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

NORML Special News Bulletin: Federal Bill Reintroduced To Legalize Medical
Marijuana (A press release from NORML says Rep. Barney Frank, the
Massachusetts Democrat, introduced the "Medical Use of Marijuana Act" today
in Congress. Keith Stroup of NORML said, "Historically, states have been more
receptive to the medical marijuana issue than the federal government," noting
that 36 state legislatures have passed laws recognizing marijuana's medical
value. "This legislation addresses this paradigm and effectively gets the
federal government out of the way of those states that wish to make marijuana
available as a medicine." Co-sponsors of the bill include Reps. Tom Campbell,
R-Calif.; John Conyers, D-Mich.; John Olver, D-Mass.; Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.;
Pete Stark, D-Calif.; and Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif.)

From: NATLNORML@aol.com
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 16:51:09 EST
Subject: NORML Special News Bulletin (II)

NORML Special News Bulletin

1001 Connecticut Ave., NW
Ste. 710
Washington, DC 20036
202-483-8751 (p)
202-483-0057 (f)
www.norml.org
norml@norml.org

March 2, 1999

Federal Bill Reintroduced To Legalize Medical Marijuana

March 2, 1999, Washington, D.C.: Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
reintroduced legislation today in the new Congress to provide for the
medical use of marijuana. The bill is titled the "Medical Use of
Marijuana Act."

"I support the medical use of marijuana," Rep. Frank announced. "What
we need to do to get marijuana into the hands of people suffering is to
set aside the federal controls on marijuana, so the states can determine
this issue for themselves."

The proposed legislation states:

"No provision of the Controlled Substances Act [or] ... the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act shall prohibit or otherwise restrict --

(A) the prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for
medical use,

(B) an individual from obtaining and using marijuana from a prescription
or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for medical use by such
individual, or

(C) a pharmacy from obtaining and holding marijuana for the prescription
of marijuana by a physician for medical use under applicable state law in
a State in which marijuana may be prescribed or recommended by a
physician for medical use under applicable State law."

The legislation reschedules marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II
under federal law, thereby making it legal for physicians to prescribe.
"This legislation ... recognize[s] that there are valid and important
medicinal uses for marijuana," a statement issued by Frank's office said.

"The effect of [this] bill would be to make fully operative the laws in
those states which permit the medical use of marijuana, without the
pre-emptive and controlling restrictions currently in place in federal
law on the possession, use, prescription, or sale of marijuana," Frank
added.

NORML Executive Director R. Keith Stroup, Esq., who worked with Frank's
office in drafting the bill's language, said the legislation is a
streamlined effort to get marijuana to those who require it.

"Historically, states have been more receptive to the medical marijuana
issue than the federal government," Stroup explained, noting that 36
state legislatures have passed laws recognizing marijuana's medical
value. "This legislation addresses this paradigm and effectively gets
the federal government out of the way of those states that wish to make
marijuana available as a medicine."

Efforts to permit the legal use of medical marijuana gained momentum in
November when voters in Alaska, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington joined
Californians in approving initiatives exempting patients who use medical
marijuana from criminal penalties. Voters in Arizona reaffirmed a
medical marijuana initiative passed two years ago, and rejected a
legislative requirement banning physicians from prescribing marijuana
until the drug receives approval from the Food and Drug Administration.
Recently, leaders of 17 national AIDS organizations called on White House
officials to legalize medical marijuana for seriously ill patients.

The Medical Use of Marijuana Act also mandates federal officials to
supply marijuana for medical research projects approved by the Food and
Drug Administration. Recently, the United Nations International Drug
Control Board recommended that the U.S. and others conduct impartial
scientific research to determine marijuana's potential medical benefits.

Congressman Frank has been joined in co-sponsoring this legislation by
Reps. Tom Campbell (R-Calif.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), John Olver
(D-Mass.), Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Pete Stark (D-Calif.), Lynn Woolsey
(D-Calif.).

For more information, please contact either Keith Stroup or Paul
Armentano of NORML @ (202) 483-5500. Rep. Barney Frank's office may be
contacted @ (202) 225-5931.

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

Minorities cringe at the sound of sirens (The Oregonian notes a group
monitoring the effect of a one-year-old law that gives police virtually
limitless powers to stop and search anyone delivered a report to the state
legislature Monday. House Bill 2433, sponsored by "the law enforcement
community" and passed by the 1997 legislature, allows police to stop a person
if an officer "reasonably suspects" the person is about to commit a crime.
While the newspaper suppresses the actual results of a survey of Oregon
Minorities included in the report, it suggests minorities do not think
relations with police have declined since the law went into effect because
civil rights violations by police couldn't get much worse anyway.)

The Oregonian
Contact: letters@news.oregonian.com
1320 SW Broadway
Portland, OR 97201
Fax: 503-294-4193
Website: http://www.oregonlive.com/
Forum: http://forums.oregonlive.com/

Minorities cringe at the sound of sirens

* But a survey shows that racial tensions in the state haven't been
exacerbated by a new law permitting routine police stops

Tuesday March 2, 1999

By Gwenda Richards Oshiro
of The Oregonian staff

Every time his teen-age son and daughter go out the door, Darrell Millner
worries they will be stopped by police solely because they are African American.

It has happened before -- to his children and to him, he said, even though
none of them had done anything wrong.

"Whenever they go out in the streets of Portland or any part of Oregon, I
worry about them," the Portland State University professor said. "It's a
constant worry for black parents."

Minorities, defense attorneys and civil rights workers say they do not doubt
that police in Oregon and elsewhere disproportionately stop African
Americans, Latinos and other minorities primarily because of their race.

That is a perception mirrored in a report delivered to the Legislature on
Monday by a group monitoring the effect of a law that, more than a year ago,
gave police broader powers to stop and search suspects.

The group of 60 law enforcement, civil liberties and civil rights officials
found that while minorities do not think relations with police have declined
since the law went into effect, relations are still strained. A survey
conducted for the group said African Americans and Latinos were more likely
than whites to consider police unfair.

But the group also found that documenting the problem remains virtually
impossible in Oregon because police departments do not routinely record
traffic stops that do not result in a citation.

The group worked under the auspices of the governor's Public Safety Planning
and Policy Council to monitor the effect of House Bill 2433, passed by the
1997 Legislature.

Among other things, the law allows police to stop a person if an officer
"reasonably suspected" the person was about to commit a crime. The bill,
proposed by the law enforcement community, was aimed at crime prevention and
officer safety.

To David Fidanque, executive director of American Civil Liberties Union of
Oregon and an outspoken critic of the new law, the monitoring group's most
important achievement is that members are talking about the disparities in
treatment.

"I don't think there has been anyone sitting around the table from a police
agency who felt that this was purely a problem of perception on part of
people of color," he said. "Everyone around the table recognized that even
if it is unconscious, it is certainly likely that people of color on the
whole are dealt with more harshly."

That recognition puts Oregon ahead of other states still arguing about
whether there is a problem, he said. But the group was surprised at the
findings of a community survey that showed how great the distrust was.

About 175 African Americans and about 200 whites living in Multnomah County
were surveyed between Jan. 8 and Feb. 5 by Campbell DeLong Resources, a
Portland research firm, about their perceptions of police. Another 175
Latinos and 200 whites were surveyed around the state.

"Everyone expected some disparity," Fidanque said, "but I don't know that
anyone expected the extent that we saw from the African American community."

Millner, a black history professor at PSU, wouldn't have been surprised. "I
don't know an adult black male who this doesn't happen to," he said.

He said his own experiences of being stopped -- first while growing up in
California and more recently in Oregon -- prove that a professional,
middle-class African American is not immune from such treatment.

The experience he remembers most vividly occurred several years ago in front
of his home, then in Northeast Portland.

"I was stopped when I was driving up to my home, and more or less
surrounded, because supposedly someone had shot at a police car somewhere in
the neighborhood," he said.

As police questioned him, he was torn between wanting to question why they
were doing so and not wanting to escalate the situation.

"You feel both endangered and compromised," he said, "and you don't know
what degree you should really yield the rights you have as a citizen."

Ingrid Swenson, a defense attorney who sat on the committee as a
representative of Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, said she
often hears about such stops.

"I can't tell you how many black attorneys or business people who have been
stopped routinely," she said. "There's never any arrest, never any citation.
But I know it happens all the time."

Requiring documentation of all police stops would help prove the point, she
and others say, but that is a huge task. More than 1 million traffic
citations are issued each year in Oregon, and that doesn't include the many
other stops for which no citations are written.

