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

Making A Hash Of The Law (A staff editorial in the Bend, Oregon, Bulletin
says the newspaper still thinks voters erred last November in approving the
Oregon Medical Marijuana Act. But the attempt by state representative Kevin
Mannix to gut the law by introducing HB 3052 with the support of the Oregon
Association of Chiefs of Police is a terrible idea too. His objections may be
valid, but the decision of voters to ignore them last fall clearly indicates
that Measure 67 reflects their will. Mannix should respect it. Subverting it
will merely encourge future petitioners to forsake statutory initiatives and
play around with the Constitution instead.)

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 04:00:02 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US OR: Editorial: Making A Hash Of The Law
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Curt Wagoner
Pubdate: March 11th, 1999
Source: Bulletin, The (OR)
Contact: bulletin@bendbulletin.com
Website: http://www.bendbulletin.com/
Section: Editorial
Page: A-6

MAKING A HASH OF THE LAW

Just so nobody gets the wrong idea, we thought Measure 67 - the
medical marijuana initiative - was a terrible idea before it passed at
the polls last November, and we haven't changed our opinion since.

That said, we think Rep. Kevin Mannix's attempt to prune the law is a
terrible idea too. His objections may be perfectly valid, but the
decision of voters to ignore them last fall clearly indicate that the
existing law reflects their will. Mannix should respect it.

Mannix's two most significant "fixes" involve the role of law
enforcement, which is appropriate given that the bill, HB 3052,
originated with the Oregon Chiefs of Police.

The first change would jetison the so called "affirmative defense"
available to people who either possess marijuana without the proper
authorization or possess more marijuana than the law allows.

Under the current law, such people could simply claim that they need
pot for medical reasons, and the state would have to prove them wrong.
Mannix would shift the burden of proof to the pot user.

The affirmative action defense makes prosecution for pot possession
absurdly difficult, as opponents of Measure 67 made abundantly clear
last fall. Oregonians ignored this objection, however, just as they
ignored the one responsible for Mannix's second fix.

If police seize marijuana plants from any registered pot user or any
other pot user who claims medical need, Measure 67 requires that the
plants be kept alive until the court determines quilt or innocence.

Mannix's bill would remove this requirement and, further, allow the
police to keep the pot. We agree that the prospect of turning police
departments into de facto marijuana farms isn't a pleasant one, but,
again, it is something to which Oregonians implicitly agreed when they
passed Measure 67.

If, as is likely, the difficulty of prosecution drastically reduces
the number of marijuana arrests in the state, that's too bad, but it's
the will of the electorate. Subverting it may win Mannix some points
with the Oregon Chiefs of Police, but will merely encourge future
petitioners to forsake statutory initiatives and play around with the
Constitution instead.

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

Schoolrooms feel the squeeze (The Oregonian, which, like Oregon legislators,
would rather bankrupt public education than end the war on some drug users,
says Oregon lawmakers Wednesday held their first hearing this session on
reducing large classes in crowded schools. Supposedly nobody knows where more
money for schools can be found.)

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/

Thursday March 11, 1999

Schoolrooms feel the squeeze

* Parents threaten another initiative if Oregon legislators don't act to
shrink teacher-pupil ratios, but finding the money is the challenge

By Steven Carter
and Holly Sanders
of The Oregonian staff

SALEM -- Smaller classes: Everybody is for them, but how do you pay for them?

Faced with the fourth-worst class sizes in the nation, Oregon lawmakers
Wednesday held their first hearing this session on an issue dear to parents
-- easing large classes in crowded schools.

Virtually every witness said smaller class sizes would help discipline
problems and give students a better educational experience. But finding
enough money to reduce class sizes across the state points to the downside
of the goal: Reducing class sizes is among the most costly ways to improve
student achievement.

More than 25 states are considering initiatives to reduce class size.
California has spent $1.5 billion to cap class sizes at 20 children in the
primary grades. Texas has limited class sizes in kindergarten through fourth
grades. And Virginia is considering similar legislation for struggling students.

In Oregon, proposals abound, including the threat of an initiative.

