------------------------------------------------------------------- Senate approves measure to clarify state's suicide law (The Associated Press says the Oregon Senate approved a bill Monday to revise the state's unique physician-assisted suicide law, saying it would give the Death With Dignity Act much-needed clarification. Health groups that oppose assisted suicide, such as Providence Health System, a network of Catholic hospitals, will now be able to punish affiliated doctors if help a patient under the voter-approved law.) Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/) Pubdate: Tue, Apr 27 1999 Source: Oregonian, The (OR) Copyright: 1999 The Oregonian Contact: email@example.com Address: 1320 SW Broadway, Portland, OR 97201 Fax: 503-294-4193 Website: http://www.oregonlive.com/ Forum: http://forums.oregonlive.com/ Author: Amalie Young, the Associated Press Senate approves measure to clarify state's suicide law * Backers say the bill closes loopholes in the nation's only law allowing doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to the terminally ill SALEM -- The Oregon Senate approved a bill Monday to revise the state's landmark assisted suicide law, saying it would give the Death With Dignity Act much-needed clarification. Lawmakers this session took the cue from voters two years ago, who rejected an effort to repeal the suicide law. This session, legislators have tried to close some loopholes in the nation's only law allowing doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to terminally ill patients who request them. Backers of the measure, approved 22-6, say it would do just that. The bill now goes to the House. Opponents of the Death With Dignity Act conceded that the bill would provide improvements, but they did not want to legitimize assisted suicide by supporting the changes. "I just don't ever want my vote associated with this in a positive way," said Sen. Eileen Qutub, R-Beaverton. Sen. Neil Bryant, R-Bend, the sponsor of the bill, said it satisfied his concern that patients might take their lives in public places such as beaches and parks. The bill didn't prohibit a doctor from helping a patient take his or her life in public. It would, however, allow the state to charge a person's estate for any costs that might arise in such a case. "This is an improvement in the law for all of those involved," Bryant said before the vote. Under the bill, physicians who participate in assisted suicide would be expected to tick off a checklist of sorts. Among other things, doctors would make sure a patient has an Oregon driver's license, is registered to vote, owns or leases property or has submitted a state tax return. Doctors wouldn't be penalized for helping a patient who could not demonstrate Oregon residence. Health groups that oppose assisted suicide, such as Providence Health System, a network of Catholic hospitals, have asked for more authority to punish doctors who flout hospital policy and help patients end their lives. Under the bill passed Monday, those hospitals could prohibit assisted suicide on their property if they clearly forbade it in their contract. Doctors who violated that policy could lose hospital privileges or office leases. Doctors wouldn't be prevented from answering a patients' questions about assisted suicide or referring patients to another doctor who could help them, however.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Kubby Update (A bulletin from Steve Kubby, the medical-marijuana patient/activist and 1998 Libertarian candidate for California governor, and his wife, Michele, describes their recent court hearing in Auburn regarding their indictment on cultivation charges. "Everyone in town is rooting for you," said a receptionist at their hotel. The trial date has been moved back, to July 20.) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:16:08 EDT Originator: firstname.lastname@example.org Sender: email@example.com From: Tim Perkins (firstname.lastname@example.org) To: Multiple recipients of list (email@example.com) Subject: Kubby Update: 4/27/99 X-ListProcessor-Instructions: Send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org with the subject blank and the BODY containing nothing but the word HELP for instructions. X-Comment: Friends of Cannabis Freedom Fund List Organization: Cannabis Freedom Fund Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 05:50:24 -0700 From: Steve Kubby (email@example.com) Kubby Update: 4/27/99 Friends, We arrived in the quiet mountain town of Auburn and were delighted to learn that we have become somewhat of celebrities there. It started almost immediately, as we checked into our hotel. A very conservative looking receptionist immediately recognized our name and told us, "everyone in town rooting for you." That receptionist sure was right. Everywhere we went, people recognized us and felt compelled to express their support for us. By the time we arrived in court, we were on a roll. The courtroom was packed with supporters and even the deputies treated us with respect. Best of all, after months of being helpless victims while the prosecution used the system to their advantage, we were finally able to take control of events. Without question, your letters, e-mails and checks of support have created a media storm which the authorities can no longer ignore. So far, we've seen first hand how the checks and balances of the court process have been corrupted. We've seen how nearly all the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the accused have been antisepticly removed from each step of the criminal justice system -- until one reaches the level we're at now. Unfortunately, most patients have neither the resources nor the stamina to make it this far. Thank you for helping us to get this far. Anyway, it was great to finally be in the driver's seat. Despite the objections of deputy district attorney Christopher Cattran, our trial date was successfully moved