-------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlocking Doors (Willamette Week, in Portland, says nobody is happy with
Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers' proposal to coerce mentally ill
people to take drugs they perceive to be worse than their disease.)
Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Wed, Mar 24 1999
Source: Willamette Week (OR)
Contact: mzusman@wweek.com
Address: 822 SW 10th Ave., Portland, OR 97205
Fax: (503) 243-1115
Website: http://www.wweek.com/
Author: Maureen O'Hagan (mohagan@wweek.com)
Unlocking Doors
* Trying to figure out how to help severely mentally ill people who don't
want treatment is enough to drive you crazy. Just ask the Oregon attorney
general.
This week, Attorney General Hardy Myers is considering whether to ask the
Legislature to overhaul the way Oregonians with severe mental illnesses are
treated.
There is no doubt that the current system - with its paltry funding and
routine tragedies - is in desperate need of change. And the proposal Myers is
considering has an impressive pedigree. It was hammered out over an 18-month
period by the best thinkers and strongest advocates in the field, people
Myers himself appointed as part of a blue-ribbon task force.
Yet the proposal is doomed to failure. Most task-force members don't even
support it.
The episode may offer proof that even the best intentions go awry under the
tutelage of a broad-based task force. But it is also testament to the sheer
magnitude of the problem of treating people with serious mental illnesses.
On one side stand family members of mentally ill people whose main priority
is to get their loved ones help - even if they don't want it. On the other
are "consumer groups," often made up of people who themselves suffer from
mental illnesses, who believe they should have the right to control their
own destiny.
"I don't think I've ever worked on an issue that's more difficult than
this," says Myers' special counsel, Mark Gardner, a former legislator and
judge who chaired the task force. "It was pretty apparent right off the bat
that there was not going to be consensus over this issue. I don't think it's
possible."
In order to grasp the conundrum facing Myers, you first have to understand
the workings of the mental-health system, whose twisted logic and dead-end
streets are reminiscent of Joseph Heller's "Catch-22."
For the most part, people with serious mental illnesses must seek out
treatment themselves if they're interested. Many of them qualify for the
Oregon Health Plan, yet because of severe funding shortages, they're
sometimes met with disappointment. "If a person is mentally ill and says, 'I
want some help,' the system will give some help, [but] maybe not enough or
exactly what they want," says Multnomah County Judge Lewis Lawrence, who
works with this population in court proceedings.
But unlike someone with, say, a broken arm, people with brain diseases like
schizophrenia don't always seek treatment, either because their thinking is
distorted or because they don't like the side effects of the medication.
When they deteriorate to a point at which they might be dangerous, they're
hauled into a hospital and treated for a few days. Ninety percent of people
brought in for a hospital hold either cool off enough to be released or
consent to prolonged treatment. The rest are brought before a judge for
what's called a civil-commitment hearing.
This is where the legal system and the public health system collide, where
the failure to help mentally ill people is most tragically clear - and where
some task-force members think changes should be focused.
"I've been advocating for a few years that we make changes to the
civil-commitment process," says task-force member Bill Toomey, the Multnomah
County administrator in charge of the civil-commitment process. "Pretty much
everybody complains about it."
Almost by definition, the daily fare in this courtroom is a parade of
tragedies. Judges must wade through delusions, hallucinations and psychoses
to decide if the people are a danger to themselves or others. If so, they
can be committed to a hospital. If they don't fit the criteria, they must be
released. Often, the process is quite unceremonious: They're simply escorted
to the courthouse door.
In 1997, psychiatrist Gene Minard and another doctor approached Myers with a
list of concerns, including complaints that the criteria for civil
commitment had gotten dangerously narrow because of appeals-court decisions.
This narrowing, Minard believes, shut out Mary Boos.
According to her mother, Carol, Mary was a lively and popular University of
Oregon student before paranoid schizophrenia set in. When she agreed to
treatment, her symptoms became less severe, but her medication caused
dramatic side effects, including ballooning weight.
Still, Mary, living in a studio apartment with a landlady who looked out for
her, fought her illness. At some point, she lost the battle. "She kind of
left this world for a spiritual world," her mother says. "There were 100
days when she didn't come out of her room." Mary's parents made sure her
rent was paid and she was fed, leaving grocery bags at her front door. Yet
Mary refused to acknowledge her family's existence, insisting they were dead.
Carol Boos and her husband decided to seek civil commitment in 1996, arguing
that their daughter could no longer take care of herself. The judge,
constrained by the law that makes it almost impossible to commit people
unless they're dangerous, did not agree. Mary left the courthouse in a
hospital nightgown, in paper slippers, without a penny in her pocket.
"We never really had any time with Mary again," her mother says. Mary died
in her apartment in October 1997, her illness untreated. The medical
examiner said she died of natural causes, but her body was too decomposed to
tell what happened for sure. "She lived - well, she existed - and
died...behind closed doors," says Carol Boos.
Mary Boos' death, which came just one month before the task force began
work, hung heavy in the members' minds and was a frequent topic of
discussion. Their proposal, in theory at least, will address people like
Mary. Called "intervention," it would allow judges to order certain people
to accept treatment in the community. It would apply to people who don't
meet the commitment criteria but are so ill that they will probably soon
deteriorate to dangerous or unsafe conditions.
"The intervention process came up as a way to get the system involved
earlier," explains Toomey.
If people don't follow the judge's orders, they can be hauled back into
court by police and held in a locked facility for a number of days. The
catch is that if people continue to refuse treatment, the judge has no real
legal power to force them to accept it. Unless they deteriorate further,
commitment is still not an option. The idea is that the judge's order,
followed up with aggressive outreach from treatment workers, will scare,
threaten or cajole people into doing what they're told.
Although the task-force members worked collaboratively on the proposal, it
has turned out to have little support. "A lot of what happened with this is
reality setting in: the legal parameters, the financial limitations, the
differing interests," says Bob Joondeph, executive director of the Oregon
Advocacy Center, a clients' rights organization. In fact, Joondeph likens
discussions of treatment for people with mental illnesses to the debate over
abortion, a case where opposing viewpoints will never come together.
He has a hard time believing that the proposal will do the trick for people
who insist that they don't want treatment. Moreover, Joondeph says, "I don't
think scaring people into treatment is the best way to go about it."
Family members of people with mental illnesses have mixed feelings about the
proposal. Dr. Minard calls it "convoluted, confusing and unworkable.... It
appears to me the original purposes of the task force have been defeated."
But Phillip Chadsey, a task-force member who is president of the local
chapter of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the country's leading
family organization, supports the proposal. "It gives a right to treatment,
which means the state has to pay for it," he says.
Gardner says he's not sure what Myers will do about the proposal, but he
says that the process had made one thing abundantly clear to him: A key
ailment of the public mental-health system is poor funding. "If I was back
in the Legislature, I would do everything in my power to get more money into
this system," Gardner says. "It is tremendously underfunded."
***
[sidebar notes:]
* Although a judge can commit a person with a serious mental illness for six
months, most people stay for less than two weeks.
* Living on the streets and foraging for food isn't enough to get a person
with a mental illness committed to a hospital.
* At least 70 percent of people with serious and chronic mental illnesses
also suffer from drug or alcohol abuse.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Measures avert early jail releases (The Oregonian says Multnomah County
averted the early release of inmates from its five jails Tuesday after taking
several measures to keep the prisoner population from exceeding its
unspecified federally mandated limit. The county now maintains 2,063 beds.)
Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Wed, Mar 24 1999
Source: Oregonian, The (OR)
Copyright: 1999 The Oregonian
Contact: letters@news.oregonian.com
Address: 1320 SW Broadway, Portland, OR 97201
Fax: 503-294-4193
Website: http://www.oregonlive.com/
Forum: http://forums.oregonlive.com/
Author: Maxine Bernstein of The Oregonian staff
Measures avert early jail releases
* An emergency plan helps free up space in Multnomah County's five jails
after a weekend surge in the inmate population
Multnomah County averted the early release of inmates because of jail
crowding Tuesday after setting in motion other measures to try to reduce the
jail population.
The county sheriff's office, judges, prosecutors, probation officers, public
defenders and police began trying to reduce suspects' sentences, spur early
releases or delay jail time to ease crowding after county jails hit maximum
capacity last weekend.
The emergency measures, part of a plan county officials adopted earlier this
year, continued Tuesday and were expected to last through the week to keep
the jail population from going beyond its federally mandated cap, said
Barbara Simon, a spokeswoman for the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office.
The county's five jails have a maximum of 2,063 beds. There are 676 beds at
the Justice Center jail, and they were full last weekend.
As of Tuesday morning, 48 of the county's beds were vacant, Simon said.
"Right now, that feels like a comfortable cushion."
Whenever jail population breaches legal capacity, a formula, or matrix, is
used to release the least-dangerous inmates. The matrix is determined by
giving inmates points based on the seriousness of their charges, their
behavior and whether they have a criminal record.
Judge James Ellis, presiding judge of the Multnomah County Circuit Court,
said he met Tuesday with members of the district attorney's office to figure
out ways to process cases faster in an effort to ensure that inmates are not
in jail longer than necessary.
In a probation violation case, for example, the court wants to make sure the
necessary paperwork gets to a judge immediately so there are no unnecessary
hearing delays. Getting the paperwork faxed to the court instead of mailed
is one step being taken, Ellis said.
The court also is reviewing whether defendants who face minor charges in
several counties can be processed at one courthouse instead of staying in
jail awaiting separate hearings in each county court.