Rep. Randall Edwards, D-Portland, and Sen. Randy Miller, R-Lake Oswego,
appeared before the state Senate Education Committee on Wednesday to support
their measure, which would require school districts to have class sizes of
20 students in kindergarten through third grade, and 25 students in grades
four through six.

Edwards warned that if the Legislature didn't address the issue, parents
will reactivate an initiative that forces the state to reduce class sizes.
Initiative organizers quit their effort last year and turned to the
Legislature for action after their petition was challenged by the Oregon
Public Employees Union, which was concerned about the initiative's costs.

Tight school budgets in the 1990s have produced class sizes of 25 or 26 in
many elementary schools, and 35 or more in many high schools.

"On a personal level, I have seen (elementary) classes in my school district
with 28 kids in one classroom," Edwards said. "It's a struggle to maintain
some semblance of order."

Edwards and Miller said reducing class size isn't a "silver bullet" that by
itself will boost student achievement, but it should help. But Senate Bill
447 contains no order that school districts reduce class size to 20 to one,
nor does it appropriate the money to do it.

"Stating that you should reduce class size is a wonderful goal, but without
the money to pay for it, it remains that -- just a wonderful goal," said
George Mardikes, a Portland lawyer and part of the group that mounted the
class size initiative last year.

Miller said the bill was purposely drafted as a target so that districts
wouldn't be forced to cut other programs to reduce class sizes. And, Edwards
said he is supporting a general state school budget of $5.1 billion, which
should be large enough for many districts to reduce class size.

Many state leaders like the idea of reducing class sizes.

Gov. John Kitzhaber has provided $100 million in his school budget for
school improvement programs, one of which is class size reduction in early
grades. A school improvement model issued last week by Rep. Lynn Lundquist,
R-Powell Butte, advocated reducing class size in elementary schools to 20 to
one, and 29 to one in academic classes in high school.

And Stan Bunn, the new state superintendent of schools, has a plan to add
between 600 and 900 new teachers in Oregon to reduce class size. He would
use $11.6 million the state will get from the federal government, plus some
state funds that school districts could apply for if they used some of their
own money to reduce class sizes.

More and more evidence points to small classes in the early grades boosting
student achievement.

In the largest study yet, Tennessee commissioned experts to study varying
classroom sizes. Testing showed that, particularly in the primary grades,
students in small classes -- those with fewer than 20 students -- raised
their scores by about 10 percentage points by the end of the year.

Sam Stringfield, an education researcher at Johns Hopkins University, said
most studies show smaller classes help students, especially low-income and
minority ones.

But Stringfield said it would cost the state millions to reduce the average
class size by just one student -- not enough to make a real difference.

"Every parent would like their kid in a smaller class and every teacher
would like to provide more one-on-one attention," he said. "But is this the
way to get the biggest bang for your buck?"

Stringfield said more cost-effective ways of boosting student scores include
better teacher training and research-based curriculum.

Portland's Lynch Wood Elementary School has tried different tacks to reduce
class size. The Centennial School District shifted the school's boundaries
about six years ago. That helped class sizes until urban growth pushed up
the population again. Then, voters rejected a bond to build another
elementary school.

Principal Ellen Seawell said most classrooms have more than 25 students,
which led the school to put a cap on the number of children at each grade level.

"We definitely need more teachers," said Seawell. "But even if we had them,
we don't have the building space."

The situation is more frustrating for teachers, who say crowding shifts the
focus in schools. Teachers say large classes make it even harder to help
children with special needs, such as those with disabilities or limited
English proficiency.

"The more students come in, the more I deal with management and social
problems rather than academics," said sixth-grade teacher Andrea Meinig.

Hallmark, a leader of the class size reduction initiative, told the
Education Commiftee Wednesday his group would reactivate their drive if the
Legislature doesn't deal with class size this session.

"I'm still hopeful we can get some kind of plan out of the Legislature,"
Hallmark said. "But if we don't, we will file a new petition."

You can reach Steven Carter at 503-221-&521 or by e-mail at
stevencarter@news.oregonian.com.

You can reach Holly Sanders at 503-294-4065 or by e-mail at
hollysanders@news.oregonian.com.