from May 18th to July 20th, in order to allow our attorneys to complete their current trial commitments and have adequate time to prepare our defense. On the issue of travel, Cattran had told my attorney on an earlier occasion that he would have me arrested if I tried to speak at the MoKan Libertarian State Convention this May. In court however, we were able to prevail and I will be allowed to attend. Also, Michele will be able to visit relatives in Nebraska this May. Several journalists, attorneys and public defenders introduced themselves to us and everyone wanted to know what we could tell them about the Baldwin's case. All eyes are on Judge James Garbolino who has suspended the Baldwin trial and is expected to dismiss it on next Wednesday. Judge Garbolino has certainly impressed us his willingness to revisit an issue with an open mind. It was Garbolino who, after raising our bail to $200,000, later released us without any bail. Michele and I are thrilled and grateful by the new turn of events and for the support all of you have helped create for us. We're especially grateful to the award-winning Auburn Journal which has given us tremendous editorial support and has published every letter sent to them by our supporters. Let freedom grow, Steve and Michele *** KUBBY DEFENSE FUND 15 Monarch Bay Plaza #375 Dana Point, CA 92629-3424 *** Cannabis Freedom Fund http://www.freecannabis.org
------------------------------------------------------------------- Medicine - Not Pot (An op-ed in the Washington Post by Robert L. DuPont, the former head of NIDA from 1973 to 1978, puts the drug-warrior spin on the March 17 Institute of Medicine report on medical marijuana.) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:14:17 -0700 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) To: email@example.com Subject: MN: US DC: OPED: Medicine -- Not Pot Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Jo-D Harrison Dunbar Pubdate: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 Source: Washington Post (DC) Page: A17 Copyright: 1999 The Washington Post Company Address: 1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071 Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ Author: Robert L. DuPont Note: The writer was director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse from 1973 to 1978. He is now a clinical professor of psychiatry at Georgetown Medical School. MEDICINE -- NOT POT Last month the Institute of Medicine released a report in response to the two-year-long wave of ballot initiatives supporting medical marijuana. It assessed the scientific base of the claim that suffering terminally ill people are unnecessarily deprived of a useful treatment by drug laws that criminalize smoking. There has never been controversy about the use of purified chemicals in smoke to treat any illness, as witnessed by the availability of synthetic tetrahydrocabinol (THC) since 1985. The only dispute between the drug-law hawks and doves is the place of smoked marijuana in medical treatment. The institute's report, balanced and firmly rooted in three decades of scientific research, reached this conclusion: "Although smoke delivers THC and other cannabinoids to the body, it also delivers harmful substances, including most of those found in tobacco smoke. In addition, plants contain a variable mixture of biologically active compounds and cannot be expected to provide a precisely defined drug effect. For those reasons, the report concludes that the future of cannabinoid drugs lies not in smoked marijuana but in chemically defined drugs that act on the cannabinoid systems that are a natural component of human physiology. Until such drugs can be developed and made available for medical use, the report recommends interim solutions." Here are the details of its interim solution: "Short-term use of smoked marijuana (not more than 6 months) for patients with debilitating symptoms (such as intractable pain or vomiting) must meet the following conditions: "failure of all approved medications to provide relief has been documented; "the symptoms can reasonably be expected to be relieved by rapid-onset cannabinoid drugs; "such treatment is administered under medical supervision in a manner that allows for assessment of treatment effectiveness; "and involves an oversight strategy comparable to an institutional review board process that could provide guidance within 24 hours of submission by a physician to provide marijuana to a patient for a specified use." The best hope for a resolution of this medical conflict would be for the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) to fashion definitive clinical trials of smoked marijuana vs. other standard treatments for the indications the Institute of Medicine identified (anxiety reduction, appetite stimulation, nausea reduction and pain relief). This was how a similar call for legal heroin for terminal cancer pain was disposed of a decade ago. A controlled trial conducted at Sloan-Kettering, (funded by NIDA), showed that heroin offered no advantages compared with standard pain treatments. If new trials were to show superiority for smoked marijuana, and if there was no way to identify and deliver purified chemicals with less toxicity than smoke, then I would have no objection to a carefully monitored, medically supervised use of smoked marijuana in settings that discouraged diversion. There is no controversy in the United States today about the medical use of opiates (including those derived from natural opium, as is heroin) or cocaine. The concern now is that smoked marijuana has not been shown to be superior to other treatments for any illness. Most supporters of medical marijuana do not understand three facts that were made clear in the Institute of Medicine's report: (1) "The effects of cannabinoids on the symptoms studied are generally modest, and in most cases, there are more effective medications." In other words, do