The monitoring group recommended that it continue its work in sorting out
what documentation is possible, said coordinator Marla Rae, a former state
Department of Justice spokeswoman. Members also want to keep on monitoring
complaints against police agencies and surveying community perceptions.

But perhaps no recommendation is more important than to increase police
training and community education, said committee member Christopher Santiago
Williams, executive director of the state Commission on Hispanic Affairs.

"We routinely receive calls from people who feel they're been discriminated
against by law enforcement entities," he said. Training officers to more
fairly deal with all members of the community, and educating residents about
their rights, is key to solving the problem, he said.

The expansion of police powers in Oregon frightens Millner.

"On the street, there is no more powerful individual in American society
than a police officer," he said. "And a black person experiences this."

You can reach Gwenda Richards Oshiro at 503-221-8219 or by e-mail at
grichardsoshiro@news.oregonian.com.

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

Lawmakers May Soften Drug Penalties To Cut Prison Costs (The Seattle Times
says skyrocketing prison costs are causing Washington legislators to concede
mandatory minimum sentencing hasn't worked, especially with drug offenders.
House Bill 1006, introduced by state Rep. Ida Ballasiotes, R-Mercer Island,
would free judges from imposing mandatory sentences on controlled-substance
violators and allow some offenders to be sentenced to treatment programs in
lieu of more prison time. The bill is popular. It was approved unanimously by
the House Criminal Justice and Corrections and has the backing of
prosecutors, judges and most lawmakers.)

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 20:44:56 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US WA: Lawmakers May Soften Drug Penalties To Cut Prison Costs
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John Smith
Pubdate: 2 Mar 1999
Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Copyright: 1999 The Seattle Times Company
Contact: opinion@seatimes.com
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/
Author: Jim Lynch, Seattle Times Olympia bureau

LAWMAKERS MAY SOFTEN DRUG PENALTIES TO CUT PRISON COSTS

OLYMPIA - After a decade of passing pit-bull-tough sentencing laws,
legislators are now suddenly discussing ways to get softer and smarter on
crime - as a way to save money.

For years, the Olympia mantra has been to increase penalties to deter
crime. But skyrocketing prison costs are causing many lawmakers to concede
stiff sentencing hasn't always worked well, especially with drug offenders.

"We filled up the prisons and didn't do a good job on treatment," said
state Rep. Ida Ballasiotes, R-Mercer Island. "There's a lot of us who think
we should save our prison space for our most violent offenders, and these
aren't them."

A Ballasiotes bill that came before the House Appropriations Committee
yesterday reflects the new tenor of the crime debate. House Bill 1006 would
free judges from stiff mandatory sentences for drug crimes and give them
freedom to put some offenders into treatment programs in lieu of more
prison time.

The bill is popular. It was approved unanimously by the House Criminal
Justice and Corrections and has the backing of prosecutors, judges and most
lawmakers.

Ballasiotes says the bill probably would have flopped just a few years ago,
but rising prison costs are changing the way lawmakers look at sentencing
laws.

The state's prison tab is the fastest-growing piece of the state budget.
Washington's prisons cost the state almost $500 million annually, and costs
are snowballing by almost 20 percent every two years, more than twice as
fast as the budget as a whole.

There are now 14,300 prisoners in the state; a fourth of them are in for
drug offenses. The state Caseload Forecast Council estimates that drug laws
passed during the past decade are responsible for about 4,000 inmates now
behind bars.

At an estimated cost to the state of $23,000 per inmate per year, the
drug-sentencing laws are costing the state about $92 million a year.

Meanwhile, the state is renting cell space in Colorado while it builds new
prisons.

Rep. Dow Constantine, D-Seattle, has proposed a bill that would go further
than Ballasiotes' in trying to keep drug criminals from clogging prisons.

His bill, HB 1859, would give judges the leeway they had in 1988 to give
"first-offender waivers" to people convicted of drug crimes for the first
time. Instead of being forced, for example, to give a first-time offender
21 to 27 months of prison time for selling drugs, the judge could impose a
much smaller sentence and couple it with treatment.

While Ballasiotes' bill would give a judge the right to split a sentence
between prison time and treatment time, Constantine's bill would give
judges the authority to go outside the overall sentencing guidelines in
cases where offenders have no prior convictions.

The bill is considered too radical by some, including some prosecutors who
think it gives judges too much leeway, but Constantine thinks its time will
come, too.

"It's an important conversation for us to have," he said. "We are being too
indiscriminate in how we determine who we're going to lock up for long
periods of time.

"We've got to figure out how to be smarter on crime and punishment. If
we're wasting money and throwing away lives that could have been turned
around, that's just wrong. And it's particularly wrong for all of us who
are paying for it," Constantine said.

Jim Lynch's phone message number is 360-943-9882.

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

3 Strikes Law Found to Be of No Effect (The Los Angeles Times says a new
study by the Justice Policy Institute, to be released today and published
this fall in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, says California's law
mandating 25 years to life for a third felony offense has had no measurable
effect on reducing violence. Crime has fallen at about the same rate in
counties that aggressively enforce the three strikes law as in those that do
not. The study also found that the one age group most affected by the law,
felons ages 30 to 39, have committed more crimes. "In other words, the age
group that is most likely to be sentenced under three strikes witnessed
increases in felony arrests and violent crime," the study reports. About one
fifth of third-strike inmates were found guilty of a violent offense,
including robbery. By contrast, 37 percent were convicted of property crimes,
such as theft, and 30 percent were found guilty of "drug" offenses, mostly
possession.)

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:55:58 EST
Errors-To: jnr@insightweb.com
Sender: friends@freecannabis.org
From: Jim Rosenfield (jnr@insightweb.com)
To: Multiple recipients of list (friends@freecannabis.org)
Subject: art/lat: 3 Strikes Ineffective

March 2, 1999
Author: GREG KRIKORIAN, Times Staff Writer

3 Strikes Law Found to Be of No Effect

Crime: Report compares counties that vigorously enforce law with
those that don't. Backers dispute result.

Five years after it was hailed as a major deterrent to crime, California's
three strikes sentencing law has had no measurable effect on reducing
violence, according to a study to be released today.

Crime has fallen at about the same rate in counties that aggressively
enforce the three strikes law as in those that do not, the study found. In
addition, violent crime by felons ages 30 to 39 has actually increased.

"The study shows that when both the age groups and the areas of the
state most affected by the law are analyzed, there is no effect on crime,"
said the study's coauthor, Mike Males, a doctoral candidate in social
ecology at UC Irvine. "The reason is that the law is simply too broad." The
study by the Justice Policy Institute, a left-leaning research organization
based in San Francisco, found no correlation between California's general
drop in crime and the imposition of longer, mandatory sentences for repeat
felons. The findings are based on information from the California Criminal
Justice Statistics Center and the data analysis unit of the state Department
of Corrections.

Examining the state's 12 largest counties, which account for
three-quarters of California's population and four fifths of its crime,
researchers found radically different rates of sentencing under three
strikes. The law doubles the sentence of second time felons and mandates 25
years to life for those convicted of a third felony.

Researchers found that counties most closely following the three strikes
law, including Los Angeles and Sacramento, did not enjoy the greatest
decrease in crime.

"Data clearly shows that counties that vigorously and strictly enforce
the three strikes law did not experience a decline in any crime category
relative to more lenient counties," said the study, which will be published
this fall in the Stanford Law and Policy Review.

"Even more remarkable, the sevenfold proportionally greater use of
three strikes in Sacramento and Los Angeles was not associated with a bigger
decline than in Alameda and San Francisco counties that barely use the law,"
the study said. "In fact, San Francisco, the county which uses three strikes
most sparingly, witnessed a greater decline in violent crime, homicides, and
all index crime than most of the six heaviest enforcing counties." Orange
County, which was grouped with those using the law the least, similarly
experienced one of the highest declines in homicides, and a greater than
average decrease in other violent crimes.

Without addressing a study they have not yet seen, prosecutors in Los
Angeles and statewide dispute the idea that the three strikes law has not
reduced crime.

"We think three strikes is an effective prosecution tool and we have
used it extensively," said Victoria Pipkin, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles
County district attorney's office, the nation's largest.

Tori Richards, a spokeswoman for the Orange County district attorney,
said her office could not comment without having a chance to study the new
report first.

Lawrence Brown, executive director of the California District Attorneys Ass.,
called the sentencing law a tremendous success.

The three strikes law, he said, "has done everything that the Legislature and
voters intended. We have put away the worst of the worst and have made our
communities safer as a result." But the study challenges that assertion.