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

Police seek way to halt traffic stop race bias (According to the Oregonian,
Oregon State Police Superintendent LeRon Howland and Portland Police Chief
Charles Moose say that documenting traffic stops would help determine how
frequently minorities are stopped for no other reason than the color of their
skin. But don't expect that to happen in Oregon anytime soon.
Characteristically, the newspaper doesn't even mention it's the drug war that
leads to such profiling.)

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/

Police seek way to halt traffic stop race bias

* Portland's police chief and the Oregon State Police superintendent say
record-keeping could defuse minority fears of discrimination

Thursday March 11, 1999

By Gwenda Richards Oshiro
of The Oregonian staff

Two of Oregon's top law enforcement officers say that documenting traffic
stops would help determine how frequently minorities are stopped for no
other reason than the color of their skin.

But how best to document is at the heart of state and national debates over
the most effective way to gauge "race-based" policing.

Despite the uncertainty, Oregon police want to address minorities'
perceptions that they are treated unfairly, say Oregon State Police
Superintendent LeRon Howland and Portland Police Chief Charles Moose.

"At least we're not in denial," Moose said of the issue. "We all agree
there's a problem because, real or perceived, it's a problem."

Howland added: "Without the data, I don't know how big it is. But I think it
is real. What I . . . have to do is recognize the problem exists and that we
have to do something about it."

Their comments follow a report to the state Legislature last week that
showed minorities continue to perceive bias in traffic stops. And Congress
is about to take up a bill that would mandate documentation of traffic stops
nationwide.

The comments also coincide with the firing last week of New Jersey's state
police superintendent after he said certain minority groups were more
responsible for some kinds of drug trafficking than others. Critics say his
comments are classic examples of race-based "police profiling." .

Complaints of bias have led to lawsuits, including one by a Harvard-educated
African-American lawyer stopped and detained in 1992 by Maryland State
Police as he and his relatives drove home from a funeral. The state settled
the suit and agreed to document traffic stops. The data showed that a
disproportionate number -- 75 percent at one point -- were African Americans.

In a report delivered to the Oregon Legislature last week, a survey showed
that minorities' perception of police fairness had improved slightly since a
1997 law went into effect giving police broader powers to stop and search
motorists. But the report also found that African Americans and Latinos were
more likely than whites to think police are unfair.

On a scale of zero to 10, with 10 being routinely unfair, 175 African
Americans surveyed in Multnomah County gave police an average 7.2 rating on
the issue of race, color or national origin, compared with the 4.7 average
rating from 200 whites surveyed. The 175 Latinos surveyed around the state
gave police an average 5.4 rating compared with the 4.0 rating by 200 whites.

Spencer "Mike" Neal, a Portland attorney who for 16 years has made police
misconduct cases a cornerstone of his practice, said as a Filipino American,
he has endured such stops. He gets calls almost daily complaining about
police treatment, he says.

"The problem for my clients is who are their witnesses?" he says. "They're
typically alone against the police."

Police departments vigorously deny their officers practice profiling. But it
is difficult to know without data, police say.

Howland and Moose worked with nearly 60 other law enforcement officials,
civil rights and civil liberties advocates to monitor the effect of Oregon's
new law. The monitoring group struggled to develop ways to document all
traffic stops, not just the roughly 1 million each year that result in
citations. So far, the group has not come up with a method that would not
bury police in paperwork.

The group has recommended the Legislature approve roughly $179,000 to
compile some data from officers, conduct training and continue efforts to
monitor complaints.

Moose and Howland say that Oregon is ahead of other states because police
and minority groups are talking together about the problem, and because, as
required by the 1997 law, every police department has adopted a policy
against targeting persons based on race.

U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., expects to introduce soon a bill that would
mandate documentation of every stop, said Cynthia Martin, Conyers'
legislative counsel. A similar bill passed the House last session, but
failed in the Senate.

Moose said he hopes to learn from San Diego's intention to document all
traffic stops because police leaders fear that the perception that police
unfairly stop minorities erodes public trust.

Liz Cruthers, president of Oregon Council of Police Associations, said
documenting each stop would be a monumental task, but that it could be useful.