not look for anything dramatic from this class of chemicals. This may explain why marijuana's chemicals have produced little enthusiasm from pharmaceutical companies. (2) Modern medicine does not burn leaves and ask sick patients to inhale the smoke. It identifies individual chemicals and delivers them in purified, often synthetic, form to treat specific illnesses. (3) Marijuana smoke is not only unstable but toxic, like tobacco smoke. These characteristics make smoked marijuana unsuitable as a medicine. Clinical trials will take several years, and they are expensive. The most regrettable aspect of this process is that scarce medical research money will be wasted on tests of the chemicals in smoke that have little medical value. Nevertheless, the political momentum created by the marijuana advocates has made it essential that these clinical trials go forward to demonstrate to a skeptical public how smoked marijuana stacks up against standard treatments. I hope that the people who now are advocating a science-based approach to this politicized problem, including the Institute of Medicine, understand that these efforts, even if completely successful, will have little impact on the pro-marijuana forces, whose only interest is free access to the drug. They do not want clinical trials, and they do not want purified or synthetic cannabinoids. They want smoked dope. The writer was director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse from 1973 to 1978. He is now a clinical professor of psychiatry at Georgetown Medical School.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Moral Muddle In The Drugs Debate (A staff editorial in the Scotsman ponders the varying public perceptions and moralities suggested by the sensationalism that ensued after the death of a teenager, Leah Betts, who took ecstasy, and the widely ignored deaths last year of 80 people who took street heroin in Strathclyde. "A sensible drugs policy would treat each drug according to the risk it posed to health. Criminalising the true killers, unfortunately, is impossible as we cannot end society's affair with alcohol and tobacco. What we can do is to try to redress the balance in the way we deal with illegal drugs.") Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 19:59:51 -0700 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) To: email@example.com Subject: MN: Scotland: Editorial: Moral Muddle In The Drugs Debate Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: firstname.lastname@example.org Pubdate: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 Source: Scotsman (UK) Copyright: The Scotsman Publications Ltd 1999 Contact: Letters_ts@scotsman.com Website: http://www.scotsman.com/ Forum: http://www.scotsman.com/ MORAL MUDDLE IN THE DRUGS DEBATE Editorial comment IS one drug abuser's life worth more than another's? Our moral sense says no. Whether you take your text from Jesus' example in befriending prostitutes and curing lepers, or from Rabbie Burns's assertion that "a man's for a that", the message is the same: we are all equal. By this token, the death of the teenager, Leah Betts, after taking ecstasy is no more tragic than the deaths of the 80 people from heroin overdoses in Strathclyde last year. But that is not the way it is shown in the media, says Netta Maciver, the chief executive of Scotland's largest anti-drugs charity, Turning Point Scotland. She is right, of course. Leah Betts dominated the news for days, whereas dead heroin addicts are lucky to merit a few paragraphs on an inside page, unless they happen to die in a cell. Let's be honest about this. We saw in Leah an intelligent young girl who died tragically with her life ahead of her. Endless editorials were devoted to the dangers of dabbling in designer drugs. Heroin addicts are portrayed, if at all, as problem citizens - mentally ill, poor, deceitful, thieving, prostitutes, Hep C and HIV positive, victims and victimisers. They do not have a life ahead of them. Heroin is the junkie drug, used by losers. Maciver has highlighted the moral muddle at the heart of the drugs debate. Heroin is an addictive scourge. It causes untold misery to young people who use it in an unsuccessful attempt to escape from their unhappiness. Of course, ecstasy has dangers, but compared with heroin it rates as little more than a middle class moral panic. A sensible drugs policy would treat each drug according to the risk it posed to health. Criminalising the true killers, unfortunately, is impossible as we cannot end society's affair with alcohol and tobacco. What we can do is to try to redress the balance in the way we deal with illegal drugs. We can allocate resources for tackling addiction. There are 3,000 registered addicts in Grampian, and not a single drugs detox or rehab centre. We can lobby for Scotland to be given the legislative power to set its own drugs policy, independent of Westminster. And, above all, we must tackle social exclusion, which is the reason why so many young people tragically throw their lives away.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Swiss Recommend Legalizing Cannabis (The Associated Press says a panel appointed by the Swiss government recommended Friday that the country legalize the sale and use of marijuana, but with controls to avoid becoming a "drug haven." The existing ban on marijuana hasn't worked and may even encourage its use among young people, the panel said. No other European nation, including the Netherlands, has technically legalized the possession or sale of cannabis.) From: Mireille Jacobson (MJacobson@sorosny.org) To: TLC_CANNABIS (TLCCANNABIS@sorosny.org) Subject: Swiss Recommend Legalizing Cannabis Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:36:20 -0400 Sender: email@example.com Swiss Recommend Legalizing Cannabis .c The Associated Press BERN, Switzerland (AP) -- Switzerland should legalize the sale and use of marijuana but with controls to keep the nation from