In addition to disputing a link between crime reduction and a county's
application of three strikes, the study found that the one age group most
affected by the law, felons ages 30 to 39, have committed more crimes.

"In other words, the age group that is most likely to be sentenced
under three strikes witnessed increases in felony arrests and violent
crime," the study found.

"I was shocked by that," Males said. "Despite the most punitive sentencing
law in state history targeting a specific age group, those over 30, the law
registered no deterrent effect." Dan Macallair of the Center on Juvenile and
Criminal Justice in San Francisco and one of the study's coauthors, called
the new law a costly flop.

"If three strikes was successful, we would be able to show that with
the very population it was targeting," he said. "And instead, we have the
opposite effect." The reason, the authors contend, is that the law does not
limit itself to criminals whose second or third offense is violent. The law
applies to any third felony offense.

Since the law took effect, the study said, less than 1% of the almost
40,000 second and third strike inmates have been convicted of murder. About
one fifth were found guilty of a violent offense, including robbery.

By contrast, the study said, 37% were convicted of property crimes,
such as theft, and 30% were found guilty of drug offenses, mostly possession.

"They are not the Richard Allen Harris [type]," Males said, referring
to the ex-felon whose slaying of Polly Klaas gave rise to the three strikes
law.

"If the state is going to spend half a million to $1 million to lock up
somebody for 25 to life, we better make sure that he is the worst of the
worst. Because for [that amount] you can do a lot to treat a drug addiction
. . and return this person to society."

Times staff writer Ray Herndon contributed to this report.

***

Third Strike and Crime Rate

California's "three strikes" law was supposed to reduce violent crime by
doubling the sentence for a second felony and putting third time felony
offenders behind bars for 25 years to life. But a new study by the Justice
Policy Institute shows that counties using "three strikes" the most did not
see the greatest drop in crime. In fact, Santa Clara, one of the six heaviest
sentencing counties, witnessed a rise in violent crime, while San Francisco,
which rarely uses the law, had one of the greatest declines in homicides and
other violent crimes.

* Sentencing rate is per 1,000 felonies by county.

** Post law change compares reported crime rate per 10,000 inhabitants
for 19951997 (post law) to that of 19911993 (pre law).

Source: California Criminal Justice Statistics Center; California
Department of Corrections, Data Analysis Unit.

SENTENCING RATES IN*:

			3rd		2nd & 3rd
County			strike		strikes

Sacramento		3.6		26.0
Los Angeles		3.6		33.5
San Diego		3.4		35.3
Riverside		2.7		27.1
Fresno			2.6		21.5
Santa Clara		2.6		23.4
Avg. Six Heaviest	3.1		27.8

Orange			2.4		21.1
San Bernadino		2.1		17.0
Contra Costa		1.4		15.7
Ventura			1.3		18.8
Alameda			0.7		 5.9
San Francisco		0.3		 4.9
Avg. Six Lightest	1.4		13.9

POST LAW CHANGE IN RATE OF**:

County			Homicide	Violent		All Index

Sacramento		22.1		 6.4		 3.2
Los Angeles		27.9		28.2		27.5
San Diego		38.2		22.8		28.1
Riverside		25.7		18.0		24.0
Fresno			20.0		 1.4		 9.2
Santa Clara		24.6		 9.0		18.9
Avg. Six Heaviest	26.4		12.7		18.5
Orange			30.9		15.6		28.8
San Bernardino		23.9		20.9		16.1
Contra Costa		32.9		21.7		15.0
Ventura			26.6		24.3		22.0
Alameda			24.2		17.2		13.7
San Francisco		31.8		28.0		24.5
Avg. Six Lightest	28.4		21.3		20.0

Copyright 1999 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved

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

Real Justice in Riverside, California. Tyisha Miller (A list subscriber
forwards a statement that it's "time to force the Riverside Police Department
to admit the drug tests for the four police officers that gunned down Tyisha
Miller got lost. . . . That explains why the retired doctor was blown away
in Redlands. He got access to those test results and they had to kill him.")

From: "ralph sherrow" (ralphkat@hotmail.com)
To: ralphkat@hotmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Real Justice in Riverside, California. Tyisha Miller
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 12:43:03 PST

>From: Drgwarwhr@aol.com
>Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 04:03:20 EST

Subject: Real Justice in Riverside, California. Tyisha Miller

Is it a war yet?

It is time to force the Riverside Police Department to admit the drug
tests for the four police officers that gunned down Tyisha Miller got
lost. No Justice, no peace, just more war. That explains why the
retired doctor was blown away in Redlands. He got access to those test
results and they had to kill him. He knew it. That's why he tried to
run. What part of domestic covert operations don't we understand? I
wonder if I will be next?

Sincerely,
Jay Lindberg

***

That's why they call it a drug war, cause nobody's safe from it now.

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

Medical marijuana legal on Thursday (The Juneau Empire notes the law
approved by Alaska voters last November goes into effect March 4.)

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 08:58:53 -0900
To: dpfor@drugsense.org
From: Ed Glick (gina@proaxis.com)
Subject: DPFOR: Fwd: medical reefer in alaska
Sender: owner-dpfor@drugsense.org
Reply-To: dpfor@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/
From: DPM (dpm@proaxis.com)
Subject: medical reefer in alaska
Source: The Juneau Empire (AK)
Copyright: 1999 Southeastern Newspaper Corp
Contact: editor1@alaska.net
Mail: 3100 Channel Drive, Juneau, AK 99801
Website: http://www.juneauempire.com/

Web posted Tuesday, March 2, 1999

Medical marijuana legal on Thursday

By MARK SABBATINI
THE JUNEAU EMPIRE

Don Schmiege is spending more of his Hawaiian vacation seeing doctors than
tourist sites. But there is some comfort in knowing that by the time he
gets home he'll be able to relax - legally - with some marijuana.

A law legalizing marijuana for medical purposes takes effect Thursday and
72-year-old Schmiege, a retired Juneau biologist, is among those intending
to quickly seek a doctor's permission to use the drug. He said nagging pain
in his chest and neck has been a constant problem for the past three years
because of accidents that injured his neck.

``I think it's going to be just a great opportunity for people who are in
lots of pain to get some relief,'' he said.

The only alternative offered by doctors is morphine, which has a
disorienting effect, Schmiege said.

Nearly 60 percent of voters approved an initiative last fall establishing
the new law, which supporters said allows the best pain relief from serious
ailments such as cancer, glaucoma and AIDS. Opponents argued current
prescription drugs are sufficient, legalization sends a bad message to
children and recreational users may illegally benefit by raiding patients'
supplies.

The law legalizes use and possession for patients with specially defined
conditions, if a physician also certifies marijuana is a legitimate
treatment. Buying and selling marijuana remains illegal, however, which
some officials said could be a minor problem.

``What one can expect to occur is that patients set up networks,'' said
David Finkelstein, campaign manager for Alaskans for Medical Rights, a
group supporting the new law.

He estimates several hundred Alaskans will seek permission to use marijuana
legally. Physicians can recommend the substance as a legitimate treatment,
but not prescribe it.

A registry of approved patients will not be processed by the state until
June 1, so patients caught before they are registered will have to go to
court to show they meet the requirements of the new law, said Kristen
Bomengen, an assistant attorney general for the state Department of Law.

She said patients in the registry will receive identification cards
allowing them to keep one ounce of marijuana, or grow six plants (three of
which can be flowering), without being arrested. The registry is
confidential, but because it is available to law enforcement to ensure
cards aren't abused, some patients, such as those with AIDS, might avoid
it, Bomengen said.

``One doesn't have to register,'' she said. ``It's available for the ease
of the patients, those who are uneasy of being accused of illegal
activities.''

Some are worried they won't meet the requirements of the new law, even
though marijuana is the best treatment available for them.

A 33-year-old woman, who asked not to be identified because she is using
the drug illegally, said she has a precancerous stomach condition among
other ailments. She said marijuana is the only way she can control her
nausea and maintain an appetite, but is having trouble finding a doctor who
will declare her eligible to use the substance legally.

``As far as doctor-wise, I don't think anything is going to happen right
now, which is not to say I won't take care of it myself,'' she said.

Application cards will be issued on an annual basis and must be turned in
within 24 hours if a physician determines a patient no longer needs
marijuana.

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

Judge keeps supervision of prisons - System remains cruel, he says; AG to
appeal (The Dallas Morning News says after three weeks of hearings in
January and February, U.S. District Judge William Wayne Justice issued a
167-page decision Monday finding that Texas prisons are still brutal and
inhumane, and ordered Texas prisons to remain under federal oversight.
Attorney General John Cornyn said "All along we felt the final decision would
be made by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, and that's
where we head next.")