"Officers are frustrated that people view them as racist," she said, "when
in fact, I've never met one who is."

She instead thinks the problem is one of miscommunication between police and
citizens, and that the solution rests in community policing.

Others concur that simply compiling data won't solve the problem.

Howland and Moose emphasize that training officers and teaching citizens
about their rights are key, along with ensuring officers deal respectfully
with those they stop.

Howland also is intrigued by the idea of mandating video cameras in patrol
cars. He estimates 40 to 50 of the 400 troopers use video cameras, largely
for drunken driving stops.

Robert Stewart, executive director of the National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement Executives based in Alexandria, Va., praised efforts in Prince
Georges, Md., near Washington, D.C., where complaints against police have
declined as police stops have gone up.

That department has an early warning system. If an officer gets several
complaints over a short period, his supervisor calls him in to discuss them,
Stewart said. The department also has started to advertise more broadly how
citizens can file complaints.

Moose, who as an African American has experienced such stops in the South
and in Oregon, said police departments have lost enough lawsuits and endured
enough community wrath for this to be a priority. "We want people to wave at
us with all five fingers," Moose said.

But he also notes that problems that spring from race are larger than law
enforcement.

"Police should be given credit for being willing to discuss this issue," he
said. "That's more than what is being done in some businesses."

Researcher Kathleen Blythe of The Oregonian contributed to this report.

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

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

May 1st Marijuana Rally in San Francisco (A bulletin from California NORML
publicizes the Million Marijuana March, co-sponsored by the Drug Peace
Campaign and California NORML as part of a coordinated worldwide effort to
promote reform.)

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 08:53:53 -0800
To: dpfca@drugsense.org
From: canorml@igc.apc.org (Dale Gieringer)
Subject: May 1st MJ Rally in S.F.

March for Marijuana!: Join the Million (or at least Myriad) Marijuana
March in SF on May Day

May Day is Jay Day! The Drug Peace Campaign and Cal NORML are pleased to
announce their co-sponsorship of the Million Marijuana March in San Francisco
on May 1st as part of a worldwide coordinated demonstration of support for
the rights of millions of marijuana users.

The SF event will take place at Civic Center Plaza from high noon until the
Pot Pride Parade begins at 4:20 pm. It will feature speakers, entertainment,
a dance party, a drum circle, exhibits, information booths, a Pot
Sing-a-thon, a Free Speech Platform and fun for all!

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

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

The Drug War: Suppression Tactics Will Never Work (An op-ed in the Arizona
Daily Star by Rodney S. Quinn, the former Maine secretary of state and a
retired Air Force officer, notes Thomas Constantine, the head of the Drug
Enforcement Administration, blames the failure of the war on some drug users
on a public that is unwilling and unable to fight the war. It seems more
likely the public is willing to fight, but dissatisfied with current tactics.
From the beginning, official exaggerations and manipulation of statistics
have guided the drug war, elevating "drugs" in the public consciousness from
a behavioral and psychological concern to a major national depravity. These
essentially natural products that have been with us for history have suddenly
become evil incarnate - the 20th century snake in the American Garden of
Eden. The war on drugs is simply not winnable as long as we insist on using
the tactics of suppression. The true measure of drug availability is cost.
For the past 20 years, the street price of drugs, in constant dollars, has
hardly kept up with inflation.)

Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 15:01:39 +0000
To: vignes@monaco.mc
From: Peter Webster (vignes@monaco.mc)
Subject: [] The Drug War: Suppression Tactics Will Never Work
Pubdate: Thursday, 11 March 1999
Source: Arizona Daily Star (AZ)
Contact: letters@azstarnet.com
Website: http://www.azstarnet.com/
Author: Rodney S. Quinn

THE DRUG WAR: SUPPRESSION TACTICS WILL NEVER WORK

(Rod Quinn, who lives in Green Valley, was the Secretary of State of
Maine for five terms and is a retired Air Force officer.)

Drug Enforcement Administration chief Thomas Constantine blames the
failure of our drug war on the public; he said the public is unwilling
and unable to fight the war.

Maybe. It seems more likely the public is willing to fight a war, but
dissatisfied with the present tactics. The drug war as presently
conducted, it turns out, may be a grand mistake.