"We're really under the gun to make sure we're not keeping people in jail
longer than necessary," Ellis said. "But it's a very difficult and complex
thing to accomplish."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Burned house center of eviction battle involving Ingerid Pearson (The
Oregonian says a Southeast Portland residence at the center of a dispute
between mother and son led to an eviction of the mother, which in turn led to
the alleged discovery of what appeared to be a methamphetamine lab in the
basement. Portland firefighters waited for specialists to deal with the
hazard until smoke mysteriously started coming from the home's basement about
4 p.m. Fire Bureau policy bars risking firefighters in houses with drug labs
unless someone's life is in danger. So firefighters allowed the house to
burn - and any evidence of a meth lab with it.)
Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Wed, Mar 24 1999
Source: Oregonian, The (OR)
Copyright: 1999 The Oregonian
Contact: letters@news.oregonian.com
Address: 1320 SW Broadway, Portland, OR 97201
Fax: 503-294-4193
Website: http://www.oregonlive.com/
Forum: http://forums.oregonlive.com/
Author: Peter Farrell of The Oregonian staff
Burned house center of eviction battle involving Ingerid Pearson
* The Southeast Portland residence in the courthouse dispute between mother
and son is suspected of housing a drug lab
Ingerid Pearson's son has been trying for weeks to evict his mother from a
Southeast Portland house that burned down Monday, but she has argued in
court papers that she owned the home.
Pearson became widely known because of a Rottweiler breeding operation at a
rundown Milwaukie wedding chapel, which led to her conviction on animal
neglect charges in 1997.
According to Multnomah County court records, Pearson's son, James Bunch,
filed a 30-day notice of termination of tenancy Jan. 13, ordering Pearson
and any other persons out of the house at 5824 S.E. Yamhill St. by Feb. 16.
Spelling her name Ingerid-Bereth-Elise: Pearson, Bunch's mother wrote her
own court papers demanding that the court prove it had the authority to
evict her. She also created papers revoking the trust agreement that gave
the property to Bunch in 1983.
In her court arguments, Pearson said the agreement was for her son to take
over 90 percent interest and assume 90 percent of the cost of maintaining
the house. She retained 10 percent ownership and the right to live there for
the rest of her life.
A letter she filed in court and dated at the time of the transfer said that
she thought James Bunch, her oldest son, "is the one most capable to wisely
handle this responsibility." She wanted the house kept for her children and
grandchildren.
Complaint against son
But Pearson complained in a filing this month that Bunch had failed to
maintain the home and had neglected his trustee responsibilities by living
in Europe for the past three years.
Holly J. Hummel, Bunch's attorney, responded March 2 with an amended court
paper demanding immediate possession. A judge decided in Bunch's favor, and
Hummel said that under the court's order, Pearson should have been locked
out of the house at 11 a.m. Monday.
Sheriff's deputies went to the house about that time to evict Pearson and
several other people who lived there. The eviction led to the discovery of
what appeared to be a methamphetamine "cooking" operation in the basement.
Portland firefighters waiting for specialists to deal with the drug-brewing
hazard saw smoke coming from the home's basement about 4 p.m.
Fire Bureau policy bars risking firefighters in houses with drug labs unless
someone's life is in danger. So firefighters allowed the house to burn. Fire
officials estimated the value of the home at $300,000 and its contents at
$150,000.
Bunch did not have fire insurance, Hummel said.
Bunch did not respond to messages left Tuesday at his Beaverton telephone
number or with Hummel. Pearson could not be reached.
Any evidence of a drug laboratory in the basement of the house went up in smoke.
Investigators found no drugs in the garage or in vehicles left near the
house, said Detective Sgt. Cheryl Kanzler, a Portland Police Bureau
spokeswoman. Still, police would like to talk to some men who lived there
and fled before the fire.
Police say there is no evidence to suggest that Pearson had anything to do
with the methamphetamine lab.
Methamphetamine, a stimulant similar to amphetamine, is a street drug
illegally synthesized from commonly available chemicals.
Sgt. Jason Gates, a Multnomah County sheriff's deputy who is part of a
county hazardous materials team, is specially trained in handling
methamphetamine operations. He did not participate in Monday's case, but he
said firefighters are wise to beware of the labs.
Explosive components
Although methamphetamine "cooks" use different recipes and equipment, Gates
said, most whom his unit has investigated recently use a process that
involves large quantities of ether. Ether degrades to a form of peroxide
that is explosive, he said.
Meth manufacturing also can produce quantities of phosphine gas that
displaces oxygen. "It's a poisonous gas, and it is flammable," he said. "It
will ignite and can be explosive." Some caustic chemicals used in the
process can take the skin off a person in seconds, he said.
You can reach Pete Farrell at 294-7665 or by e-mail at
Peterfarrell@news.oregonian.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secret Society Among Lawmen (The Los Angeles Times says tattooed groups
like the Grim Reapers are enjoying renewed popularity in the L.A. County
Sheriff's Department. A federal judge hearing class-action lawsuits against
the department in 1996 described the most well-known of the groups, the
Lynwood Vikings, as a "neo-Nazi, white supremacist gang" and found that
deputies had engaged in racially motivated hostility. The county paid $9
million in fines and training costs to settle. Today, some of the lawyers now
suing the Sheriff's Department on behalf of clients who say they were beaten,
shot or harassed, have demanded that deputies accused of misconduct roll down
their socks and reveal if they have one of the distinguishing tattoos. In one
case pending in federal court, attorneys want two deputies who allegedly shot
a man to death to show whether their ankles bear the Vikings insignia.)
From: "Bob Owen@W.H.E.N." (when@olywa.net)
To: "_Drug Policy --" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: The Secret Society Among Lawmen
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:57:08 -0800
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net
Wednesday, March 24, 1999
COLUMN ONE
Los Angeles Times
The Secret Society Among Lawmen
* Despite setbacks in court and superiors' disapproval, a tattooed subculture
of L.A. County sheriff's deputies is rising again. Are members macho racists
or just brothers of the badge?
By ANNE-MARIE O'CONNOR, TINA DAUNT
Times Staff Writers
He is still proud of his tattoo.
The somber image of Death's hooded skull and scythe tattooed onto the
inside of the deputy's left ankle in 1989 initiated him into a select
fraternity called the Grim Reapers. Then a street cop at the Lennox station,
this deputy has risen to a key position in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department--along with other members of his "club."
The groups--with macho monikers like the Pirates, Vikings, Rattlesnakes
and Cavemen--have long been a subculture in the country's largest Sheriff's
Department and, in some cases, an inside track to acceptance in the ranks.
Senior officers say they began with the creation of the Little Devils at the
East Los Angeles station in 1971. Membership swelled in the 1980s at
overwhelmingly white sheriff's stations that were islands in black and
Latino immigrant communities.
A federal judge hearing class-action litigation against the department
described the most well-known of the groups, the Lynwood Vikings, as a
"neo-Nazi, white supremacist gang" and found that deputies had engaged in
racially motivated hostility. The county paid $9 million in fines and
training costs to settle the lawsuits in 1996.
But today, groups like the Grim Reapers are enjoying renewed popularity
among young deputies, who say the groups are fraternities that bond on
morale-building values, not race. A new group--the Regulators--has formed at
Century station, and even suburban deputies are thinking about getting
tattoos. Some senior officers say the groups provide emotional support for
deputies who contend with a grueling regimen of violent crime and an 11-to-7
overnight schedule that strains family life.
The groups have their detractors. One deputy characterized the Lennox
Reapers as "cowboys," and another complained that the Regulators were
"acting just like Vikings."
Sheriff Lee Baca has long been a critic of the groups, though he
believes an outright ban would be unconstitutional. He urges deputies to
stay away from the organizations, saying they encourage unprofessional
behavior.
Critics of the department go even further. They charge that the
stations with the department's most troubled records--meaning the most
frequent excessive-force lawsuits and discrimination complaints--are home to
the most active deputy groups.
And the groups are viewed with mistrust by many in the inner-city
communities.
"They are generally perceived as rogue cops who have often been accused
of acting in very inappropriate ways in the street," said Joe Hicks,
executive director of the city's human relations commission. "It doesn't
seem to be good for morale or community relations."
Uncovering Evidence
Some of the lawyers now suing the Sheriff's Department on behalf of
clients who say they were beaten, shot or harassed have demanded that
deputies accused of misconduct roll down their socks and reveal if they have
one of the distinguishing tattoos. In one case pending in federal court,
attorneys want two deputies who allegedly shot a man to death to show
whether their ankles bear the Vikings insignia.
Kevin Reed, an attorney with the National Assn. for the Advancement of
Colored People's Legal Defense Fund, who worked on the class-action suit
involving the Vikings, thinks the deputy groups encourage a pattern of
excessive force.
"There is a bond, not just of being a fellow deputy, but being a
Viking, that gives you the comfort that no one is going to write the report
that will hang you out to dry," Reed said.
One Viking tattoo displayed in court bore the number "998"--the code
for "officer-involved shooting"--Reed said, giving the impression that such
shootings were celebrated as a rite of passage.
Former Undersheriff Jerry Harper, who was Baca's boss until he retired
after the November sheriff's race, said the 998 tattoos reflect a
camaraderie not unlike that of soldiers who have experienced combat for the
first time.
"It's a mark of pride. They've been in a deputy-involved shooting and
they've survived it," he said. "Obviously, it's a lot more serious than
getting a Boy Scout patch."
But David Lynn, a private investigator who testified on the deputy
groups to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission--which is to address the issue in
a report due in April--has called for the names of tattooed deputies to be
cross-referenced with excessive force allegations.