From: "Bob Owen@W.H.E.N." (when@olywa.net)
To: "_Drug Policy --" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: Feds keep supervision of TX prisons
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 12:50:22 -0800
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net

Judge keeps supervision of prisons
System remains cruel, he says; AG to appeal

03/02/99

By Christy Hoppe / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN - Even after 20 years, a federal judge refused Texas its freedom on
Monday, saying the state has failed to rehabilitate the way it runs a brutal
and inhumane prison system.

"Texas prison inmates continue to live in fear - a fear that is
incomprehensible to most of the state's free world citizens," U.S. District
Judge William Wayne Justice wrote.

Attorney General John Cornyn said he will appeal the judge's ruling as soon
as practical.

"All along we felt the final decision would be made by the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals in New Orleans, and that's where we head next," Mr. Cornyn
said.

Judge Justice first took oversight of state prisons in 1979 after finding
that the system was unconstitutionally cruel.

At the time, inmates were subjected to "unspeakable overcrowding," slept on
floors, were denied lawyers and medical attention and endured openly
sanctioned beatings.

At the time inmates sued, Texas had about 15 prison units housing 18,000
inmates. The system since has mushroomed into one of the largest in the
world - 110 units with 150,000 inmates.

The state argued that it has added guards for protection and procedures
governing everything from use of force by officers to grievances by inmates.

But after three weeks of hearings in January and February, Judge Justice
said many of the deplorable conditions he found two decades ago persist.

Inmates are subject to rapes, beatings and extortion by other prisoners, and
their pleas are met with indifference by prison officials, the judge said in
his ruling.

Many inmates, "especially those with mental illnesses, are subjected to
extreme deprivations and daily psychological harm," he said.

"Such practices and conditions cannot stand in our society, under our
Constitution," Judge Justice said.

Inmates' lawyers presented about 80 witnesses, who in grim testimony, told
their stories of being gang raped, beaten and abused.

They said guards routinely ridiculed their fears and refused their pleas for
protection from aggressive inmates or gangs.

Lead attorney Donna Brorby described prison units as "shark tanks," where
inmates prey on anyone perceived as weak.

Co-counsel Ginny Morrison said Monday that the ruling came as good news.

"Our approach is to follow the court's order to devise a plan to make life
bearable at the prisons," Ms. Morrison said.

"That's what we've always been after, and we're happy to do that. We want to
fix the cruel and unusual conditions," she said.

Cornyn's response

Mr. Cornyn said he has no plans to negotiate for a new plan that would
continue the oversight of Judge Justice.

He said that the inmates who testified told regrettable stories but that he
believes the accounts do not reflect the entire prison system.

Under federal law, a court must find that prison abuse was systemic and that
officials showed "deliberate indifference" toward it.

Mr. Cornyn said an appeals court will recognize that the state should win
the case on the facts. Judge Justice's ruling "means we lost this battle but
are hopeful about winning the war," he said.

State Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, who has joined the lawsuit to try to
end federal oversight, said the judge's order means the state can appeal and
win.

"The finish line is finally in sight," he said.

Mr. Culberson said that with the expedited hearing expected by the appellate
court, "Texas should be free by Christmas 1999."

Allan Polunsky, chairman of the Texas Board of Criminal Justice, which is
responsible for the prison system, said he vigorously supports the decision
to appeal.

"Judge Justice has held on to this case for a quarter of a century," Mr.
Polunsky said. "It is time for him to let go and stop what is from this
point on a totally unwarranted intrusion into the authority of the Texas
Legislature.

"Enough is enough," he said.

Mr. Polunsky, a San Antonio lawyer appointed to the prison board by Gov.
George W. Bush, defended the Texas prison system as among the best in the
nation.

State officials said that the level of inmate violence is among the lowest
in the nation and that guards' use of force has been significantly reduced
as their training has exceeded national standards. Hundreds of millions of
dollars has been spent on medical and psychiatric care facilities, including
specialized units, they said.

Not good enough

In his 167-page order, Judge Justice did give a nod to Texas' effort to
improve, saying the state has "dramatically overhauled its prison system."

But creating extensive policies and imposing bureaucracy "do not, however,
immunize the system from constitutional challenge," he said.

Linda Reeves, executive director of the Austin-based Texas Inmate Familes
Association, said she was relieved at Judge Justice's decision to retain
supervision over the prison system.

Even though the current prison administration has made tremendous
improvements in recent years, the progress might not continue without
federal oversight, she said.

"We still hear horror stories about inmates being raped, about inmate
violence, about inadequate medical care. There has been progress, yes. But
there's a lot of work left to be done," she said.

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

California Medical Marijuana Bills (A news release from California NORML
says two medical marijuana bills have been introduced in Sacramento by state
senator John Vasconcellos. The first, S.B. 847 would establish a $1 million
medical marijuana research program. The second, S.B. 848, would establish a
distribution system based on recommendations from the Attorney General's
working group on medical marijuana.)

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 22:53:03 -0800
To: dpfca@drugsense.org
From: canorml@igc.apc.org (Dale Gieringer)
Subject: DPFCA: State, Federal Medical MJ Bills
Sender: owner-dpfca@drugsense.org
Reply-To: canorml@igc.apc.org (Dale Gieringer)
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/

A bill to legalize medical marijuana has been reintroduced by Rep.
Barney Frank (D - Mass). Titled the "Medical Use of Marijuana Act," it
would give California and other states legal authority to regulate medical
marijuana distribution. The Frank bill is co-sponsored by California Rep.
Lynn Woolsey, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Tom Campbell and Rep. Pete Stark.

Meanwhile, in Sacramento, two medical marijuana bills have been
introduced by Sen. John Vasconcellos (D-535); The first, S.B.847, modeled
on a bill introduced last year, would establish a $1 million medical
marijuana research program to be run by the University of California, or,
if U.C. isn't interested, the state Research Advisory Panel.

The second, S.B. 848, is a spot bill to establish a distribution
system. The content of the bill will be determined following further
deliberations by the Attorney General's working group on medical marijuana.

California NORML has endorsed the Frank bill as the kind of federal
policy change needed to clear the way for state distribution legislation.
"Only when the federal ban has been lifted will it be possible to realize
Prop. 215's mandate for 'safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to
all patients in medical need,'" says California NORML coordinator Dale
Gieringer.

For more info, contact Dale Gieringer, Coordinator, California
NORML (415) 563-5858. Rep. Barney Frank's office may be reached at (202)
225-5931. The text of Sen. Vasconcellos' bills may be found at
www.sen.ca.gov/~newsen /legislation/legislation.htp.

Dale Gieringer (415) 563-5858 // canorml@igc.apc.org
2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114

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

Pataki To Propose Stiffer Sentencing Laws (The Times Union, in New York, says
Governor George Pataki, the former cannabis consumer, will propose next week
a ban on parole for nonviolent felons. Last year, the governor succeeded in
abolishing parole for violent felons. Now, his focus is on nonviolent
offenders.)

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 20:45:03 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US NY: Pataki To Propose Stiffer Sentencing Laws
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: General Pulaski
Pubdate: 2 Mar 1999
Source: Times Union (NY)
Copyright: 1999, Capital Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation
Contact: tuletters@timesunion.com
Website: http://www.timesunion.com/

PATAKI TO PROPOSE STIFFER SENTENCING LAWS

He admits that plan to ban parole for nonviolent felons will face fight in
the Legislature

Gov. George Pataki plans to propose next week a major overhaul of New
York's sentencing laws, with the aim of ensuring that the term imposed by
the judge is the sentence served by the convict.

Pataki said Wednesday at a criminal justice conference that he will ask the
Legislature to effectively eliminate parole for all felons, scrapping the
current sentencing scheme for one embraced by federal authorities more than
a decade ago and partially adopted in New York last year.

The governor is seeking to replace what is known as "indeterminate"
sentencing with "determinate" sentencing.

Now, judges sentence felons to an indeterminate term -- sometimes a term as
broad as 3 years to life -- but a parole board decides when in the time
span prescribed by the judge the inmate is actually released. Pataki would
generally abolish parole as a perk offered in lieu of prison time and
require convicts to serve six-sevenths of their term, after which they
would be under the supervision of parole officials for five years.

Last year, the governor succeeded, after a bruising political fight, in
abolishing parole and mandating fairly specific prison sentences for
violent felons. Now, his focus is on nonviolent offenders.