From the very beginning, official exaggerations hold an honored place
in the government mendacity hall-of-fame. During the Nixon
administration when the program first needed a worthwhile enemy, the
Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs decided that for every
known addict there were four unknown and, a year later, seven unknown,
causing the ``official'' number of addicts to rise from 68,088 to
559,000 in only two years.

Along with the manipulation of statistics, the drug war has waged a
vigorous campaign to elevate drugs in the public consciousness from a
behavioral and psychological concern to a major national depravity.
These essentially natural products that have been with us for history
have suddenly become evil incarnate - the 20th century snake in the
American Garden of Eden. There is reason to believe much of the purple
prose about the horrors of drugs may be as suspect as the bureaucratic
guesstimates of addict numbers.

Alcohol, too, is a drug. But we've managed to live with it. Marijuana
(Asian hemp, kief) has been in worldwide recreational and agricultural
use for thousands of years. Poppy derivatives have been used to ease
human suffering for the same millennia.

As recently as this century, morphine (or its siblings) was a key
ingredient of many patent medicines that provided a few relaxed
moments in the day of overloaded farm wives and lonely widows.
Laudanum (morphine) was the only commonly available anesthetic for
Civil War medicine. By the end of 19th century, it was in broad use
but declined as the old soldiers died off.

Cocaine, the addiction of Sherlock Holmes and many early soda pop
drinkers in Georgia, has been in recreation use for centuries. The
cocoa leaf, from which cocaine is processed, is legal in many South
American countries, especially at high altitudes, where it makes life
more bearable and workers more efficient. Here in the United States,
the overwhelming majority of cocaine use is by well-educated,
financially secure professionals.

Many drugs have valuable medicinal qualities. Heroin possesses unique
pain-killing properties with few side effects and is prescribed for
the terminally ill in most civilized countries. Known in England as a
Brompton cocktail, it is widely used to ease the final hours of
terminal cancer patients.

Marijuana is believed by a growing number of responsible scientists to
reduce or ameliorate side effects from cancer chemotherapy, as well as
from some glaucoma symptoms.

All that aside, however, the basic failure of the war on drugs is, it
is simply not winnable as long as we insist on using the tactics of
suppression. According to the director of the Office of Drug Abuse and
Law Enforcement, the entire U.S. market for heroin could be provided
from crops grown in 10 square miles of poppy farming and two 10-ton
trucks can carry enough of the product to supply the U.S. market for
one year. So much for programs that pay foreign countries not to produce.

The physical parameters of drug entry into this country mean even the
fabulously rich United States cannot eliminate drugs by force and
interception any more than British muskets arranged in close-order
drill were able to defeat frontiersmen shooting from undercover with
squirrel rifles.

Entering the United States each year are more than 100 million cars,
300 million people, 500,000 airplanes and 200,000 ships (each of
which, Customs officials estimate, has more than 30,000 potential
hiding places).

The Associated Press quoted Francis X. Kinney, Director of Strategic
Planning for the Office of National Drug Control Policy; ``Our current
interdiction efforts almost completely fail to achieve our purpose of
reducing the flow of cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines across the
border.''

But we hardly need to consult Kinney. The true measure of drug
availability is cost. For the past 20 years, the street price of
drugs, in constant dollars, has hardly kept up with inflation. Beyond
the obvious inadequacies of the drug war strategy is the damage being
done our society.

In one year, from 1997 to 1998, prosecution for drug offenses in
federal courts increased 19.2 percent, one quarter of all criminal
cases. The drug war is a lawyer's dream of a growth industry.

We are not, nor are we likely to be, even close to winning the war,
and the costs in human misery and taxes are escalating at a rate that
is fast becoming unsustainable.

In the 1920s, we thought the problems associated with alcohol could be
solved by police and jails. Prohibition taught us we were wrong. The
strategy of the present drug war is Prohibition redux.