For all his objections, Baca believes such a registry might actually
absolve the groups of the most serious suspicions. He thinks many deputies
acquired the tattoos for reasons no deeper than peer pressure and heavy
drinking.
"Many of them regretted it the day after, when they got a little
sober," said Baca, "especially when their wife saw the thing and was very
upset." He said the deputies were "caring, hard-working, not prejudiced. And
they literally destroyed their lives, many of them, with this nonsense of
the drinking and the tattoos. . . .
"I cannot dismiss it as a little club or as a social group," Baca said.
"I see it as the wrong message to a public that desperately wants to be
close to us, desperately wants to trust us. Having a Grim Reaper tattoo does
not bring confidence in you as a deputy."
By Invitation Only
Although their total numbers are not known, the tattooed officers are
found throughout department ranks. Many have risen to positions of
leadership. Group members are said to be predominantly white and male,
though Latino members are reportedly common. There are few black or female
initiates, group members say.
"It's no more than some of the fraternities at different schools," said
the deputy who became a Grim Reaper at Lennox.
The deputy, who is white, was honored the day he was asked to become a
Reaper. His buddies drove him to a tattoo parlor and gave the artist the
secret stencil with the Reaper icon. The tattoo was numbered and his name
entered into a ledger kept by a veteran officer.
To him, the tattoo "showed that you were respected by your peers." The
symbols are not meant to be sinister, but the more forceful logos--like a
bolt of lightning--have higher status, he said.
"What am I going to get--a tattoo of Winnie the Pooh?" the deputy
asked.
Even Baca acknowledges the appeal of the groups.
He recalls confronting the issue of Viking membership two years ago
when he was a regional department chief. He was meeting with deputies at the
new Century station, which replaced Lynwood. His superiors warned him to be
cautious, Baca said.
"I think there was more of an interest of protecting me from what they
perceived to be a backlash," Baca said. "Since I was the only one out there
voicing an objection to it, they didn't want me so far out on a limb that my
overall effectiveness as a chief might be mitigated.
"Well, now I'm the sheriff, so I'm not worried about mitigation," Baca
said. "Don't like it. Never have. Never will."
Today, some officers have told Baca they're thinking about getting
their tattoos removed.
One of them, Lt. Paul Tanaka, was made a top aide to the sheriff just
after the election in August. Tanaka was tattooed as a member of the Vikings
while a young deputy in 1987--a year before he was named in a wrongful-death
suit stemming from the shooting of a young Korean man. The department
eventually settled for close to $1 million.
Now Tanaka, a recently elected Gardena city councilman with aspirations
to rise in the department and local politics, would like to disassociate
himself from the group.
"Paul doesn't have anything to say about [the tattoo]," said Sheriff's
Department spokesman Capt. Doyle Campbell. "It is perceived by some in a way
that was never intended. He's having it removed. He wants it behind him."
It was 1990 police misconduct litigation that first hurled the deputy
clubs--and the Vikings--into the public eye.
The lawsuit, which asked the federal court to take over the Lynwood
station, produced numerous accounts of "Animal House"-style thuggery. There
were the deputies who shot a dog and tied it under their commanders' car;
the deputies who smeared feces on a supervisor's engine. There was the map
of Lynwood in the shape of Africa, the racist cartoons of black men, the
mock "ticket to Africa" on the wall.
U.S. District Judge Terry Hatter concluded that many deputies engaged
in racially motivated hostility against blacks and Latinos. In 1996, the
department was ordered to pay $7.5 million to 80 alleged victims of
excessive force in the area policed by the Lynwood station, and spend $1.5
million for mandatory training.
Then-Sheriff Sherman Block said Hatter's characterization of the
Vikings as a "neo-Nazi" group was "irrational and wrong." He said the
Vikings were primarily a social organization, and he found no proof they
ever acted against minorities. Block said then he believed the group no
longer existed.
The 1992 Kolts Commission report on police brutality in Los Angeles
said deputy "cliques" like the Vikings were found "particularly at stations
in areas heavily populated by minorities--the so-called 'ghetto
stations'--and deputies at those stations recruit persons similar in
attitude to themselves."
The report said evidence "does not conclusively demonstrate the
existence of racist deputy gangs." Nevertheless, it went on to say, "it
appears that some deputies at the department's Lynwood station associate
with the 'Viking' symbol, and appear at least in times past to have engaged
in behavior that is brutal and intolerable and is typically associated with
street gangs."
There never has been a follow-up report or investigation by an
independent entity since.
Within the department, Baca said, he was sufficiently concerned about
the Vikings to send in a no-nonsense Latino commander to run the Lynwood
station in 1989.
He said he sent in Capt. Bert Cueva "to specifically stamp out this
Viking phenomenon."
Cueva "looked like Clint Eastwood, and you didn't mess with him," Baca
said. "He was the right guy to go in and say, 'OK, folks, all this Viking
crap is over with.'"
A Viking Funeral
But when Cueva ordered the transfer of reputed Vikings out of the
station, four sued him for discrimination. The suit was eventually
dismissed, and in 1992, Cueva retired from the force.
The Vikings continued to operate. In May 1995, Deputy Stephen Blair was
shot and killed in the line of duty. His buddies passed out lapel pins
bearing the Viking symbol so deputies could wear them at his funeral, said
Deputy Mike Osborne, who became a trainee at the Lynwood station in 1994.
To Osborne, the Vikings mirrored the race and gender caste system at a
station where deputies had to win acceptance from white male veterans, many
of whom routinely used racist and sexist slurs.
Being invited to become a Viking was considered a tremendous
compliment, Osborne said. "If you're hard-charging, one of the boys, you'll
be asked. If you've paid your dues and you're not an idiot."
Becoming "one of the boys" implied more than simple fellowship, Osborne
said.
"You keep your mouth shut and obey the code of silence. Any illegal
acts you witness by other deputies, you don't say anything. If you're asked,
you say, 'I didn't see nothing,'" said Osborne.
Osborne and his wife, fellow Deputy Aurora Mellado, retired in 1996
after Mellado broke that code by accusing her training officer of
fabricating or destroying evidence to harass blacks and Latinos. The
officer, Jeffrey Jones, pleaded no contest to felony charges of falsifying
police reports that August.
The month Jones was arraigned--March 1996--someone shot at the
Osbornes' home just before midnight, as their children slept in the rear
bedrooms, he said. Osborne said he suspects renegade sheriff's deputies were
involved.
John Hillen, a retired Army captain at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, said the intensity of military life, which parallels
the law enforcement experience, fosters subcultures of unit identity.
"A lot of these subgroups can be as harmful as helpful," he said. For
example, Ret. Col. Dan Smith, an analyst at the Center for Defense
Information, said "underground groups" that arise within military ranks
often have white supremacist leanings.
Reports of such a culture in the Sheriff's Department have led
attorneys pursuing misconduct complaints to try, with little success, to
make membership in deputy groups admissible in court.
"It goes to motive, it goes to credibility, it implies a treatment of
people of color," said civil rights attorney Hugh Manes. "Gang membership
has long been accepted in courts in the context of criminal law. If it has
relevance for the criminal courts, it certainly has relevance for the
Sheriff's Department."
That kind of talk outrages tattooed deputies, who say the misdeeds
associated with the Vikings gave everyone else a bad name.
One such deputy called the tattoos a "harmless expression of
camaraderie. It's like a Marine Corps tattoo." The day he got tattooed,
three of his buddies picked him up and took him to a tattoo parlor, he
thinks in East L.A. The artist already knew the tattoo by heart.
Would he get one again? "No. Just because of the negative
connotations," said the deputy, who is white. "I want to move forward in
this career."
And while he knows "many people" in the higher ranks of the department
who have tattoos, he doesn't know anyone who did not think it would hurt
them in court.
"If we had a tattoo with a doughnut dipped into a cup of coffee, they'd
criticize us for that," he said. "If they want to see my leg, they're going
to have to get a warrant."
A white department veteran in a position of authority claims he got the
first Viking tattoo back in 1980, when there were very few women or blacks
in the department. He and a buddy were talking one day and decided they
wanted a tattoo for their station. One day, he was at a tattoo parlor in
Long Beach when he spotted the helmeted Nordic marauder on the wall. He got
one, and when he showed his buddies, they got them too. He said it wasn't
racially motivated--he recalls a black man and some Latinos being
tattooed--but looking back, he thinks "maybe Vikings weren't a good choice."
Baca wishes deputies would just stop joining the tattoo subculture.
California Highway Patrolmen get killed in the line of duty more often than
sheriff's deputies, he says, and they don't get tattoos. When Marines get
tattoos, they use official emblems, he said.
"You ought to be proud to be a member of the Sheriff's Department,"
Baca said. "Tattoo your badge on your ankle, if that's what you want to do."
Times researcher William Holmes contributed to this story.
Copyright 1999 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2 admit cross-border drug corruption (The Arizona Daily Star says two men
admitted their involvement in drug corruption on the Arizona-Mexico border
yesterday in U.S. District Court. Former immigration inspector Jesus A.
Corella acknowledged he accepted a $75,000 bribe in exchange for allowing
1,289 pounds of cocaine to cross at Nogales in 1996. And Fernando L. Suarez
of Rio Rico admitted driving a load of cocaine across the border and paying a
bribe. A federal grand jury indicted Suarez and Corella on Jan. 27 along with
seven other defendants, including two other immigration inspectors. All but
one were charged with drug-related crimes.)