Pataki, speaking to criminal justice experts gathered at the Desmond hotel,
said that nonviolent offenders are now sentenced on average to a maximum of
54 months, but serve only 27 months before they are released on parole.
Further, he said 40 percent of nonviolent felons return to state prison
within three years of their release.

"This makes no sense, and we must change it," Pataki said.

But Pataki's plan faces an uncertain political future, and a certain battle
in the Legislature.

"It is going to be a fight," he acknowledged.

Although Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, a fellow Republican, endorses
the governor's proposal, the Democratic leader of the Assembly, Sheldon
Silver, has expressed grave reservations about following the federal model.

In the mid-1980s, the federal government abolished parole and established
sentencing guidelines that require judges to impose a specific sentence for
a particular crime. The goal, in part, was to ensure uniformity in
sentencing, so two criminals who commit similar crimes are subjected to
similar punishments.

But the downside, critics say, is that mandated uniformity can result in
illogical, formulaic sentencing that fails to take into account a specific
offense and specific offender. As an example, some critics say, a woman who
steals powdered milk to feed her starving baby has committed a
fundamentally different crime than one who steals powdered milk to cut
cocaine. But if a judge lacks discretion to tailor a sentence to a crime,
both women could end up with the same prison term.

Louise Roback, executive director of the Capital Region chapter of the New
York Civil Liberties Union, said the potential elimination of judicial
discretion is "troubling." But, U.S. Attorney Thomas Maroney, the chief
federal prosecutor in northern New York, said a new sentencing statute
could be written in such a way that it would addresses those concerns.
Federal laws, for instance, allow judges to depart from sentencing mandates
and impose a greater or lesser sentence when warranted by extraordinary
circumstances.

"Determinate sentencing makes a lot of sense," Maroney, a Democrat, said.
"Everybody knows where they stand. If the judge says 78 months, by God,
it's 78 months."

Also at Wednesday's conference, Pataki outlined plans to:

Establish a computerized crime-tracking network to link every police agency
in the state. The initiative will begin next month when the four Capital
Region counties -- Albany, Rensselaer, Schenectady and Saratoga -- are the
first to go online.

Expand the state's DNA database to include all felons. Now, only about 11
percent of convicts are included.

Computerize and centralize mug shot and rap sheet data so police officers
can access such information instantly.

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

Firing Renews Police Debate (The San Jose Mercury News says the allegation
that police single out minorities for car stops has arisen again and again,
in class-action lawsuits from Gloucester County, N.J., to Toledo, Ohio, to
Eagle County, Colo.; in a new suit in Maryland; in judges' findings; in calls
for federal legislation - and now, in the firing of New Jersey's state police
superintendent, Col. Carl Williams.)

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 20:45:20 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Firing Renews Police Debate
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: 2 Mar 1999
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Copyright: 1999 Mercury Center
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
Author: Henry Goldman and Thomas Ginsberg

FIRING RENEWS POLICE DEBATE

Study: Minorities targeted for stops

Robert Wilkins, a black, Harvard-educated lawyer, could see this was no
ordinary speeding ticket. The Maryland State Police officers were taking
too long.

So he climbed out of the rented Cadillac that drizzly dawn in 1992 to find
officers questioning his cousin, the driver. Wilkins' aunt and uncle were
with them, returning from the Chicago funeral of Wilkins' grandfather.

`` `They want to search the car for drugs,' '' Wilkins recalls his cousin
saying.

Wilkins, a Washington lawyer, told the police they had no reason to suspect
a crime; he would not allow a search. So they detained the family for about
an hour so that a drug-sniffing dog could check the car.

``It was a very humiliating experience,'' he recalled Monday. ``We had to
stand out in the rain. The traffic passed and saw us standing there, like
criminals. The police just said it was standard policy.''

Wilkins sued, and Maryland's state police rules will never be the same.
Lawyers unearthed a police memo advising that ``drug couriers were likely
to be black males and females.'' The state settled the suit for $95,600.
The police agreed to retrain officers and take other steps to avoid
targeting members of racial minority groups on the road.

But the basic allegation -- that police single out minorities for car stops
-- did not end there. It has arisen again and again, in class-action
lawsuits from Gloucester County, N.J., to Toledo, Ohio, to Eagle County,
Colo.; in a new suit in Maryland; in judges' findings; in calls for federal
legislation -- and now, in the firing of New Jersey's state police
superintendent, Col. Carl Williams.

Williams was fired Sunday by Gov. Christine Todd Whitman after saying in a
newspaper interview that he had warned his officers against profiling, but
that he believed minorities conduct most cocaine and marijuana trafficking.

His comments came as New Jersey officials are appealing a 1996 Superior
Court decision in which a Gloucester County judge threw out criminal
charges against 19 black drug defendants, saying the state police had
``allowed, condoned, cultivated and tolerated discrimination . . . in its
crusade to rid New Jersey of the scourge of drugs.''

The judge based his decision, in part, on research conducted by John
Lamberth, a Temple University professor who used a staff of observers in
Maryland and New Jersey to keep records of the racial composition of
motorists on the states' highways, and then compared them with police
records of traffic stops and vehicle searches.

In each case, Lamberth said Monday, his research found disproportionate
numbers of black and Latino motorists targeted by police.

Lamberth, widely seen as an expert on racial profiling, found that in New
Jersey, about 15 percent of motorists on the turnpike were black, but they
represented 35 percent of those pulled over by police.

Those figures were echoed in statistics released last month by New Jersey
Attorney General Peter Verniero, showing that in two months of 1997, three
of four turnpike drivers stopped by state police were minorities.

In Maryland, in 1996 and 1997, Lamberth's observers drove on Interstate 95
at 60 miles an hour, and noted something else: About 98 percent of the
other cars were speeding.

He found that although 17.5 percent of the traffic violators on I-95 north
of Baltimore were African-American, 29 percent of them were stopped, and
71.3 percent of those searched by state police were African-American.

Such statistics helped persuade U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake to rule
that the American Civil Liberties Union had made a ``reasonable showing''
that Maryland troopers on I-95 were continuing to engage in a ``pattern and
practice'' of racial discrimination, despite Wilkins' lawsuit settlement.

Last year, in response to concerns from lawmakers, the House passed a bill
to require the Justice Department to conduct a two-year, $500,000
nationwide study to determine whether blacks are being harassed through
routine vehicle checks. The bill did not pass the Senate.

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

Police Chief Fired For Race-Drugs Slur (The Irish Independent version)

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 20:45:07 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US NJ: Police Chief Fired For Race-Drugs Slur
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: 2 Mar 1999
Source: Irish Independent (Ireland)
Copyright: Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd
Contact: independent.letters@independent.ie
Website: http://www.independent.ie/
Author: David Usborne in New York

POLICE CHIEF FIRED FOR RACE-DRUGS SLUR

AS POLICE in New York City battle allegations of racism following the
shooting last month of an unarmed West African by four white officers, the
chief of New Jersey's state police was without a job yesterday after being
fired for publicly blaming drug trafficking on ethnic minorities.

The abrupt dismissal of Colonel Carl Williams by the Governor of New
Jersey, Christie Todd Whitman, has thrown a fresh spotlight on simmering
tensions between the African-American community and state and city police
forces around the country.

Col Williams was sacked after saying blacks and Hispanics were more likely
to be involved in the drugs trade than whites.

In a newspaper interview, he said: ``Two weeks ago, the president of the
United States went to Mexico to talk to the president of Mexico about
drugs. He didn't go to Ireland. He didn't go to England.

``It is most likely a minority group that's involved with the drug trade.
They aren't going to ask some Irishman to be part of their gang because
they don't trust him.''

His sacking will feed a widening debate in New York about racism in law
enforcement. Black and Hispanic leaders in the US have long complained
about unfair police harassment of non-whites.

New York, where the police have been credited with a dramatic lowering of
crime rates, witnessed large protests early last month after the shooting
of Amadou Diallo in the hallway of his apartment building in the Bronx.

The officers are being asked to explain why they fired 41 shots at Diallo,
who apparently was breaking no law and carrying no weapon.

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

Political Fallout Over NJ State Police Col. Carl Williams (The Philadelphia
Inquirer says a day after New Jersey Governor Whitman ousted Col. Carl A.
Williams as the head of the state police for saying the drug trade is handled
mostly by minorities, a top black leader and Democratic legislators demanded
that she delay the nomination of her attorney general to the state Supreme
Court until his office completes a review of the state police force.)

