, which is either money or drugs, is assumed. All the government really needs is one person who is willing to get on the stand and tell the government's story in exchange for their freedom." The case at bar involves Sonya Singleton, a 25 year-old mother of two, who was sentenced to four years in prison for her alleged part in a cocaine distribution/money laundering operation. Prosecutors claimed that Ms. Singleton helped to wire some of the money, which she denies. The only witness for the government who identified Ms. Singleton as part of the conspiracy was Napolean Douglas, a convicted felon whose sentence was reduced from fifteen down to five years in exchange for his testimony. On appeal, Singleton's attorney, John Van Wachtel, argued that federal law, which forbids the exchange or offer of "anything of value" to a witness in return for testimony, applies to prosecutors, as well as to defense lawyers. A three-judge panel of the 10th circuit upheld the appeal. That decision was put on hold just ten days later by decision of the entire 12-member court, pending review. "In Ms. Singleton's case, the testimony came from an alleged co-conspirator," Wachtel told The Week Online. "My client was twice offered leniency in exchange for her testimony. The first time they (federal prosecutors) approached her, she was twenty years-old. She was told that if she testified, they'd drop charges, but if she refused, they would put her in prison for twenty-five years and that she'd lose her kids. Both times she told them that she knew nothing, and that she wouldn't lie and say she did. Ultimately, (Napolean) turned, and suddenly it's my client they're after." While federal officials are deeply concerned about the outcome of the case and its implications, Wachtel told The Week Online that exchanging prosecutorial favors for cooperative testimony cannot help but corrupt the process. "It is one thing to offer a deal in return for substantive assistance in the investigation. It is quite another to have someone testify, with the prosecutors standing over them, when the witness' freedom hangs in the balance depending upon what he or she says. It is an extraordinary incentive either to color the testimony to fit what the government wants to hear, or else to simply lie in exchange for one's freedom." The three-judge panel that wrote the initial opinion on the case said that "Promising something of value to secure truthful testimony is as much prohibited as buying perjured testimony. If justice is perverted when a criminal defendant seeks to buy testimony from a witness, it is no less perverted when the government does so." There is concern that with so much riding on the decision, either the full 10th circuit or the Supreme Court, where both sides believe the case will wind up, will make their decision not with regard to the law, but rather with regard to the impact that the current decision would have on the federal law enforcement bureaucracy. The Dallas Morning News story quotes a member of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, who spoke with them on condition of anonymity, who said "If you read the 10th Circuit's opinion, it's well reasoned and easily supported by federal law. But the results would be catastrophic. What do you do as a judge in a situation like that -- follow the law or try to devise a way around it?" Jack King, spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (http://www.criminaljustice.org), who filed an amicus brief and who were allowed ten minutes to argue in this case, told The Week Online that federal prosecutors are overstating the practical obstacles that the panel's original decision places in their path. "They would just have to go out and investigate and gather evidence like the prosecutors do at the state level. An informant could still provide substantive assistance in that investigation, even in return for leniency. What the feds couldn't do would be to pay someone to testify, and then just sit back in the comfortable knowledge that their side of the story has been bought and paid for. They'd have to actually work to make their cases." Late in the last legislative session, a bill was introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) that would have exempted federal prosecutors from Article 18, Section 201. It is likely that the bill, or something like it, will be re- introduced in the upcoming session. The Department of Justice declined to comment for this story. (Attorney John Van Wachtel and NACDL spokesman Jack King were interviewed for the DRCNet weekly radio show, online at http://www.drcnet.org/drcnn/ -- check it out, and if you're motivated, shop it around to your local radio stations and get the word around!) *** 2. Amnesty International Report: Too Many Children Incarcerated in America A report issued this week by Amnesty International takes the US to task for its high levels of juvenile incarceration and for the treatment of those children under the imposed supervision of the state. The report's introduction blames "the notion of the super-predator" for a host of short- sighted policies and conditions representing a breach of international