From: "Bob Owen@W.H.E.N." (when@olywa.net)
To: "_Drug Policy --" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: 2 admit cross-border drug corruption
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:46:08 -0800
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net
Wednesday, 24 March 1999
2 admit cross-border drug corruption
Jesus A. Corella
One was inspector for immigration
By Tim Steller
The Arizona Daily Star
Two men admitted their involvement in drug corruption on the Arizona-Mexico
border yesterday in U.S. District Court.
Former immigration inspector Jesus A. Corella acknowledged he accepted a
$75,000 bribe in exchange for allowing 1,289 pounds of cocaine to cross at
Nogales in 1996. He faces up to 15 years in prison when he is sentenced June
7.
Corella, 41, was working as an immigration inspector there at the time. He
resigned four months later, in October 1996.
Also yesterday, Fernando L. Suarez of Rio Rico admitted driving a load of
cocaine across the border and paying a bribe. He pleaded guilty to
conspiracy to import cocaine and faces from 10 years to life in prison when
he is sentenced July 2.
Suarez, 36, met with a co-defendant in Nogales, Sonora, then drove a vehicle
loaded with cocaine across the border, he acknowledged yesterday. He
admitted accepting $28,300 as payment.
Corella and Suarez remain free pending their sentencings.
A federal grand jury handed up indictments against Suarez and Corella on
Jan. 27. They were among nine defendants, three of whom are immigration
inspectors, indicted that day. All but one were charged with drug-related
crimes.
The three inspectors - Maria de los Angeles Alabado, Rafael Landa and Robert
Ronquillo-Rojas - remain on paid administrative leave, although the
Immigration and Naturalization Service has initiated the process of trying
to fire them, said INS spokeswoman Virginia Kice.
Ronquillo-Rojas already has reached a tentative plea deal with federal
prosecutors, according to court documents. But no deal has been formalized,
and neither his attorney nor Assistant U.S. Attorney James Lacey would
comment on the case.
Ronquillo-Rojas is charged with attempting to import cocaine, attempting to
possess cocaine with intent to distribute it, possessing cocaine with intent
to distribute it and accepting four bribes totaling $32,500.
Landa is charged with the same crimes, including accepting two bribes
totaling $30,000. Federal prosecutors also are trying to seize $300,780 he
allegedly received as drug trafficking proceeds.
Alabado is charged with selling immigration documents three times for $500
each time.
All three inspectors have pleaded innocent and are free pending trial.
The man who paid Suarez to drive cocaine across the border is Jose Ascension
Quiroz Gonzalez, Suarez said yesterday.
Quiroz Gonzales was a relatively important person in the Nogales, Sonora,
drug scene in that he acted as a ``gatekeeper,'' FBI officials said on Feb.
2. That meant he was in charge of finding ways to move drug loads across the
border.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Witness: Pedro Oregon Dealt Drugs (According to the Houston Chronicle, an
informant told a jury Tuesday that Pedro Navarro Oregon, the man slain by
Houston police during a supposed drug raid, helped his brothers deal crack
cocaine and agreed to supply it the night of his death, even though no drugs
were found at the scene. But a legal fight to keep the dead man's brother
from testifying overshadowed the misdemeanor criminal trespass trial of
former Houston police Officer James Willis, who is charged in connection with
the shooting of Oregon.)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 18:41:17 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US TX: Witness: Pedro Oregon Dealt Drugs
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: GALAN@prodigy.net (G. A ROBISON)
Pubdate: Wed, 24 Mar 1999
Source: Houston Chronicle (TX)
Section: Metropolitan
Page: 19A
Copyright: 1999 Houston Chronicle
Contact: viewpoints@chron.com
Website: http://www.chron.com/
Forum: http://www.chron.com/content/hcitalk/index.html
Author: Steve Brewer
WITNESS: PEDRO OREGON DEALT DRUGS
Brother Of Man Killed By Police Avoids Testifying In Officer's Case
A man slain by police during a botched drug raid helped his brothers
deal crack cocaine and agreed to supply it the night of his death,
jurors were told Tuesday by the informant who gave officers a tip.
But that testimony was overshadowed by a legal fight to keep the dead
man's brother from testifying in the misdemeanor criminal trespass
trial of former Houston police Officer James Willis, who is charged in
connection with the shooting.
As a result, jurors in Harris County Criminal Court-at-Law Judge Neel
Richardson's court did not hear from Pedro Navarro Oregon's brother,
Rogelio, who invoked his right against self-incrimination and whose
attorney parlayed that into a ticket off the witness stand.
Rogelio Oregon, considered a key witness in the case, took the stand
with the jurors out of the room. He has previously balked at
testifying in Willis' case and invoked the Fifth Amendment when
prosecutor Ed Porter asked him his address.
Porter then quickly offered him "use immunity," freeing him to testify
about the night his brother was killed and any criminal acts without
fear of prosecution. With such a pact in place, Richardson could have
forced Oregon to testify.
But, by law, the deal couldn't include immunity from perjury charges,
and Oregon's attorney, Chris Flood, argued that prosecutors were
laying a trap for his client.
Flood said prosecutors would indict Oregon on perjury charges over
small inconsistencies between his previous grand jury testimony and
what he would say in court.
State law, however, allows for small inconsistencies in such
situations. To be convicted of perjury, prosecutors have to prove that
someone has an intent to deceive.
But Flood said Oregon didn't feel the trial of Willis was in good
faith and that normal rules regarding perjury cases would be suspended
by prosecutors attempting to target him.
Flood repeatedly has said the case against Willis is being used as a
vehicle to "clear" the officers and vindicate the position the Harris
County district attorney's office has taken on the shooting, something
prosecutors vehemently deny.
Attorneys for the Oregon family say the relatives prefer cooperating
with federal officials, who are conducting their own probe.
Richardson ruled that the "use immunity" couldn't be enforced because
Oregon could use the Fifth Amendment to avoid possible perjury charges.
The judge didn't quash the subpoena that brought Oregon to court, but
his ruling effectively killed the usefulness of his testimony.
Prosecutors moved to their next witness and rested minutes later.
Richardson also denied a defense motion for an instructed verdict of
not guilty.
Prosecutor Porter would not comment on whether Oregon's refusal to
testify hurt his case.
The witness who took up most of the day was Ryan Baxter, 29, who has
been jailed on two drug charges unrelated to the Pedro Oregon incident.
Flood said later that Baxter's testimony was just a way for
prosecutors to justify the police killing of Pedro Oregon, and he said
his client was not a drug dealer.
Baxter told jurors that on the evening of July 11, Willis and his
partner stopped him and two teen-agers. The trio had been drinking
beer and smoking crack cocaine Baxter said they had bought from
Rogelio Oregon.
He testified he had bought crack from Oregon for three years. He said
if he couldn't get drugs from Oregon, then he would get them from
Pedro Oregon or a third Oregon brother.
Baxter, already on probation for drug possession, was arrested for
giving beer to the teens and for having the materials needed to make a
crack pipe.
He told police he could deliver his dealer if they cut him loose,
testimony showed. At the prompting of Willis' supervisor, Baxter made
contact with Oregon via Willis' personal cell phone and set up a
meeting to buy 10 rocks of crack at a fast-food restaurant.
The police took Baxter to the restaurant and waited, testimony showed.
Nothing happened, and Baxter said he called Oregon's apartment and
spoke to Pedro Oregon, who refused to come to the restaurant.
Pedro Oregon told him to come to the nearby apartment on Atwell to
pick up the drugs, Baxter said. The informant went there with Willis
and five other officers, and no one answered the door.
Baxter told jurors police were taking him to jail when he made one
last attempt to contact Oregon, who called him back and said to come
over to the apartment again to get the drugs.
The officers went back and Willis' supervisor told Baxter to get
Rogelio Oregon to open the door and then lie on the floor to keep it
from closing, a key point that prosecutors say proves that Willis
didn't have consent to go into the apartment.
Baxter said he heard no one ask for or give consent for police entry.
But he testified that he did see the officers passing over him to
enter the apartment and that he heard them identifying themselves. He
said he crawled out of the apartment after hearing someone yell that a
suspect had a gun and shooting started.
According to prosecutors, one officer accidentally fired his weapon at
Pedro Oregon, who was in a back bedroom. Some of the others, not
Willis, opened fire on Pedro Oregon, hitting him 12 times, nine in the
back.
Some of the officers have said Pedro Oregon pointed a gun at them. He
did have a gun, but it was not fired. The officers had no arrest or
search warrants, and no drugs were found in the apartment.
After a lengthy Harris County grand jury investigation, only Willis,
28, was indicted on the misdemeanor charge. All six officers have been
fired.
When that grand jury inquiry ended, the FBI and federal grand jury
probe began and the multimillion-dollar federal civil rights suit was
filed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Candidate, Editor Gives Herself Up In Marijuana Case (The Des Moines
Register says Lois Kennis, a 1998 independent candidate for lieutenant
governor, turned herself in to Urbandale authorities Tuesday on
cultivation-related charges. The editor and publisher of Iowa Lady Magazine
is also the wife of Mark Kennis, host of the local cable television show
"Big People News" and an advocate for marijuana-law reform.)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 03:32:20 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US IA: Former Candidate, Editor Gives Herself Up In Marijuana
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Carl Olsen
Pubdate: Wed, 24 Mar 1999
Source: Des Moines Register (IA)
Copyright: 1999, The Des Moines Register
Contact: letters@news.dmreg.com
Website: http://www.dmregister.com/
Author: Lynn Okamoto, Register Staff Writer
FORMER CANDIDATE, EDITOR GIVES HERSELF UP IN MARIJUANA CASE
The Editor Of Iowa Lady Magazine Ran For Lieutenant Governor
Lois Kennis, a 1998 independent candidate for lieutenant governor,
turned herself in to Urbandale authorities Tuesday on drug charges.