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

Judge Wants Pot Explanation (The Philadelphia Daily News says U.S. District
Judge Marvin Katz ruled yesterday that the federal government must explain
why it provides marijuana to some sick people for medicinal reasons, but not
to others. The Compassionate Investigational New Drug program stopped taking
new applicants in 1992 and only about eight people continue to participate.
Katz's ruling stems from the class action lawsuit for medical marijuana filed
on behalf of 170 plaintiffs by Philadelphia public interest attorney Lawrence
Elliott Hirsch.)

From: owner-mapnews-digest@mapinc.org (Mapnews-Digest)
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Pubdate: 11 March 1999
Source: Philadelphia Daily News (PA)
Copyright: 1999 Philadelphia Newspapers Inc.
Contact: Dailynews.opinion@phillynews.com
Website: http://www.phillynews.com/
Forum: http://interactive.phillynews.com/talk-show/
Note: Excerpted from NewsBites
Correction: This was originally posted as being from the Philidelphia
Inquirer. Both newspapers have the same owner and website, so the error in
identifying the proper newspaper is understandable. Sorry for the confusion.

JUDGE WANTS POT EXPLANATION

The federal government must explain why marijuana can be given to some
sick people for medicinal reasons, but not to others, a federal judge
in Philadelphia ruled yesterday.

U.S. District Judge Marvin Katz upheld the constitutionality of
federal laws that criminalize the use, possession or distribution of
drugs.

But the judge said he needs "a factual record" so he can determine
whether the government may exclude people with various illnesses from
a so-called "compassionate use program" when others are still getting
marijuana through this program.

The medicinal marijuana program stopped taking new applicants in 1992
and only about eight people continue to participate.

The government says it concluded the program was "bad public policy"
since there was no proof that marijuana was safe or effective in
treating various diseases.

Katz's ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by 170 named plaintiffs who
purportedly hope to decriminalize marijuana use for everyone, sick or
not.

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

U.S. Judge Will Allow Pot Lawsuit (A second account in the Philadelphia
Inquirer says U.S. District Judge Marvin Katz refused yesterday to dismiss a
class-action medical-marijuana lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiffs deserved
the chance to prove the government had no reason to deny the drug to
seriously ill people. The victory for Philadelphia attorney Lawrence Elliott
Hirsch keeps alive the lawsuit that many legal experts assumed had no chance
of success when it was filed in July.)

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 03:45:43 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US PA: MMJ: U.S. Judge Will Allow Pot Lawsuit
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Pubdate: 11 March 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: Joseph A. Slobodzian, Inquirer Staff Writer

U.S. JUDGE WILL ALLOW POT LAWSUIT

Plaintiffs Seeking To Legalize The Drug For Medical Use Will Get Their
Day In Court

A federal judge yesterday refused to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to
legalize the medical use of marijuana, ruling that the plaintiffs
deserved the chance to prove the government had no reason to deny the
drug to seriously ill people.

"The answer must come from facts, not the abstractions and dogma
presently in the record," wrote U.S. District Judge Marvin Katz in a
25-page opinion and order.

Katz's ruling keeps alive a class-action lawsuit that many legal
experts assumed had no chance of success when it was filed in July.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Steel said lawyers had not had the
chance to review Katz's ruling and could not comment. "Our basic
position is that marijuana remains an illegal drug," Steel said.

Lawrence Elliott Hirsch, the Center City lawyer who filed the suit on
behalf of 165 people nationwide, praised the opinion as a "tremendous
job of analysis. . . . Whatever the ultimate outcome, the judge has
done an excellent job of framing the issues." Some medical researchers
have said marijuana seems to help in treating glaucoma and combating
the nausea caused by drugs used in treating cancer and AIDS. Although
a synthetic form of a key compound of marijuana has been marketed as
the prescription drug Marinol, the lawsuit contends it is not as
effective as smoking the herb itself.

In some ways, Katz handed victories to both sides. He denied Hirsch's
motion for a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and granted the
government's motion to dismiss Hirsch's most novel claim -- that,
unlike the 18th Amendment's ill-fated ban on alcohol except for
medicinal use, Congress prohibited marijuana improperly in the
Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

Katz wrote that numerous federal courts have upheld the 1970
law.

But the judge said it was premature to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim
that they were being denied equal protection of the law.