standards on the treatment of children. Among Amnesty's findings are that 200,000 children per year are prosecuted in general criminal courts, with an estimated 7,000 of those children held in jails before trial. Over 11,000 children are currently being housed in prisons and other adult correctional facilities. While it is the image of the sociopathic child which seems to drive new juvenile justice legislation, such as the effort to have more and more children tried as adults, in 1995, more than half of children whose cases were transferred out of the juvenile courts were charged with non-violent offenses. Jason Zeidenberg, policy analyst with the Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice, which provided some of the research for Amnesty's report, told The Week Online that the United States is the world's most prolific jailer of children. "The US puts more of its children behind bars than any other nation on earth. To give you a comparison, the U.S. has more than five times the number of incarcerated children as India, a country of nine hundred million people." Further, Zeidenberg argues, children who are incarcerated, even in juvenile facilities, are more likely to re-offend, and have worse future economic prospects than those who receive alternative sentences. "Children who have been incarcerated are three times more likely to re-offend within the next year as children who are sentenced to alternatives to incarceration. Such alternatives can include counseling, community service, reparations and a whole host of others. Also, all of these alternatives are much less expensive than incarceration." Amnesty's report also notes that despite international standards which preclude the use of solitary confinement for children, the practice is all but standard in the US. The report cites a 1992 national study which found nearly 89,000 cases in which a child was placed in solitary confinement for more than 24 hours. Those children who end up in adult institutions, however, have it worst of all. Children in adult institutions are eight times more likely to commit suicide, five times more likely to be raped, and three times more likely to be beaten by staff than are children in juvenile facilities. "The very act of placing a child into an adult facility, often integrated into an adult criminal population, makes it likely that the child will accumulate physical, emotional and psychological scars that will last a lifetime. Imprisoning children in this manner is an act not of rehabilitation, but rather of debilitation." The Juvenile Justice Bill, introduced in the last session of Congress, would have mandated that children as young as fourteen be transferred by states into their adult justice systems for certain categories of crimes including certain drug crimes. And while that bill never made it out of the House, Zeidenberg says that some version of juvenile justice legislation can be expected in the next session. The Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice and many of its reports are online at http://www.cjcj.org. The Amnesty International feature section on Juvenile Justice is online at http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/juvenile/. (Jason Zeidenberg was interviewed for DRCNet's radio show, online at http://www.drcnet.org/drcnn/.) *** 3. Government Health Officials Deny Marijuana and Pain Study, Again (reprinted from the NORML Weekly News, http://www.norml.org) November 19, 1998, Washington, DC: Federal health officials rejected a scientific proposal last week to conduct research on marijuana's effectiveness as a pain reliever in human patients. The denial marked the second straight year National Institute of Health (NIH) officials refused to sponsor human trials regarding marijuana's analgesic potential. "There remains a remarkable disconnect between Washington bureaucrats who oppose any rational debate on the medical marijuana issue, and those doctors, nurses, and patients who strongly support research and therapeutic access to marijuana," said NORML Foundation Executive Director Allen St. Pierre. "It is disturbing that NIH officials would deny legitimate medical marijuana research only days after voters in seven states overwhelmingly affirmed their support for the use of marijuana as a medicine." Neurologist Ethan Russo, M.D. of the Western Montana Clinic sought federal permission to compare smoked marijuana to synthetic THC and an injected painkiller in acute migraine treatment. Russo has attempted since 1996 to obtain official clearance to conduct an FDA approved clinical trial evaluating marijuana's therapeutic value on migraine patients. He recently authored an authoritative review of marijuana's history as a treatment for migraine in the peer reviewed journal Pain, the official publication of the International Association for the Study of Pain. "I am disappointed that I will not have the opportunity to study this important clinical issue this year," said Russo, who speculated that as many as 10 million migraine sufferers could potentially benefit from inhaled marijuana. "Our bureaucrats seem hopelessly mired in political place. They