Kennis, 47, of Grimes, is editor and publisher of Iowa Lady Magazine,
and the wife of Mark Kennis, host of local cable television show "Big
People News" and an advocate for the legalization of marijuana.
Last Friday, Mark Kennis was among five adults, including his son
David M. Kennis, 24, who were arrested at his 701 N. Fourth St. home
in Grimes after police said they found them smoking marijuana in front
of Kennis' son, Matthew, 15.
Police also searched Kennis' home and said they found
marijuana-growing equipment and a quarter-pound of home-grown marijuana.
According to a search warrant filed Tuesday in Polk County District
Court, a sign found near the growing operation said: "This is Mark
Kennis' marijuana. If you want some, grow your own."
Urbandale Sgt. Jim Button said Lois Kennis returned home later with
her young daughter. "I didn't feel it was necessary to arrest her in
front of her little girl," Button said.
But police contend there is evidence connecting Lois Kennis to the
marijuana operation. Officers returned to Grimes Tuesday with an
arrest warrant, but Lois Kennis wasn't home. They said family members
promised to contact her and have her turn herself in.
A short time later, police said, Mark Kennis brought his wife to the
Urbandale police station, where she was charged with conspiracy with
intent to deliver and manufacture marijuana, and manufacturing
marijuana. She was taken to the Polk County Jail, where she was being
held on $48,750 bond.
Button said he expected this to be the final arrest in this case.
Lynn Okamoto 515-284-8088 okamotol@news.dmreg.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Heroin Use Is Unabated, Report Says (The New York Times describes the latest
semiannual "Pulse Check" report on national trends in illegal-drug use
released Tuesday by General Barry McCaffrey in New York. The survey, based on
reports from 200 treatment centers and law enforcement officials in 16
cities, shows heroin use in New York City remains high, with more young
people trying heroin and more users now sniffing the drug than injecting it.
McCaffrey said that in the last month, nationwide, illegal drugs were used by
13 million Americans, of whom 4.1 million were "chronically addicted," which
must be like, the opposite of "temporarily addicted"?)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:14:45 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US NY: Heroin Use Is Unabated, Report Says
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: emr@javanet.com (Dick Evans)
Pubdate: Wed, 24 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/
Author: CHRISTOPHER S. WREN
HEROIN USE IS UNABATED, REPORT SAYS
NEW YORK -- Heroin use in New York City remains high, with more young people
trying heroin and more users now snorting the drug than injecting it, often
under the misconception that snorting will not lead to addiction, according
to a new report on drug trends released Tuesday.
Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the White House's director of national drug control
policy, visited St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center on Manhattan's West
Side to release his office's latest Pulse Check, a semiannual report on
national trends in drug abuse gathered from 200 treatment centers and law
enforcement officials in 16 cities, including New York. The report, which
gave no specific numbers, also said that combining heroin with cocaine, a
practice known as "speedballing," was becoming more popular in New York. But
Pulse Check noted that the use of crack and powder cocaine declined in the
Northeast, which includes New York. It described the market for crack in New
York as "not expanding."
McCaffrey said that 13 million Americans used illegal drugs nationwide in
the last month.
Of these, 4.1 million are chronically addicted, he said, "and they're just a
mess."
Details of the report were confirmed by emergency room doctors at Roosevelt
Hospital, who talked about the cases they had handled recently. "We're
seeing a lot of snorting and we're seeing it with young people," said Dr.
David Pigott, a senior resident.
He added: "We had a beautiful 23-year-old girl who snorted cocaine at a
party, seven times on the hour. She awoke the next morning and fell out of
bed. Her left side was paralyzed from a stroke.
"She was devastated for the rest of her life, and there wasn't anything we
could do about it."
Pulse Check also reported that marijuana use in New York and elsewhere was
stable but that the age of people undergoing treatment for marijuana was
dropping. Dr. Elaine Josephson, another doctor in the emergency room, said
she was finding more marijuana abuse among school-age children in New York.
"Children are being brought from their schools because they were irrational
and hurting other people," she said. "They will tell you that they smoked
some bad weed. The youngest I've personally seen was 10 years old." The
doctors said there were also more bad reactions from so-called designer
drugs consumed by young people at clubs or parties, such as Ecstasy;
ketamine, an animal anesthetic, and a sedative called GHB. The use of such
drugs pose serious health risks for the young, Pulse Check said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Press Clippings - Pot Shots (The Village Voice, in New York, credits Chuck
Thomas of the Marijuana Policy Project, in Washington, D.C., for waging a
superb behind-the-scenes public relations campaign that helped produce a
favorable spin in American mass media regarding the March 17 Institute of
Medicine assessment of medical marijuana. "It's too early to tell, but so
far, no major paper has defended McCaffrey's wait-and-see attitude." By
calling marijuana smoke a risk factor for cancer and lung damage, it gave
the government one last myth to work with: the idea that marijuana is
dangerous. If McCaffrey's strategy was to play up the harmful effects of
smoking, it definitely worked. the New York Times even used the word "toxic"
to describe pot smoke. Obviously, there is some risk in smoking burning
leaves, but marijuana is relatively safe, as drugs go, according to the
report. And the IOM found no proof that it causes cancer.)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 17:31:57 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Column: Press Clippings - Pot Shots
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: News (prop1@prop1.org)
Pubdate: 24 - 30 Mar 1999
Source: Village Voice (NY)
Copyright: 1999 VV Publishing Corporation
Contact: editor@villagevoice.com
Address: 36 Cooper Square, New York, NY 10003
Feedback: http://www.villagevoice.com/aboutus/contact.shtml
Website: http://www.villagevoice.com/
Author: Cynthia Cotts
Press Clips by cynthia cotts
POT SHOTS
It's addictive. It causes crime. It leads to hard drugs. These are a few of
the myths generated by the U.S. government in its never-ending war on the
cannabis plant and repeated for decades by uncritical elements of the media.
The myths come and go, according to the needs of the day. Thus, when
marijuana began to gain popularity as a medicine in the 1970s and 1980s, a
new myth was hatched: any benefit perceived by patients is merely a
"placebo" effect.
So it was big news when a myth-free report was issued March 17 by the
Institute of Medicine (IOM), a division of the National Academy of
Sciences. The report's findings: marijuana is not addictive. It does not
lead to hard drugs. And lo and behold: cannabinoids, the active chemical
compounds in natural marijuana, "appear to hold potential for treating
pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and the poor appetite and
wasting caused by AIDS or advanced cancer."
Many reports had touted marijuana's medical value before; now the outcast
herb had been validated once again by a formal authority. On March 18,
national headlines trumpeted the news: "Pot Has Uses as Medicine, U.S.
Panel Says," "U.S. Panel Sees Potential for Medical Marijuana," "Government
Study of Marijuana Sees Medical Benefits." In subheads and on the jump came
the report's strongly worded caveat: smoking is not an ideal delivery
method, for marijuana or any substance.
This was a remarkable piece of good publicity for a blacklisted drug. And
while the IOM report was generally positive, the coverage grew ever more
glowing in the hands of a clever spinmeister, Chuck Thomas, the director of
communications for the Washington, D.C.based Marijuana Policy Project
(MPP). Indeed, Thomas, 29, was quoted on page one of several stories that
day. Typical is the quote he gave to The Washington Post: "This report . .
. clearly shows that there is scientific evidence that marijuana has bona
fide therapeutic effects for some patients."
Marijuana is medicine? Amazingly, that was the complete opposite of the
spin Clinton drug czar Barry McCaffrey put on the report, which he
commissioned in the wake of the 1996 pro-marijuana referendum in
California- apparently in hopes of generating bad publicity for the pesky
drug. His official response to the report, in four words: "More research is
needed."
Bob Weiner, McCaffrey's spokesman at the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, seizes the opportunity to point out that the advocates and the
media are misleading the public when they say marijuana is medicine.
"That's not what the report said!" cries Weiner. "It said that smoked
marijuana is dangerous and that there is no future for smoked marijuana!"
The day the IOM report was released in Washington, McCaffrey held a news
conference in Los Angeles at which he downplayed the value of smoked
marijuana, telling reporters that in the future, you won't "find someone
with prostate cancer with a 'blunt' stuck in his face." Substituting his
message for Thomas's, he used the conference to promote Marinol, a
cannabinoid pill that is already on the market, and to call on drug
companies to back new means of delivering cannabinoids, such as inhalers,
patches, and suppositories.
In many stories, Thomas's spin came first; McCaffrey's did not turn up
until later. That might have been because the drug czar was in L.A., not
D.C., or it might have been because the IOM report explicitly contradicted
his 1996 claim that there is not "a shred of evidence that smoked marijuana
is useful or needed." That blooper was broadcast last week in the lead of a
skeptical story on ABCNews.com, as well as in the conservative New York
Post. And while the drug czar appeared to be publicly endorsing the IOM
report, the advocates of medical marijuana were busy painting a different
picture.
"This report is General McCaffrey's worst nightmare," one advocate told the
Boston Globe. "This report has proved McCaffrey wrong," another told The
New York Times. "McCaffrey really hates this report," Thomas explains, "but
he'll say he likes it, so people won't say he's been blown out of the water."
So how did the advocates steal the narrative from the drug czar? It didn't
hurt that MPP got in at the ground level. "We worked on the IOM project
since it was first announced," says Thomas, "giving them information,
recommending experts, bringing patients to their hearings."