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:17:30 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US NJ: Political Fallout Over NJ State Police Col. Carl Williams
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: General Pulaski
Pubdate: Tue, 02 Mar 1999
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer (PA)
Copyright: 1999 Philadelphia Newspapers Inc.
Contact: Inquirer.Opinion@phillynews.com
Website: http://www.phillynews.com/
Forum: http://interactive.phillynews.com/talk-show/
Author: Tom Avril, Douglas A. Campbell and Suzette Parmley, INQUIRER STAFF
WRITERS

POLITICAL FALLOUT OVER NJ STATE POLICE COL. CARL WILLIAMS

TRENTON -- A day after Gov. Whitman ousted Col. Carl A. Williams as the head
of the New Jersey State Police for saying that the drug trade is handled
mostly by minorities, a top black leader and Democratic legislators demanded
that she delay the nomination of her attorney general to the state Supreme
Court until his office completes a review of the force. She refused to take
that step but continued to fault Williams' comments as being insensitive. In
an interview, she declined to discuss whether his remarks were factually
correct, but said they damaged the credibility of the state police. "I'm not
arguing with what he was saying. I'm arguing with how he said it, and when
he said it, and the way he said it," Whitman said in an interview in her
office.

Her remarks were echoed by a former state police superintendent and the head
of the state Fraternal Order of Police, as they danced uneasily around the
thorny issues of race and crime.

Williams' ouster was hailed by civil-rights advocates and Democratic
lawmakers, but they warned that the problem runs deeper than the remarks of
one man. Several called for a delay in the nomination of Williams' boss,
Attorney General Peter Verniero, as a state Supreme Court justice -- a
position that Whitman said last week she would like him to have. And Sen.
John Adler (D., Camden) went so far as to demand Verniero's resignation.

Verniero called Williams' comments insensitive and inappropriate, but he
said he looked forward to the confirmation process in the state Senate. A
spokesman for Whitman said the governor was not going to reconsider or delay
Verniero's nomination.

Williams' forced resignation Sunday afternoon came after his comments were
published in that day's Star-Ledger of Newark, touching off a renewed
firestorm of the kinds of criticisms that have dogged the state police for
years. He reiterated that the state police do not promote or condone "racial
profiling" -- targeting someone as a crime suspect because of race -- but
said that drug trafficking is often done by Jamaicans and other minorities.

"Today with this drug problem, the drug problem is cocaine or marijuana,"
Williams was quoted as saying in the article. "It is most likely a minority
group that's involved with that."

Whitman said those remarks damaged the agency's credibility at a time when
it is already under review, both by the Attorney General's Office and the
Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department.

"The fact that he couldn't understand that the kinds of comments he was
making could be taken as being racially divisive was a level of
insensitivity that just wasn't going to cut it anymore," the governor said.

Whitman declined to identify any candidates who might succeed Williams, but
said she will look both inside and outside the agency and will focus on
people from New Jersey. Williams' deputy, Lt. Col. Michael Fedorko, is
serving as acting superintendent.

A spokesman for Williams and Fedorko said they would not comment on the
matter.

Whitman said the new superintendent must be someone who understands a
"quasi-military" organization such as the state police, someone who knows
law enforcement and the judicial system, and "someone with good diplomatic
skills who can communicate."

At a news conference yesterday afternoon, the Rev. Reginald T. Jackson,
executive director of the Black Ministers Council of New Jersey, said
Verniero's confirmation to the Supreme Court should be delayed until his
office's review of the state police is completed. If that review indicates
Verniero bears responsibility for state police problems, Mr. Jackson said,
the council will oppose his confirmation as a justice.

Mr. Jackson and the council had called for Williams' resignation or removal,
but the minister said he was saddened when he read Williams' comments
Sunday.

The minister said there still need to be other changes in the state police
leadership. "It became clear to us that the problems . . . are deep and
pervasive," he said. With attitudes such as those expressed by Williams, Mr.
Jackson said, "it is difficult for me to believe that . . . has not trickled
down" throughout the 2,600 state troopers.

The council met with some troopers last week, Mr. Jackson said, and
"discussed some things which are very troubling. We are concerned that this
selection of trooper of the year[the division's highest award]is based
solely on arrests, and arrests that sometimes are bogus."

Mr. Jackson said the council recommends that Whitman not rush to hire a
replacement for Williams. He said the council "insists" that the new
superintendent come from outside New Jersey and have no ties to the New
Jersey State Police.

The council has been pushing for an investigation of the state police since
two troopers fired on a van carrying four unarmed young minority men on the
New Jersey Turnpike on April 23. Three of those men were wounded. Meanwhile
the American Civil Liberties Union said yesterday that it has joined private
attorneys to expand a 1998 suit by two out-of-state lawyers into a
class-action suit accusing the state police of racial profiling.

The original suit was filed Oct. 30 in Middlesex County Superior Court on
behalf of Laila Maher, 31, and friend Felix Morka, 32. Maher is a native of
Egypt and Morka is a Nigerian national. Both were law students then.

Maher and Morka allege they were stopped on Jan. 16, 1996, near Exit 8A of
the turnpike by two troopers who, they assert, assaulted them and then
laughed about it. The suit says one trooper banged Morka's head against the
steering wheel as he reached into his hip pocket for his license. The suit
adds that this scared Maher, who jumped out of the passenger side and found
herself staring into the barrel of a gun.

While Whitman declined to address the substance of Williams' remarks, others
were willing.

Justin Dintino, who was New Jersey State Police superintendent from 1990 to
1994, said on Sunday that Williams in fact may have been correct if he was
basing the remarks on police intelligence reports.

However, Dintino said, Williams erred in failing to make a distinction
between the crime statistics and illegal profiling, a distinction that
Dintino said must be made to maintain public confidence by rooting out abuse
of the tactic.

"Random stops are the root of the problem," he said. "Target cocaine cartels
and money-laundering operations, not this nickel and dime[traffic
arrests]that have no significance on the drug problem in New Jersey."
Another police official said it was the timing of Williams' comments, not
the substance, that did him in.

Williams' comments were "the result of actual arrests and investigations. .
. . I don't think profiling had anything to do with the remarks," said Rick
Whelan, president of the New Jersey Fraternal Order of Police, which
represents about 14,000 officers in the Garden State.

According to the 1997 Uniform Crime Report issued by the State Police,
32,456 whites and 32,863 blacks were arrested that year for drug violations.
Whelan said he believed Williams was "scapegoated for political reasons,"
rather than for whether his comments were true or not. He suggested that
Whitman, who is considering a run for the U.S. Senate next year, may be
trying to placate African American constituents.

"Nobody knows what she is doing in the next couple years, and the group
making the demand is saying thanks for responding to[us]," he said.

"I would be among the last to shed a tear for Carl Williams," wrote
Assemblyman LeRoy J. Jones Jr. (D., Essex) in a letter to Senate Judiciary
Chairman William Gormley (R., Atlantic), "but I can't help think that he has
become an easy scapegoat in the saga of the more troubling racial profiling
issue."

Inquirer staff writer Thomas Ginsberg contributed to this article.

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

Racial Attitudes In Jersey's State Police (A staff editorial in the New York
Times says New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman did the right thing in
dismissing Col. Carl Williams as superintendent of the state police.
Williams' comments linking minorities with drug trafficking provided new
insight into the possibility that racial profiling may be deeply rooted in
the police agency.)

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 18:09:11 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US NY: Editorial: Racial Attitudes In Jersey's State Police
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: Tue, 2 Mar 1999
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 1999 The New York Times Company
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Forum: http://forums.nytimes.com/comment/

RACIAL ATTITUDES IN JERSEY'S STATE POLICE

New Jersey's Governor, Christine Todd Whitman, did the right thing in
dismissing Col. Carl Williams as superintendent of the state police because
of comments he made in an interview with The Star-Ledger of Newark. Colonel
Williams had asserted that certain crimes were associated with certain
races, and he specifically linked minorities with drug trafficking. His
remarks betrayed pernicious racial stereotyping that cannot be allowed to
guide a police force that must deal fairly with all members of a diverse
society.

Beyond that, the comments provided new insight into the possibility that
racial profiling, or the tendency to stop drivers of certain races and skin
colors as potential lawbreakers, may be deeply rooted in the police agency.
Although Colonel Williams insisted in the Star-Ledger interview that racial
profiling would not be condoned, his comments associating crimes with
particular racial groups sent the opposite message.

Coming from a 35-year veteran who rose through the ranks to lead the
2,700-member force, the remarks suggested that such attitudes may be
endemic.

In appointing a successor to Colonel Williams, Mrs. Whitman needs to find
one who will make a personal commitment to root out all traces of racial
stereotyping in the state police and eliminate all individuals in command
positions who harbor such attitudes.