are ignoring the science, as well as the rising tide of public opinion that is clamoring for clinical studies of cannabis." In the past year, a growing body of medical evidence has emerged indicating marijuana's effectiveness as a pain reliever. At the 27th Annual Meeting of Neuroscientists, researchers announced, "Substances similar or derived from marijuana... could benefit the more than 97 million Americans who experience some form of pain each year." Recent animal studies demonstrate marijuana constituents relieve pain on par with those of opiate-based drugs like morphine. Some researchers maintain that the use of cannabinoids like THC and other chemical compounds found in marijuana do not appear to carry the risk associated with the use of opiates, such as addiction and tolerance. Russo's latest rejection comes more than one year after a NIH expert panel recommended federal health agencies implement policy changes to expedite medical marijuana research. So far, no visible changes have been made. "It remains federal officials -- not voters or the medical community -- that continue to thwart the use and study of marijuana as a legal medicine," St. Pierre said. "In 1982, the National Academy of Sciences strongly recommended the federal government to undertake definitive scientific studies to determine marijuana's therapeutic value. It is a morally unconscionable that 15 years later, we are still battling to allow this research to take place." *** 4. Swiss to Vote on Drug Legalization On November 29, Swiss voters will have an historic opportunity to reject the international drug war. On that date, Swiss citizens will vote up or down on "Droleg", short for the Swiss words for Drug Legalization. The proposal was submitted in 1993 by a group calling itself "Initiative for a Reasonable Drug Policy." By November, 1994, the group had turned in over 107,000 signatures, qualifying it for the ballot. The government, which has up to ten years to review an initiative, did so and placed it on the ballot. The language of the initiative is direct. From its opening statement, "The consumption, possession and purchase of narcotics for personal use are exempt from punishment," and throughout its text, calling for the government to establish regulations and necessary licenses for a controlled market, and for the revocation of all international agreements and treaties which would prohibit the initiatives terms. This is not the first time that Swiss voters have been asked to direct their nation's drug policies. Last year, Switzerland's voters rejected, by a margin of 71% to 29% an initiative which would have stopped the nation's progressive direction on drug policy in its tracks and reestablished a purely punitive regime. Philip Coffin, a researcher with The Lindesmith Center, a New York-based drug policy think tank, told The Week Online that while the Swiss initiative would be a large and historic step, it would be even more so in a country like the US. "I think that before a society would be ready to consider the total separation of the issue of substance use from the law enforcement model, that society would first have to experience a shift in paradigm regarding how it thinks about substance use itself. The Swiss are obviously light years ahead of Americans in terms of thinking about drug abuse as a health issue. They've had an excellent experience with opiate maintenance. They're preparing a proposal at the federal level to regulate the sale and possession of cannabis by adults. How deeply that paradigm shift has taken hold, we shall have to wait and see." Supporters of the initiative acknowledge that if Switzerland were to go it alone in bucking the global drug war, care would have to be taken to avoid the problems of drug tourism that have plagued The Netherlands, where personal possession and use of drugs is tolerated, but not technically legal. They believe, however, that a regulated market would eliminate so many problems, including the ease of access that the black market affords to children, that the switch would be worth the work. The federal government, on the other hand, is officially opposed to the initiative, not because they are enamored with the drug war, but because the initiative "goes too far," and perhaps, in a nation that is already on the path toward legalized cannabis and medicalized narcotics, just a bit too quickly. But the issue is now with the voters to decide, and even Droleg's supporters aren't expecting miracles. "We will consider anything above 35% to be a victory" said Francois Reusser, a Droleg organizer. "We have to get more than the 29% that voted for stricter laws last year. But we really don't know how it will turn out. We may win." Droleg can be found online at http://www.droleg.ch -- follow the link written in English for an English version of the initiative language and other information. *** 5. Australian Officials Call For Heroin Maintenance Australia's long-debated heroin maintenance trial got a boost of support last week (11/13) from a group of state and federal politicians, who issued a call to Prime Minister John Howard to allow the trials to move forward. The