Then last month, MPP teamed up with the New Yorkbased Lindesmith Center
and the Santa Monicabased Americans for Medical Rights, all three of which
are funded in part by financier George Soros. Members of the three
drug-reform groups began talking on conference calls, plotting a media
strategy that would take advantage of the report's imminent release.
Between them, they hired two PR firms, sent out press kits, and lined up
patients who smoke marijuana to be interviewed. They contacted reporters
likely to cover the story and encouraged them to visit an archive of
scientific information posted at www.medmjscience.org.
"We were surprised that reporters knew as little as they did," says Michael
Shellenberger, director of the San Franciscobased PR firm Communication
Works. "For most reporters, the history of medical marijuana began in 1996.
Most of them had never heard of the Shafer Commission [which recommended
that Nixon decriminalize marijuana in 1972], and most didn't know that the
Chinese had been using marijuana for thousands of years."
Although Thomas believed the report's conclusions would be positive, he did
not know exactly what it would say. So it was a lucky break for him when on
March 16, the day before the news broke, "a sympathetic reporter was kind
enough to give us an embargoed copy." MPP's local PR firm, Rabinowitz Media
Strategies, had booked Thomas to be interviewed on CNN that day, and having
the report in advance gave him the advantage of being able to comment on
point. He began telling reporters he was ready to discuss the report before
the embargo was lifted on March 17.
But when the IOM learned that MPP had an advance copy, spokesman Dan Quinn
called Thomas and beseeched him not to break the embargo, lest other news
outlets decide to do so as well. (For example, The New York Times has a
policy of not breaking embargoes unless someone else does it first.)
Thomas had been planning to hold a news conference outside the National
Academy of Sciences on March 17, immediately following the release of the
report that would take place inside. Thus, recognizing that having the
report gave him a bargaining chip, he agreed not to break the embargo, in
exchange for a promise that the IOM would not break up his news conference.
The question we normally ask about a drug is whether it's safe and
effective. And while the IOM report was unequivocal in its finding that
marijuana works for some patients, it carefully hedged the issue of health
risks. By calling marijuana smoke a risk factor for cancer and lung damage,
it gave the government one last myth to work with: the idea that marijuana
is dangerous.
If McCaffrey's strategy was to play up the harmful effects of smoking, it
definitely worked. In her story on March 18, New York Times reporter Sheryl
Gay Stolberg wrote that marijuana smoke "can cause cancer, lung damage and
complications during pregnancy." In that and subsequent stories, the Times
loosely used the word "toxic" to describe pot smoke. Obviously, there is
some risk in smoking burning leaves, but marijuana is relatively safe, as
drugs go, according to the report. And the IOM found no proof that it
causes cancer.
Perhaps the biggest wild card was where the editorials would come down on
the implications of the report for government policy. In what Americans for
Medical Rights spokesman Dave Fratello calls "the most significant policy
outgrowth of this entire report," the IOM recommended that the government
begin limited experiments to provide medical marijuana to patients who need
it.
It's too early to tell, but so far, no major paper has defended McCaffrey's
wait-and-see attitude. First to depart from the status quo were New York
Newsday, the Chicago Tribune, and the Chicago Sun-Times, which came out in
support of medical marijuana on March 19. The Sun-Times mocked the drug
czar as apparently "in search of a yes man," while the Tribune called for
"courageous political leadership."
On March 20, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Dayton Daily News, and the
Louisville Courier-Journal chimed in on the call for a change. Sample
quotes: Though McCaffrey "appears likely to shelve the study," his
"exaggerated fears and inflexible views should not trump the legitimate
needs of suffering people." On March 22, the Atlanta Journal opined, "This
report gives the Clinton administration a strong scientific basis to
abandon its illogical policy."
Meanwhile, the editorial writers in New York, Washington, and L.A. have
been silent. What are they waiting for? Perhaps in a situation like this,
the truth can come only from a conservative and former medical marijuana
user like Richard Brookhiser. In a March 22 New York Times op-ed,
Brookhiser wrote, "For obvious reasons, there has been no leadership on
this issue from President Clinton, who began his career of evasion at the
national level by telling us he didn't inhale."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Pot: Knee-Jerk Opposition (A notably rational staff editorial in the
Charleston Gazette, in West Virginia, is prompted by the March 17 Institute
of Medicine report on medical marijuana to conclude that cannabis should be
made "legal for desperately ill people - and probably for everyone." The
newspaper thinks political resistance to reform is rooted more in posturing
against "sin" than in intelligent science.)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 19:10:10 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US WV: Editorial: Medical Pot: Knee-Jerk Opposition
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: General Pulaski
Pubdate: Wed, 24 Mar 1999
Source: Charleston Gazette (WV)
Contact: danrad@wvinter.net
Website: http://www.wvgazette.com/
Forum: http://mailto:letters@wvgazette.com
(Copyright: 1999)
MEDICAL POT: KNEE-JERK OPPOSITION
AMERICA is goofy about drugs. The nation legalizes tobacco, which kills
more than 400,000 nicotine-hooked Americans every year.
And it legalizes alcohol, producing horror in car crashes, fires, family
violence and tipsy accidents.
Yet politicians act horrified at the notion of legalizing marijuana, a mild
exhilarant less harmful that tobacco and booze. They fear they'd be labeled
"soft on drugs" and clobbered in the next election.
In fact, politicos are so nervous about pot that they won't even let it be
used to ease the misery of terminal cancer or AIDS patients and other
sufferers. This stance is heartless.
Many Americans see the cruelty in withholding a painkiller from people in
agony. In 1996, voters in California passed an initiative allowing terminal
patients to use marijuana. But Congress and the Clinton administration
protested. National "Drug Czar" Barry McCaffery asked the National
Institute of Medicine for an objective, scientific study.
Now the study is finished - and it supports medicinal pot (cannabis). The
report says:
"The combination of cannabinoid drug effects (anxiety reduction, appetite
stimulation, nausea reduction and pain relief) suggests that cannabinoiods
would be moderately well-suited for certain conditions such as
chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting."
The report also says there is no evidence that marijuana is a "gateway"
leading users to hard narcotics. "Because underage smoking and alcohol use
typically precede marijuana use," it says, "marijuana is not the most
common, and is rarely the first, 'gateway' to illicit drug use. There is no
conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked
to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs."
America's attitude is shifting. Last year, initiatives for medical pot also
passed in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Shouldn't this
send a message to timid politicians?
Clearly, marijuana doesn't belong in Schedule I of the Controlled
Substances Act with severe narcotics like heroin. However, last fall the
House of Representatives voted 310-93 to keep it on the severe list. And
the Clinton administration - headed by a president who says he puffed pot
but didn't inhale - opposes reclassification.
We think this political resistance is rooted more in posturing against
"sin" than in intelligent science.
We think pot should be legal for desperately ill people - and probably for
everyone.
It's silly for America to allow the free flow of tobacco and alcohol, but
criminalize a less-harmful drug.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Seizure Of Drug Suspect's Vehicle Stirs Supreme Court (The Houston Chronicle
says the U.S. Supreme Court weighed the constitutionality of the drug war
Tuesday as it considered whether police in Florida need a warrant before
seizing and searching a car suspected of having been used in a cocaine deal.
The issue was whether police violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on
unreasonable searches and seizures when they failed to get a warrant before
impounding and examining the car of a man suspected of dealing drugs from the
vehicle. David Gauldin, a Florida assistant public defender representing
Tyvessel White, said Florida's goal was not to take White's car off the
streets but to secure evidence against his client, an effort that, he said,
required a warrant.)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:37:34 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US TX: Seizure Of Drug Suspect's Vehicle Stirs Supreme Court
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: GALAN@prodigy.net (G. A ROBISON)
Pubdate: Wed, 24 Mar 1999
Source: Houston Chronicle (TX)
Section: Page 9A
Copyright: 1999 Houston Chronicle
Contact: viewpoints@chron.com
Website: http://www.chron.com/
Forum: http://www.chron.com/content/hcitalk/index.html
Author: STEVE LASH
SEIZURE OF DRUG SUSPECT'S VEHICLE STIRS SUPREME COURT SKEPTICISM
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, weighing the constitutionality of the drug
war, considered Tuesday whether police need a warrant before seizing and
searching a car suspected of having been used in a cocaine deal.
Texas and other states have laws permitting police to seize vehicles
suspected of having been used in the drug trade. Under these statutes, the
cars themselves are regarded as motorized criminals who can be "arrested"
and "searched" if the police have probable cause to believe they were used
in illegal activity.
The issue raised by the Florida case before the high court was whether
police violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches
and seizures when they failed to get a warrant before impounding and
examining the car of a man suspected of dealing drugs from the vehicle.
An attorney for Florida, Carolyn Snurkowski, urged the justices to
reinstate the drug-possession conviction of Tyvessel White, who was found
guilty based on the cocaine police found in an ashtray during their search
of his seized 1983 Toyota four-door automobile.
David Gauldin, a Florida assistant public defender representing White,
pressed the high court to uphold the Florida Supreme Court's decision to
throw out his client's conviction. The court said the police had failed to
get a required warrant before searching the car.
The justices are expected to render their decision in Florida vs. White by
July.
Presenting Florida's appeal to a skeptical U.S. Supreme Court, Snurkowski
argued that police have the same constitutional authority to seize and
examine an automobile suspected of being used in a crime as they do to stop
and search a person they suspect of having committed a violent act.
Assistant U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, pressing the Clinton
administration's support for Florida's position, added that police do not
need a warrant to seize and search a car suspected of having been used in a
drug deal and parked in a public place, such as an outdoor parking lot.