For years minority communities have complained that New Jersey troopers
target black and Hispanic drivers for unwarranted stops and searches in
trying to make drug arrests.

The charges, though denied by police officials, are the subject of multiple
investigations. A grand jury is looking into an incident in which troopers
fired on four unarmed minority men who were traveling in a van to a
basketball clinic last April, and both the State Attorney General's office
and the Federal Department of Justice's civil rights division are
investigating race-based traffic stops in New Jersey.

In 1996 a Gloucester County judge ruled that state troopers used illegal
profiling along the southern end of the New Jersey Turnpike. Evidence in
that case showed that while 13.5 percent of the motorists on that stretch of
highway were black, 46 percent of those stopped by the police were black.
More recent data collected by The Star-Ledger found that in the first two
months of 1997, fully 75 percent of the motorists arrested on the Turnpike
were minorities. Several former and current troopers have filed lawsuits
charging racial discrimination in the agency and alleging that racial
profiling is encouraged as a way to get arrest numbers up.

Anger at the situation has prompted some minority leaders to criticize
Attorney General Peter Verniero, who has recently been nominated by Governor
Whitman to the State Supreme Court, for failing to act forcefully on the
matter.

Mrs. Whitman can help ease tensions by making sure her next choice for
superintendent takes all steps required to restore public confidence in a
police force whose fair-mindedness is under challenge.

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

Number Of Blacks In Prison Nears 1 Million (A Boston Globe article in the
Seattle Post-Intelligencer says an analysis of Justice Department statistics
by the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, an Arlington,
Virginia, legal reform group, shows the number of black adults behind bars
will hit the 1 million mark - roughly one in 10 black men - for the first
time in 2000. That represents nearly an eightfold increase from 30 years ago.
"We're incarcerating an entire generation of people," said Laurie Levensen,
a former federal prosecutor and associate dean at Loyola Law School in Los
Angeles.)

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 18:09:18 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Number Of Blacks In Prison Nears 1 Million
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John Smith
Pubdate: Tue, 2 Mar 1999
Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA)
Copyright: 1999 Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
Contact: editpage@seattle-pi.com
Website: http://www.seattle-pi.com/
Author: LOUISE D. PALMER, THE BOSTON GLOBE

NUMBER OF BLACKS IN PRISON NEARS 1 MILLION

'We're incarcerating an entire generation of people'

WASHINGTON -- Come the new millennium, the number of African American adults
behind bars will hit the million mark for the first time, according to an
analysis of Justice Department statistics. That represents nearly an
eightfold increase from three decades ago, when there were 133,226 blacks in
prison.

By 2000, roughly one in 10 black men will be in prison -- a statistic with
major social implications because prisoners don't have jobs, pay taxes or
care for their children at home. And because many states bar felons from
voting, at least one in seven black men will have lost the right to vote.

"These numbers are staggering," said Laurie Levensen, a former federal
prosecutor and associate dean of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "We're
incarcerating an entire generation of people."

Why blacks constitute about half of all prison inmates when they are only 13
percent of the U.S. population is subject to much speculation. Some
specialists blame poverty or lack of opportunity. Others say police
concentrate in poor urban areas because street crimes such as drug dealing
and armed robbery are more visible, and residents there demand more police
protection.

The bottom line is that crime policy has become a substitute for public
policy, said Jerome Miller, president of the National Center on Institutions
and Alternatives, an Arlington, Va., legal reform group that analyzed the
Justice Department data.

"Over the past 20 years, there has been a terrible propensity on the part of
politicians to deal with difficult economic, social, family and personal
problems with a meat ax -- the criminal-justice system," said Miller, a
former commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services.

Over the past five decades, the disparity between races has widened
dramatically as minorities have replaced whites in the prison population,
according to the center.

In 1950, whites made up about 65 percent of all state and federal inmates,
while minorities made up 35 percent. Today, the opposite is true, with 35
percent of the prison population made up of whites.

In Washington state, blacks make up 23 percent of the inmate population in
the state Department of Corrections, while constituting just 3.4 percent of
the state population, state officials say.

American Indians make up 3.2 percent of the state prison population while
representing 1.9 percent of the general population. Asians account for 2.4
percent of the state prison population and 5.9 percent of the general
population.

Those of Hispanic origin (who may also be counted among the other
categories) make up about 13 percent of the state prison population and 6
percent of the general population.

"The face of crime to white Americans is now that of a black man," said
David Bositis, senior political analyst at the Center for Political and
Economic Studies, a think tank that specializes in black community issues.

"It means 10 percent of (black men) are not productive," said Massachusetts
state Rep. Byron Rushing, a Boston Democrat. "Not only are their talents not
available for development of the community, but the community spends a large
amount of time dealing with their absence."

"There are so many people in the community going to prison you start to have
the welfare effect, where it becomes acceptable -- a rite of passage -- for
African American men to go to prison," said Hilary Shelton, director of the
Washington bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People.

Another concern is the mass disenfranchisement of African Americans.

According to an October 1998 report by The Sentencing Project, a
Washington-based legal research and services organization, in a dozen
states, 30 percent to 40 percent of the next generation of black men will
permanently lose the right to vote if current trends continue. In nine
states, one in four black men can never vote again because they were
convicted of a felony.

Upon release from prison in Washington state, felons automatically lose the
right to vote. They may petition the state for reinstatement of that right,
according to Veltry Johnson, public information chief for the state
Department of Corrections.

This loss of voting rights nationwide not only highlights the eroding
political power base of blacks, but it also calls into question the notion
of democracy in America, Shelton said.

Some sociologists say the explanation lies in high rates of poverty. African
Americans are more likely to end up with a prison term because they can't
afford a good legal defense team, or a "sentencing consultant" who can help
reduce time spent locked up.

Lack of opportunity plays a role as well, they say, pointing out that the
vast majority of inmates are functionally illiterate, which means they can't
even fill out a job application.

More money for alleviating poverty, however, is not the answer, said Robert
Woodson Sr., president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, a
non-profit group working with low-income black communities. He said the key
is money for programs that reach into the community to help build character
and values.

"The reason young men engage in criminal behavior is not just for money, it
is to make a name for themselves, to have some expression of worth, even if
that expression is self-destructive," he said.

Woodson also said he believed blacks are not discriminated against by the
criminal-justice system. Rather, he said, there is a greater concentration
of police in black communities because the residents there insist on more
policing to deal with street crimes.

Looking at the prison population through the race lense is a flawed project,
agreed Robert Pambianco, chief policy counsel at the Washington Legal
Foundation, a conservative think tank.

"All this talk about race and statistics is a red herring thrown in by
people who want to return to the '60s," said Pambianco. "It is an attempt to
undermine efforts to keep violent offenders in prison."

The question, he said, is whether the individual committed the crime. And if
so, was race a factor in how the individual was convicted or sentenced?

And the answer, some criminologists say, is that often it is. Evidence of
prejudice in the criminal-justice system is overwhelming, they say.

First, criminologists such as William Chambliss, professor of sociology at
George Washington University and past president of the American Society of
Criminologists, point to law enforcement.

Police, he says, admit that they focus their resources on black communities,
particularly when enforcing drug laws and despite studies that show whites
consume more drugs than blacks. "It is much easier to go into a black
community and pop someone selling drugs on the street corner than to go into
a suburb where drug use happens behind closed doors," Levensen said.

Blacks are also more frequently viewed as suspects, pulled over and targeted
by raids, Chambliss said.

A survey of traffic stops in Volusia County, Fla., for instance, showed
nearly 70 percent of those stopped were black or Hispanic, according to
Georgetown University Law Professor David Cole, author of "No Equal
Justice."

"Police look for crimes in the ghetto, and that's where they find them,"
Chambliss said.

Criminologists say sentencing guidelines were imposed in part to rid the
criminal-justice system of sentences that varied dramatically because of
prejudicial factors such as race, gender, individual circumstance or
geography. But African Americans still received sentences an average of six
months longer than whites for committing the same crime, according to a 1998
University of Georgia study.

This report includes information from P-I staff.

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

"Effective National Drug Control Strategy" released (A news release from
Common Sense for Drug Policy, in Virginia, says the Network of Reform Groups,
a coalition of two dozen organizations working for more sensible drug
policies and representing more than 100,000 people, will release a report
tomorrow while the White House drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey, testifies
before a House subcommittee on his year 2000 budget request. The report -
available online - used government data and independent research to show
current policies have failed to protect America's children from drug abuse
and failed to reduce the availability of cocaine and heroin. The report also
suggests a comprehensive alternative strategy.)