trial was all but set to move forward with apparent public support earlier this year when Prime Minister Howard canceled the plan at the last minute (see issue #49 at http://www.drcnet.org/wol/049.html#australia. Lord Mayor Dr. John Freeman of Hobart told the Australian newspaper The Advertiser, "We believe the politicians are behind public opinion" on the issue. *** 6. Methadone Support and Advocacy Network Request for Proposals (RFP) The Drug Policy Foundation has announced the availability of a grant to foster the creation of a national Methadone Support and Advocacy Network. The Methadone Network is designed to encourage methadone supporters to identify and build consensus around policy issues that meet their own needs while providing decision-makers and other stakeholders with insight into both the effectiveness of methadone and the needs of methadone clients. The network will be comprised of consumers (past and present methadone clients), organizations founded and/or run by methadone clients, methadone providers as appropriate and related supporters of methadone and methadone clients (such as harm reduction organizations, needle exchange programs, other drug treatment consumers and supporters, families, friends and significant others of current and former methadone users). A grant award between $50,000-$100,000 is anticipated. For further information, contact: Drug Policy Foundation, 4455 Connecticut Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20008, (202) 537- 5005 (phone), (202) 537-3007 (fax), e-mail email@example.com. *** 7. Philadelphia Bar Association Holding Medical Marijuana Forum, 12/1 A forum on the issue of legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes, sponsored by the Philadelphia Bar Association, will take place on Tuesday, 12/1, from 12:30- 2:30pm at the Philadelphia Bar Education Center in Center City Philadelphia. Producers had hoped to present a balanced panel representing both proponents and opponents or medical marijuana, but all those invited from the federal government (Dept. of Justice and Office of National Drug Control Policy) declined invitations to speak. Panelists will include: 1) Larry Hirsch, a Philadelphia attorney who filed a federal class action lawsuit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania earlier in the year on behalf of medical marijuana users. He will be speaking about the legal (particularly Constitutional) aspects of this issue. 2) Kiyoshi Kuromiya, the Editor and Publisher of Critical Path AIDS Project and a medical user of marijuana. He is a plaintiff in the federal class action lawsuit filed by Larry Hirsch known as the Action Class for Freedom of Therapeutic Cannabis and will speak about his experience as a medical user of an illegal drug. 3) Dr. John P. Morgan, a researcher at the City University of New York Medical School and co-author of the book Marijuana Myths Marijuana Facts. Dr. Morgan will speak about medical research on therapeutic cannabis. 4) Robert Kampia, Director of Government Relations for the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), a nonprofit organization dedicated to full-time lobbying at the federal level on the issue of marijuana law-reform. Kampia will speak about the state of the reform movement in the US as it relates to marijuana for medicinal use from a policy perspective. For further information on this event, contact Mariana Rossman, (215) 247-0074 (phone), (215) 247-0931 (fax), firstname.lastname@example.org. *** 8. And the Winner is... Thank you to the more than 900 of you who participated in our Drug Crazy Giveaway Contest. As promised, we are announcing the five winners in this issue. For privacy reasons we have decided not to include the winners' last names, but only the first name, last initial, and state or country. We're sorry we can only give away five copies of Mike Gray's Drug Crazy: How We Got Into This Mess and How We Can Get Out. But we hope you will go ahead and buy a copy and read and support this important book, perhaps the best exposition of prohibition and the drug ever written for the popular audience. You can read the book's first chapter, endorsements, editorials by the author, online at http://www.drugcrazy.com -- follow the Buy Online link to purchase a copy though amazon.com, and DRCNet will earn 15% from your purchase. Better still would be to pick up or order a copy from your local bookstore -- maybe they'll order more copies or even put them in display! One of the reasons we made this special offer was to learn more about our readers and what their interests are, hence the online survey included in the contest form. If you didn't enter the contest, but want to help us figure out how to provide more of what interests you, please visit the form at http://www.drcnet.org/contest/ and fill out the survey. We can't offer a book this time, but your participation in the survey will help us do our job better and bring our ultimate goal of a sensible drug policy closer to reality. So, without further delay, the winners are... John O., California John B., South Carolina Arthur B., New Hampshire Brian O., Georgia Matthew G., California If