But Gauldin told an equally critical court that Florida's goal was not to
take White's car off the streets but to secure evidence against his client,
an effort that, he said, required a warrant.
Several justices pressed the three attorneys, warning Snurkowski and
Stewart that their view of police power could lead to law-enforcement
abuses and telling Gauldin that federal and state governments have
summarily seized and searched vehicles hauling illegal goods since the dawn
of the republic.
Justice Antonin Scalia, in questioning Snurkowski, said he was most
concerned about the "potential for abuse" by police officers who, under
Florida's theory, could spot a suspicious car but then wait years before
seizing and searching it in hope of catching a drug dealer. The car thus
becomes an "evidence repository" for patient police who want the car solely
as a mechanism for trapping criminals without first getting a warrant,
Scalia told Snurkowski, who said little to assuage the justice's concern.
"This instrumentality, the car, is the offender here," responded
Snurkowski, conceding that police can wait before acting. "The car cannot
wipe itself ... of crime."
Justice John Paul Stevens rejected Snurkowski's argument, saying a car
cannot be equated to a drug dealer. For example, a suspicious car is no
longer a "criminal" once it has been sold to someone who is not suspected
of dealing drugs, the justice said.
"The vehicle is not the criminal," Stevens added. "You can exonerate the
vehicle by selling it."
Stewart, of the Clinton administration, said police without a warrant may
seize a car from a public parking lot and search it if they have probable
cause to suspect the vehicle was used in a drug deal. But police would need
a warrant before taking a car from a suspect's closed garage because the
owner in that case would have "a reasonable expectation of privacy" akin to
that of a person sitting in his or her home, Stewart said.
Countering the two government lawyers, Gauldin echoed Scalia's concern
about police abuse in arguing that Florida was interested not in the car
but in securing incriminating evidence against his client. To prove his
point, the public defender said police waited at least 68 days from when
they allegedly saw White deal drugs from his car before seizing the Toyota
from a parking lot.
Gauldin said that Florida police often use the automobiles they seize not
as evidence at drug trials but in performing undercover work or to raise
money at civic auctions.
"It's a healthy incentive to enforce the law," Scalia said of the benefits
the police derive.
"Too healthy," Gauldin responded.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
High Court Asked To Hear Challenge To Prosecution Deals (The Baltimore Sun
says Sonya Evette Singleton of Wichita, Kansas, is filing an appeal to the
U.S. Supreme Court asking it to rule that federal prosecutors may not offer
defendants leniency in exchange for testimony against another defendant - a
practice followed by generations of prosecutors. Singleton is serving a
46-month sentence after being convicted of money laundering and conspiracy to
distribute cocaine. The only evidence against her was testimony by another
defendant who was promised leniency if he implicated her. A three-judge panel
of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in Denver agreed with
Singleton's argument in July, but the full court reconsidered the case and
reversed that decision in January.)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 07:06:43 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: High Court Asked To Hear Challenge To Prosecution Deals
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: General Pulaski
Pubdate: Wed, 24 Mar 1999
Source: Baltimore Sun (MD)
Copyright: 1999 by The Baltimore Sun, a Times Mirror Newspaper.
Contact: letters@baltsun.com
Website: http://www.sunspot.net/
HIGH COURT ASKED TO HEAR CHALLENGE TO PROSECUTION DEALS;
U.S. Law Barring Rewards For Testimony Applies To Government, Says Inmate
WASHINGTON -- A Kansas woman, whose routine drug case has deeply shaken the
Justice Department and federal prosecutors across the nation, is taking her
legal cause to the Supreme Court.
In appeal papers that will reach the court by mail this week, Sonya Evette
Singleton of Wichita is asking the justices to rule that federal prosecutors
may not offer an individual involved in a crime lenient treatment in
exchange for testifying against a defendant -- a practice followed by
generations of prosecutors.
The law makes it a federal crime to give something of value to a witness in
exchange for his testimony. The statute is written to apply to "whoever"
violates it. That means federal prosecutors, too, are covered, Singleton's
appeal argues, a view rejected by a federal appeals court in January.
"It is true," she argues, "that there has been a practice of paying
criminals for their testimony; however, when the law clearly forbids this,
the practice must be stopped."
Singleton is serving a 46-month prison sentence after being convicted of
money laundering and conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The only testimony
linking her to the crime was given by an accomplice, who was promised
leniency if he implicated her.
The chances of Singleton winning a Supreme Court review of her case appear
to depend upon whether the justices see a need to sort out widely divergent
views of judges over whether the law applies to the government.
The law, which applies only in federal cases, is one of the most important
in the Justice Department's legal arsenal, aiding prosecutors in breaking
cases that might otherwise falter.
A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in
Denver agreed with Singleton's argument in July, saying prosecutors cannot
make leniency-for-testimony exchanges.
That ruling sent tremors through the federal legal establishment, with
high-ranking Justice Department officials saying it could undermine untold
numbers of federal convictions.
The appeals court panel's decision, however, was withdrawn when all 12
members of the court decided to take on the issue. The full court rejected
Singleton's argument in a decision in January.
The vote of the full court was 9-3 against her, but the court split three
ways in interpreting the law.
Seven judges took the broadest stance, saying the criminal ban on purchasing
testimony does not apply to the U.S. government, including its prosecutors.
The government is the sovereign, not a person covered by the word "whoever."
Two judges said the law does apply to the government, but said other laws
allowing prosecutors to arrange plea bargains take precedence.
Three judges -- the same three who, on the panel, ruled for Singleton last
summer -- dissented, saying the law should apply fully to prosecutors.
Singleton's appeal, filed by John Val Wachtel, a court-appointed Wichita
lawyer, argues that the appeals court twisted the law's meaning to suit
prosecutors.
"In order to protect the government's pretended age-old practice of buying
testimony through leniency, the majority was forced to conclude that the
government is not included within the meaning of `whoever,' and,
accordingly, that the government may give, offer or promise value in
exchange for testimony," the appeal said.
The Justice Department has a right to respond to her appeal before the
Supreme Court acts on her request for review later this spring.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marijuana Hoax (A syndicated column by Jacob Sullum recasts his Reason
magazine essay about how the Institute of Medicine report commissioned by
General Barry McCaffrey, the White House drug czar, contradicts the
statements he made in 1996 and 1997 while campaigning against
medical-marijuana ballot initiatives in California and Arizona. If, as the
IOM report indicates, marijuana's benefits are genuine and its hazards have
been greatly exaggerated, the real hoax is the one that men like McCaffrey
have perpetrated on the American public for more than half a century.)
From: Epeggs@aol.com
From: "CRRH mailing list" (restore@crrh.org)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 21:47:51 EDT
Subject: Marijuana Hoax
To: masscann-announce@world.std.com
Reply-To: Epeggs@aol.com
Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition\NORML
A State Affiliate of the National Organization
for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
P.O. Box 0266, Georgetown, MA 01833-0366
781-944-2266 - www.masscann.org -
epeggs@aol.com
"We shall by and by want a world of hemp more for our own consumption."
John Adams as Humphrey Ploughjogger, 1763
***
Marijuana Hoax
By Jacob Sullum
March 24, 1999
"Some dismiss medical marijuana as a hoax that exploits our natural
compassion for the sick.," notes a new report from the Institute of Medicine
that details the therapeutic potential of cannabis. The IOM's experts
discreetly refrain from adding that it's an opinion shared by the man who
commissioned the report.
"There is not a shred of scientific evidence that shows that smoked marijuana
is useful or needed," Barry McCaffrey, director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy, told the San Francisco Chronicle in August 1996. "This
is not medicine. This is a cruel hoax."
McCaffrey was campaigning against ballot initiatives aimed at allowing
patients to use marijuana without fear of prosecution. After voters in
California and Arizona approved these measures, he and other federal
officials threatened to punish physicians who recommended marijuana to their
patients.
At a December 1996 press conference, McCaffrey was asked whether there was
"any evidence...that marijuana is useful in a medical situation." His reply
was unequivocal: "No, none at all."
A week later, however, McCaffrey asked the IOM, a branch of the National
Academy of Sciences, to review the evidence of marijuana's medical
utility--evidence he had repeatedly claimed did not exist. The result was
this month's report, which confirms that McCaffrey is guilty either of
appalling ignorance or of bald-faced mendacity.
"The accumulated data indicate a potential therapeutic value for cannabinoid
drugs [marijuana's active ingredients], particularly for symptoms such as
pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation," says
the report (available at www.nap.edu). "Cannabinoids would be moderately well
suited for certain conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and
vomiting and AIDS wasting."
The authors add that marijuana's tendency to reduce anxiety would probably be
welcomed by many seriously ill patients. They also note evidence that
marijuana helps control the muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis.
Looking at the drug's risks, the report says "few marijuana users develop
dependence," while any withdrawal syndrome is "mild and short-lived." The
authors find "there is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of
marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other drugs"--a
theory favored by prohibitionists such as McCaffrey. As for the idea that
"sanctioning the medical use of marijuana might increase its use in the
general population"--another of McCaffrey's favorite bugaboos--"there are no
convincing data to support this concern."
The report finds that "the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the
range of effects tolerated for other medications," with one exception:
Smoking it introduces toxins that may lead to respiratory illness over the
long term. For this reason, the authors conclude that the future of medical
marijuana lies not in smoking the whole plant but in absorbing its active
components through inhalers or other clean delivery systems.
The report concedes that developing and marketing such products will take
years, and it acknowledges that some patients get better relief from
marijuana than they do from the currently available alternatives. It
recommends that such patients be permitted to use marijuana under strict
rules and close supervision while research continues.