From: LawBerger@aol.com
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 13:41:25 EST
To: dpfor@drugsense.org, restore@crrh.org
Subject: DPFOR: Fwd: [NLC] Effective National Drug Control Strategy released
Sender: owner-dpfor@drugsense.org
Reply-To: dpfor@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/

---forwarded message---

Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 09:16:51 +0000
From: kevin zeese (kevzeese@laser.net)
Organization: Common Sense for Drug Policy
To: NORML Legal Committee (nlc@norml.org)
Subject: [NLC] Effective National Drug Control Strategy released
Sender: owner-nlc@norml.org

Clinton Drug Plan Fails to Prevent Adolescent Drug Use or Reduce Disease
or Drug Overdoses, New Report Concludes

Drug Czar To Justify Call for More of the Same Drug War Policies at
March 3 House Committee Hearing

Coalition Urges Reversal in Budget Prioirites $2 out of $3 Should Be
Spent on Prevention and Rehabilitation

Washington, D.C. - The war on drugs has failed to protect America's
children from drug abuse and has failed to reduce the availability of
cocaine and heroin, according to a new report being released on March 3,
1999. It is the first report to suggest a comprehensive alternative
strategy. The report can be viewed on line at: http://www.csdp.org/edcs/.

The report, "The Effective National Drug Control Strategy," is being
released on March 3 when Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey testifies before a
House Subcommittee on his year 2000 budget request.

The "Effective Strategy" is the first comprehensive alternative to the
war on drugs.

The "Effective Strategy" recommends spending two out of every three
dollars of the drug control budget on prevention and rehabilitation. It
also recommends tripling funding for adolescent drug use - with the
emphasis on investing in America's youth through after school programs,
mentor programs and honest drug education.

"Contrary to General McCaffrey's claims, the drug war still relies
overwhelmingly on incarcerating drug users and trying to interdict drugs
- the two least effective methods of reducing drug abuse," said Kevin
Zeese, President of Common Sense for Drug Policy and one of the report's
lead authors. "We know what works, but General McCaffrey keeps investing
in strategies that are destroying families, hurting kids and undermining
the Constitution."

The Network of Reform Groups (NRG) - a coalition of two dozen
organizations working for more sensible drug policies, who collectively
represent over 100,000 people - examined government data and independent
research, concluded that the drug war has not deterred children from
using illegal drugs, nor has it resulted in fewer deaths and injuries
from drug use.

The report found that:

* The U.S. government spent $3.6 billion on the drug war in 1988, and
will spend $17.9 billion in 1999 - $2 out of $3 are spent on law
enforcement.

* From 1985 to 1995, 85 percent of the increase in the federal prison
population was due to drug convictions. Due to mandatory sentencing
drug offenders spend more time in jail (82.2 months) than rapists (73.3
months).

* Drug overdose deaths are up 540 percent since 1980, 33 people per day
are infected with HIV from injection drug use and it is becoming the
engine for a new epidemice -- Hepatitis C.

* The price of heroin and cocaine has dropped since 1981, while purity
of both drugs has increased.

The report recommends that the Drug Czar:

* Create a non-partisan panel of experts to evaluate current drug
control efforts. All options from legalization to prohibition should be
considered.

* Provide funding for drug treatment on request and require coverage of
drug treatment by health insurance.

* Increase funding for drug abuse prevention and redirect DARE funding
into more effective programs.

* Increase drug treatment services for women.

* End the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine as well
as racially disproportionate law enforcement.

* Allow judges to sentence drug offenders by eliminating "mandatory
minimum" drug sentences.

* Provide federal funding for needle exchange programs.

* Reverse the trend toward cutting school budgets to invest in prisons.

* Enact "family friendly" laws that keep families together, kids in
school and social networks intact.

***

This is the NORML Legal Committee Mailing List. To unsubscribe,
send email to nlc-request@norml.org with only the word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the message body.

A password protected archive of this list can be read on the web at:
http://norml.org/cgi-bin/nlc/lwgate/NORML%20LEGAL%20COMMITTEE/archives/

For password information, please contact Tanya Kangas at
NORMLATTY@NORML.ORG or call 202.483.8751

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

U.S. Congressmen Want Mexico Blacklisted For Drugs (Reuters says a group of
Republican congressmen introduced a resolution Tuesday to overturn President
Clinton's decision last Friday to certify Mexico as a fully cooperating ally
in the United States' war on some drug users. But Republican Sen. Paul
Coverdell of Georgia said he did not think decertification of Mexico would
pass in the Senate.)

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 20:45:11 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Wire: U.S. Congressmen Want Mexico Blacklisted For Drugs
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: General Pulaski
Pubdate: 2 Mar 1999
Source: Reuters
Copyright: 1999 Reuters Limited.

U.S. congressmen want Mexico blacklisted for drugs

WASHINGTON, March 2 (Reuters) - A group of Republican congressmen vowed on
Tuesday to blacklist Mexico for what they said was a failure to crack down
on drug traffickers.

The congressmen introduced a resolution to overturn President Bill
Clinton's decision last Friday to approve Mexico for fully cooperating in
the war on drugs in the annual drug certification process.

"President Clinton knows that to certify Mexico is a fraud," said
Representative Spencer Bachus of Alabama, author of the resolution. "Mexico
is not cooperating. In fact, they are resisting cooperation."

Republicans want to keep the controversial annual evaluation of other
countries involved in the drug trade, but approving Mexico made a "mockery"
of it, he said.

Bachus said U.S. anti-narcotics officials were unhappy with Mexico's
efforts due to what he said was widespread corruption and because
government statistics show a drop in Mexican seizure of cocaine and heroin
last year.

Refusal to extradite a single Mexican drug trafficker wanted by the United
States was reason enough to blacklist Mexico, Bachus said.

Congress has 30 days to accept or reject the White House's decisions on
drug certifications of 28 countries involved in narcotics producing or
trafficking.

Republican Sen. Paul Coverdell of Georgia said he did not think
"decertification" of Mexico would pass in the Senate.

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

Drug War Pretenses (A staff editorial in the Orange County Register about the
annual battle over certifying Mexico as an ally in the drug war says the
president will pretend that Mexico is cooperating. The Mexican government
will go along with the pretense. But the annual pretense is only a small part
of a larger, ongoing game of pretense and denial. The government pretends
that the drug war is a good idea. It pretends that dealing with drug use as a
law-enforcement problem rather than a personal or medical problem doesn't
make every aspect of drug use worse rather than better. Until citizens are
ready to deal with the larger game of "Let's Pretend," the annual pretense
over certifying Mexico will continue.)

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 17:27:21 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Drug War Pretenses
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John W. Black
Pubdate: 2 March,1999
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Copyright: 1999 The Orange County Register
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Section: Metro,page 6

DRUG WAR PRETENSES

President Clinton announced on Friday that he will participate in the
annual game of "Let's Pretend." The president will pretend that Mexico
is a cooperating partner in the War on Drugs, the United States will
continue to send Mexico aid that it and the Mexican government will
pretend will help to win the war, and citizens will pretend that it
all is helping the cause.

In 1986 Congress passed a law requiring the U.S. government to certify
each year that drug-producing and trafficking countries are
cooperating in the war. But in reality, in Mexico, especially since
the passage of NAFTA, the economic and diplomatic stakes are too high
for decertification, which could carry trade penalties.

Thus this annual ritual is a nothing short of an empty
exercise.

By most measures, the year has been a lackluster one for Mexican drug
warriors - despite a reported expenditure of $770 million by the
Mexican government.

Drug Enforcement Administrator Thomas Constantine says Mexico is
losing the drug war and claims Mexican drug traffickers have increased
their penetration into the United States. U.S. agents say Mexico has
done little or nothing to combat corruption, even among elite units
trained by U.S. drug agents and the CIA. Charges against a couple of
alleged methamphetamine kingpins were dismissed and the Mexican
government refused to extradite suspects nabbed by a U.S.Customs operation.

Seizures and arrests were down.

But the annual pretense of certification is only a small part of a
larger ongoing game of pretense and denial.

The government pretends that the drug war is a good idea. It pretends
that dealing with drug use as a law-enforcement problem rather than a
personal or medical problem doesn't make every aspect of drug use
worse rather than better.

It pretends that the end result of the war is something other than the
enrichment of brutal traffickers, the expansion of corruption, the
diversion of law enforcement resources from real crime, the creation
of crime that wouldn't have occurred otherwise, the death of innocents
and the imprisonment of people who should be in some kind of treatment
for an addiction instead.

Until citizens are ready to deal with this larger game of "Let's
Pretend," the annual pretense will continue.

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

[End]