you are one of these five lucky winners, you have already been notified by e-mail. If not, maybe you'll win the next contest! Thanks again for participating, and thank for being a part of DRCNet. *** 9. Editorial: Thanksgiving in a Time of (Drug) War (Due to highly positive response, we are re-running our Thanksgiving editorial from one year ago, with a short note added at the end. You can here these editorials read in Adam's own voice, in DRCNet's weekly radio show, online at http://www.drcnet.org/drcnn/.) As this is the last issue of The Week Online before the American holiday of Thanksgiving, we thought we'd leave our readers with a list of things for which to be thankful. If neither you nor someone you love has had to decide between the relief of pain, the suppression of life- threatening nausea, or the loss of sight, and the prospect of risking arrest and conviction under state or federal marijuana laws, give thanks. If neither you nor someone you love has had the experience of armed agents of the state kicking in your door, terrorizing your home's occupants and damaging your personal property, give thanks. If neither you nor someone you love has contracted injection-related AIDS, or Hepatitis, because there was no legal source of clean needles for themselves or a present or past sexual partner or a parent, give thanks. If neither you nor someone you love has been the victim of Prohibition-related violence or crime, give thanks. If neither your child nor another child that you love has been lured by the siren song of the black market, or by gangs, or been shot at by a law enforcement agent for being in the wrong place at the wrong time (and for being the wrong color), or been saddled with a life-long criminal record for youthful experimentation, or been banished from school for possession of an aspirin, or been tried in court as an adult, give thanks. If neither you nor someone you love has had property taken by the state without so much as being charged with an offense, give thanks. If neither you nor someone you love has had to suffer the indignity of urinating in a cup, on demand, for the privilege of maintaining menial employment, give thanks. If neither you nor someone you love has sought drug treatment and found that it was unavailable to those of modest means save through the processes of the criminal justice system, give thanks. If you and everyone that you love can go through this list and be thankful for each and every entry, know that you are among a shrinking group of Americans who have managed to avoid some of the most common consequences of the War on Drugs. But know too, that your tax dollars, in ever- increasing amounts, are helping to make the number of citizens like you smaller each year. So give thanks. But remember too that there is work to be done. Happy Thanksgiving. Adam J. Smith Associate Director P.S. In this time of renewed hope, we also give thanks to all of those who helped to make this past election day a turning point for drug policy reform, and all who came before them and who gave of themselves, their time and their energies to educate their neighbors on some of these important issues. We at DRCNet would also like to give thanks to all of you who have supported our work. We hope that if you have, you will continue to do so, and that if you have not, you will consider a small donation as the movement kicks into high gear. Together, with the truth, we will prevail. Thank you. *** DRCNet needs your support! Donations can be sent to 2000 P St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036, or made by credit card at http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html. Donations to the Drug Reform Coordination Network are not tax-deductible. Deductible contributions supporting our educational work can be made by check to the DRCNet Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax- exempt organization, same address. *** DRCNet *** JOIN/MAKE A DONATION http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html DRUG POLICY LIBRARY http://www.druglibrary.org/ REFORMER'S CALENDAR http://www.drcnet.org/calendar.html SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html DRCNet HOME PAGE http://www.drcnet.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------
The articles posted here are generally copyrighted by the source publications. They are reproduced here for educational purposes under the Fair Use Doctrine (17 U.S.C., section 107). NORML is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit educational organization. The views of the authors and/or source publications are not necessarily those of NORML. The articles and information included here are not for sale or resale.
Comments, questions and suggestions.Reporters and researchers are welcome at the world's largest online library of drug-policy information, sponsored by the Drug Reform Coordination Network at: http://www.druglibrary.org/
Next day's news
Previous day's news
to the 1998 Daily News index for November 19-25
to the Portland NORML news archive directory
to 1998 Daily News index (long)
This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/981120.html