Harvard psychiatrist Lester Grinspoon, co-author of Marihuana, Forbidden
Medicine and one of 13 experts who reviewed the IOM report before
publication, said it should have discussed marijuana vaporizers, which
release cannabinoids from the plant without burning it. He said these
devices, which address the IOM's main concern about marijuana's side effects,
are already available.
Given the needless suffering of patients who could get relief with marijuana,
the attempt to make the drug more acceptable to the medical establishment is
understandable. But leaving aside the cultural baggage this particular drug
carries, most doctors view the medicinal use of raw plant matter as
hopelessly primitive in an age of purified pharmaceuticals.
Furthermore, as Grinspoon has observed, a prescription system for marijuana
would have to filter out the people seeking simply to get high, and "the
doctors are not going to want to be gatekeepers." Indeed, Grinspoon has
argued that full legalization is the only way to make marijuana available to
every patient who could benefit from it.
It is this prospect, of course, that scares the drug warriors who decry
medical marijuana as a "hoax." But if, as the IOM report indicates,
marijuana's benefits are genuine and its hazards have been greatly
exaggerated, the real hoax is the one that men like Barry McCaffrey have
perpetrated on the American public for more than half a century.
(c) Copyright 1999 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico Extradites Drug Trafficker (The Associated Press says Tirso Angel
Robles, who escaped to Mexico from a California prison in 1995, was returned
to U.S. officials on Tuesday, just as two key Republican U.S. House members
moved to overturn President Clinton's certification of Mexico last month as a
fully cooperating drug war ally.)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 18:41:22 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Wire: Mexico Extradites Drug Trafficker
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: General Pulaski
Pubdate: Wed, 24 Mar 1999
Source: Associated Press
Copyright: 1999 Associated Press
Author: George Gedda Associated Press Writer
MEXICO EXTRADITES DRUG TRAFFICKER
WASHINGTON (AP) In a move welcomed by the Clinton administration,
Mexican authorities have extradited a Mexican man described as a
significant drug trafficker who headed a criminal enterprise.
State Department spokesman Lee McClenny said Wednesday that Tirso
Angel Robles, who escaped to Mexico from a California prison in 1995,
was turned over by Mexico to U.S. officials on Tuesday.
The announcement came as two key Republican House members moved to
overturn President Clinton's decision last month to certify Mexico as
a fully cooperating partner in the drug war.
U.S. officials said they were hopeful that the extradition would quiet
such criticism about Mexican cooperation. A major source of
congressional concern has been Mexico's refusal to extradite important
drug traffickers.
First word of the extradition came from Rand Beers, the State
Department's senior counter-narcotics official, during a hearing of a
Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee.
Subcommittee Chairman Paul Coverdell, R-Ga., noted that extradition
was a central issue in the debate over Mexican cooperation. He said
the extradition of Robles was "welcome news."
Robles was convicted in the United States in 1991 of drug trafficking
and taking part in a continuing criminal enterprise. He escaped in
1995 from California's Terminal Island correctional facility, where he
was serving a 12- year sentence.
He was arrested in Mexico in 1996 and approved for extradition a year
later. A Mexico City court recently rejected his appeal.
Officials described Robles as a significant drug trafficker, even
though he was not a member of a notorious criminal cartel.
According to accounts from Mexico, he was handed over by officers of
Interpol Mexico to the U.S. Marshals Service. A Marshals Service
spokesman said Robles arrived in the United States Tuesday night and
was en route on Wednesday to Los Angeles.
Mexico has extradited dual nationals wanted for drug trafficking and
other offenses but, before Tuesday, had never extradited a Mexican
national who was not a dual citizen, officials said.
In welcoming Robles' extradition, McClenny said the U.S. and Mexican
governments have an active and productive extradition relationship.
The two governments view the relationship "as important in both
bringing fugitives to justice and in combating transnational criminal
organizations, such as the Mexican trafficking group headed by
Robles," he said.
In certifying Mexico's performance in the drug war on Feb. 26, Clinton
ignored the objections of many in Congress.
And on Wednesday, House International Relations Committee Chairman Ben
Gilman, R-N.Y., and Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., introduced legislation
that would overturn the certification decision.
"No country in the world poses a more immediate drug threat to the
United States," said Mica at a hearing of the Government Reform drug
policy subcommittee he chairs.
Vast areas of Mexico are now under the control of drug traffickers,
Mica said. "If this trend continues, Mexico could be on the verge of
turning their sovereignty over to drug traffickers."
Congress under law has 30 days to reject the president's decision to
certify the drug efforts of a nation, but the Gilman bill would allow
Congress to debate the issue beyond the normal deadline.
At a separate hearing, Thomas Constantine, administrator of the Drug
Enforcement Administration, said two-thirds of the cocaine available
in the United States comes across the Mexican border. "On any given
day in the United States, business transactions are being arranged
between the major drug lords headquartered in Mexico and their
surrogates," he said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Drugs money linked to the Kosovo rebels (The Times, in London, notes the
sudden ascendancy of Kosovan Albanians in the heroin trade in Switzerland,
Germany and Scandinavia coincides with the sudden growth of the Kosovo
Liberation Army from a ragamuffin peasants' army two years ago to a
30,000-strong force equipped with grenade launchers, anti-tank weapons and
AK47s. Senior police officers across Europe think the KLA, which has won the
support of the West for its guerrilla struggle against the heavy armour of
the Serbs, is led by Marxists and funded by dubious sources, including drug
money.)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:09:45 -0500
From: Panthers Press (panthers@eos.net)
From: "CRRH mailing list" (restore@crrh.org)
Organization: Panthers Press Publishing
To: "restore@crrh.org" (restore@crrh.org)
Subject: Drug money linked to Kosovo rebels
FYI, ya'll
GP!HQ
http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/99/03/24/
timfgneur01012.html?1124027
March 24 1999
KOSOVO CRISIS
The KLA
Drugs money linked to the Kosovo rebels
FROM ROGER BOYES AND ESKE WRIGHT IN BONN
THE Kosovo Liberation Army, which has won the support of the West for its
guerrilla struggle against the heavy armour of the Serbs, is a Marxist-led
force funded by dubious sources, including drug money.
That is the judgment of senior police officers across Europe. An
investigation by The Times has established that police forces in three
Western European countries, together with Europol, the European police
authority, are separately investigating growing evidence that drug money is
funding the KLA's leap from obscurity to power.
The financing of the Kosovo guerrilla war poses critical questions and it
sorely tests claims to an "ethical" foreign policy. Should the West back a
guerrilla army that appears to be partly financed by organised crime? Could
the KLA's need for funds be fuelling the heroin trade across Europe?
The KLA has become an essential component of the Kosovo peace agreement;
without it, there would be no equal negotiating partner for the Belgrade
Government.
In military terms, it is in no sense equal to the Serb forces. But it has
grown from a theoretical notion to an often successful, very mobile and very
visible guerrilla grouping in a remarkably short time.
Much of the money funding the KLA is believed to come from legitimate
sources - raised by the People's Movement of Kosovo, which is the political
wing of the resistance movement. There are about 500,000 Kosovan Albanians in
Western Europe who send money back home because it funds healthcare for their
cousins. However, some of this cash is believed to be siphoned off for the
military.
As well as diverting charit-able donations from exiled Kosovans, some of the
KLA money is thought to come from drug dealing.
Sweden is investigating suspicions of a KLA drug connection. "We have
intelligence leading us to believe that there could be a connection between
drug money and the Kosovo Liberation Army," said Walter Kege, head of the
drug enforcement unit in the Swedish police intelligence service.
Supporting intelligence has come from other states. "We have yet to find
direct evidence, but our experience tells us that the channels for trading
hard drugs are also used for weapons," said one Swiss police commander.
An official in the Bavarian Interior Ministry also told The Times of a recent
fundraising meeting involving some 200 Kosovans in southern Germany. "At the
end of the session they raised DM100,000 [about £40,000]."
This represents a huge sum for ordinary Kosovans and fuels speculation that
apparently legitimate fundraising activities are used to launder dirty money.
One Western intelligence report quoted by Berliner Zeitung says that DM900
million has reached Kosovo since the guerrillas began operations and half the
sum is said to be illegal drug money.
In particular, European countries are investigating the Albanian connection:
whether Kosovan Albanians living primarily in Germany and Switzerland are
creaming off the profits from inner-city heroin dealing and sending the cash
to the KLA.
Albania - which plays a key role in channelling money to the Kosovans - is at
the hub of Europe's drug trade. An intelligence report which was prepared by
Germany's Federal Criminal Agency concluded: "Ethnic Albanians are now the
most prominent group in the distribution of heroin in Western consumer
countries."
Europol, which is based in The Hague, is preparing a report for European
interior and justice ministers on a connection between the KLA and Albanian
drug gangs.
Police in the Czech Republic recently tracked down a Kosovo Albanian drug
dealer named Doboshi who had escaped from a Norwegian prison where he was
serving 12 years for heroin trading. A raid on Doboshi's apartment turned up
documents linking him with arms purchases for the KLA.
Police sources in Germany have made plain their suspicions: the sudden
ascendancy of Kosovan Albanians in the heroin trade in Switzerland, Germany
and Scandinavia coincides with the sudden growth of the KLA from a ragamuffin
peasants' army two years ago to a 30,000-strong force equipped with grenade
launchers, anti-tank weapons and AK47s.
Copyright 1999 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided on Times
Newspapers' standard terms and conditions. To inquire about a licence
to reproduce material from The Times, visit the Syndication website.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[End]
to the 1999 Daily News index for March 19-25