Despite the prohibition of marijuana, the lawsuit contends, the
government in 1978 settled a federal lawsuit by implementing a limited
"compassionate use" program in which as many as 300 government-grown
marijuana cigarettes a month were provided to people found to have
serious medical conditions that benefited from marijuana use. About
half of the 14 people admitted into the program -- it was closed to
new participants in 1992 -- still receive the drug.

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

Judge declines to dismiss medical marijuana lawsuit (A slightly longer
version of the Philadelphia Inquirer article, apparently from a different
edition)

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:53:07 -0600
From: "Frank S. World" (compassion23@geocities.com)
Organization: Rx Cannabis Now!
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7417/
To: DRCNet Medical Marijuana Forum (medmj@drcnet.org)
Subject: US PA: Judge declines to dismiss medical marijuana lawsuit
Sender: owner-medmj@drcnet.org
Source: The Philadelphia Inquirer
Contact: Inquirer.opinion@phillynews.com
Website: http://www.phillynews.com/
Pubdate: 11 March, 1999

JUDGE DECLINES TO DISMISS MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWSUIT

Plaintiffs seeking to legalize the drug for medicinal use will get their day
in federal court.

By Joseph A. Slobodzian INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

A federal judge yesterday refused to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to
legalize the medical use of marijuana, ruling that the plaintiffs deserved
the chance to prove the government had no reason to deny the drug to
seriously ill people.

"The answer must come from facts, not the abstractions and dogma presently
in the record," wrote U.S. District Judge Marvin Katz in a 25-page opinion
and order.

Katz's ruling keeps alive a class-action lawsuit that many legal experts
assumed had no chance of success when it was filed in July.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Steel said lawyers had not had the chance
to review Katz's ruling and could not comment. "Our basic position is that
marijuana remains an illegal drug," Steel said.

Lawrence Elliott Hirsch, the Center City lawyer who filed the suit on behalf
of 165 people nationwide, praised the opinion as a "tremendous job of
analysis. . . . Whatever the ultimate outcome, the judge has done an
excellent job of framing the issues." Some medical researchers have said
marijuana seems to help in treating glaucoma and combating the nausea caused
by drugs used in treating cancer and AIDS. Although a synthetic form of a
key compound of marijuana has been marketed as the prescription drug
Marinol, the lawsuit contends it is not as effective as smoking the herb
itself.

In some ways, Katz handed victories to both sides. He denied Hirsch's motion
for a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and granted the government's
motion to dismiss Hirsch's most novel claim -- that, unlike the 18th
Amendment's ill-fated ban on alcohol except for medicinal use, Congress
prohibited marijuana improperly in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

Katz wrote that numerous federal courts have upheld the 1970 law.

But the judge said it was premature to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim that
they were being denied equal protection of the law.

Despite the longstanding prohibition of marijuana, the lawsuit contends, the
government in 1978 settled a federal lawsuit by implementing a limited
"compassionate use" program in which as many as 300 government-grown
marijuana cigarettes a month were provided to people found to have serious
medical conditions that benefited from marijuana use.

About half of the 14 people admitted into the program -- it was closed to
new participants in 1992 -- still receive the drug. "The court cannot say,"
Katz wrote, "that the government's decision to give marijuana to several
people who are ill and the government's refusal to give it to the plaintiffs
who are also ill is rational as a matter of law when plaintiffs have not had
the opportunity to try to prove otherwise."

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

Breaking News: Judge rules against government in medical marijuana class
action suit (A list subscriber posts a URL where Judge Katz's decision is
located, and summarizes key elements of his decision.)

From: "Peter McWilliams" (peter@mcwilliams.com)
Subject: DPFCA: Breaking News: Judge rules against government in medical
marijuana class action suit
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 05:30:07 -0800
Sender: owner-dpfca@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/

To all recipients: the full text of the opinion will be available on the
http://www.fairlaw.org Website within 24 hours.

The Heart Of The Judicial Opinion

(From Section II, p. 4):

"It is premature to dismiss the plaintiffs' equal protection claims regarding
access to the compassionate use program by which marijuana is distributed to
select individuals, and the motion to dismiss will be denied as to that
allegation."

(From pp. 18-20):

"A different conclusion must be reached, however, with respect to plaintiffs'
claims regarding the compassionate use program. Here, the classification
being challenged is apparent: plaintiffs argue that it is a violation of equal
protection for the government to make an exception to its criminal laws for
one group of individuals but not for another group of individuals that is
similarly situated. As was described previously, thereof the plaintiffs were
approved for admission to that program but then denied marijuana. Other
plaintiffs have been denied the ability to apply for the program.(13). The
government's motion defends the decision to refuse to accept any new
applicants by stating both that no useful scientific results as to the
efficacy and safety of marijuana to treat such illnesses came from that
program and that it was "bad public policy and bad medical practice." See
Mot. to Dismiss at 12.

While, when defending government actions under a rational review standard, the
government has no burden to present evidence supporting its decision, see,
e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1993), it is not clear that there
is no set of facts that could be proven under which the plaintiffs would
prevail. Notwithstanding the government's inclusion of attachments that
purport to explain some of the operative facts regarding the compassionate use
program(14), without development of a factual record, the court cannot say
that the government's decision to give marijuana to several people who are ill
and the government's refusal to give it to the plaintiffs who are also ill is
rational as a matter of law when plaintiffs have not had the opportunity to
try to prove otherwise. Nor can the court say that the government's claimed
failure to derive any useful scientific data from the program is a rational
reason as a matter of law to exclude the plaintiffs from the program when the
plaintiffs have not yet had the opportunity to challenge the basis for the
government decision. That is, while actions such as those taken in the
present case bear a strong presumption of validity, and those attacking the
classification have burden "to negative every conceivable basis which might
support it," Beach Comm., Inc., 508 U.S. at 317 (citations omitted), the
plaintiffs must at least be given the opportunity to make that challenge. The
rational basis standard sets a very low threshold for governmental action, but
it is not a rubber stamp that should automatically approve every government
decision. See e.g., Schumacher v. Nix, 965 F.2d 1262, 1269 (3d Cir. 1992).
Therefore, the court will deny the motion to dismiss only as to the equal
protection challenges to the compassionate use program and allow limited
discovery to permit plaintiffs to attempt to show that the decision was
irrational under every conceivable justification.

Footnotes:

13. For purposes of this motion, the court will not address the question of
whether proper analysis compares the present recipients in the compassionate
use program with all individuals who wish to receive medical marijuana or with
only those individuals who were accepted into the program but then denied
marijuana.

14. There were two attachments to the motion. The first documents the
withdrawal of plaintiff Robert Randall's motion for a TRO or a preliminary
injunction in his case against the United States. That order states that "Mr.
Randall, therefore, is no longer subject to the threat of irreparable injury
to his vision caused by the unavailability of marijuana which formed the
factual basis for his request for temporary relief." Notice of Withdrawal,
Mot. to Dismiss, Ex A. at 1. The second attachment is a letter from Philip
Lee, the Assistant Secretary of Health, written to Representative Dan Hamburg.
In this letter, Mr. Lee explains to the representative why the FDA will not
reopen the "Food And Drug Administration's single patient investigational new
drug program for therapeutic marijuana." Id. at Ex. B. at 1. The letter
includes various fact sheets explaining the problems with medical marijuana.

15. The government called two cases to the court's attention during the oral
argument on the motion. The court notes that the case in the D.C. Circuit,
Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 1994), was based on a factual record
presented during the district court's evaluation of a motion for summary
judgement. See id at 684. The second case cited, Dandridge v. Williams, 397
U.S. 471 (1969), also was not decided on the basis of a motion to dismiss.
See Dandridge v. Williams, F. Supp. 450, 452 (D. Md. 1968) (noting rejection
of a motion to dismiss).

***

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 07:33:14 -0600
To: DRCNet Medical Marijuana Forum (medmj@drcnet.org)
From: "Carl E. Olsen" (carl@commonlink.net)
Subject: Re: Action Class -Equal Justice Under Law-Justice Journey Proceeds

I posted the text of the March 3 hearing on the medical marijuana class
action at:

http://www.calyx.com/~olsen/MEDICAL/hirsch.html

Sincerely,

Carl Olsen