becoming a drug haven, a government-appointed panel urged Friday. The committee's recommendation to the Cabinet will be considered as part of an ongoing study to revise Switzerland's drug laws but would probably have to receive approval in a national referendum. The existing ban on marijuana hasn't worked and may even encourage its use among young people, the panel said. ``Cannabis is a drug and the committee isn't intending to trivialize it or say that its consumption is without risk ... but consumption is rising, especially among young people,'' panel member Anne-Catherine Menetrey told Swiss radio. The committee said the popularity of the drug and varying attitudes of different states to consumption and low-level dealing mean the Swiss policy on drugs is suffering from a ``growing loss of credibility.'' Under the recommendation, prospective marijuana sellers would have to pass a training course and be licensed. Purchasers would have to prove that they lived in Switzerland to prevent tourists from flocking to Switzerland to buy drugs, the panel said. Last November, some 74 percent of Swiss voters rejected a constitutional amendment to legalize the consumption, cultivation and acquisition of hard and soft drugs, including heroin, for personal use. Government ministers said the legalization plan was a health risk and would turn Switzerland into a haven for drug addicts from abroad. No other European nation, not even the relatively liberal Netherlands, has legalized the possession or sale of any drugs or has plans to do so. In 1997, the Swiss overwhelmingly voted in favor of state distribution of heroin to addicts. Government studies showed this cut crime associated with the drug scene. AP-NY-04-23-99 1345EDT Copyright 1998 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without prior written authority of The Associated Press.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Justices To Decide If FDA Can Regulate Cigarettes As A Drug (The Houston Chronicle says the U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear the Clinton administration's appeal of a ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the federal government does not have the authority to regulate cigarettes as a drug.) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 19:50:05 -0700 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) To: email@example.com Subject: MN: US: Justices To Decide If FDA Can Regulate Cigarettes As A Drug Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Art Smart (ArtSmart@neosoft.com) Pubdate: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 Source: Houston Chronicle (TX) Page: 7A Copyright: 1999 Houston Chronicle Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.chron.com/ Forum: http://www.chron.com/content/hcitalk/index.html Author: Steve Lash JUSTICES TO DECIDE IF FDA CAN REGULATE CIGARETTES AS A DRUG WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed to decide Monday whether the federal government has the authority to regulate cigarettes as a drug. The court's decision to hear an appeal by the Clinton administration marks a small victory for the president's effort to discourage children from smoking. At issue are the strict regulations imposed by the Food and Drug Administration on the sale and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to minors. Tobacco companies and retailers have successfully argued that the FDA lacks the statutory authority to regulate tobacco. Texas joined 38 other states in successfully urging the justices to hear the president's appeal. The states argued that tobacco products have imposed enormous health costs on the nation and should be regulated. Texas settled its lawsuit with tobacco companies in January 1998 for $17.6 billion to recover its Medicaid costs for treating victims of smoking-related diseases. The Clinton administration appealed a ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Congress never intended to give the FDA authority to regulate their products. The Clinton administration argued that the FDA may regulate tobacco as a drug under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The FDA concluded that tobacco is a drug after reviewing scientific evidence showing that the nicotine in tobacco is addictive and acts as a sedative, stimulant and appetite suppressant, much like other drugs that the agency regulates. FDA's controversial regulations prohibit the sale of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to anyone younger than 18, require retailers to check the identification of would-be tobacco buyers younger than 27 and restrict vending-machine sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to adult-only locations. The agency also requires that print ads appear in black and white, except in adult publications; bans outdoor advertising within 1,000 feet of schools and public playgrounds; prohibits the distribution of clothing and other products that bear a tobacco company logo; and bars tobacco companies from sponsoring of athletic, cultural or other events under tobacco brand name. U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman, pressing Clinton's appeal to the justices, noted that 400,000 people die annually in the United States from smoking-related diseases. Most of the adults who smoke began as children, Waxman added. "Unless reversed by this court, the panel's ruling will deprive the public of an unparalleled opportunity to prevent millions of children from beginning a highly addictive habit that often leads to premature death," Waxman wrote. The tobacco companies argued that Congress never intended for the FDA to regulate tobacco. Instead, Congress has passed regulating legislation that requires the surgeon general's warning on cigarette cartons and bans smoking on commercial airplanes, the companies argued. "Thus, owing to their widespread use, national regional economic importance, perceived risks, and lack of therapeutic benefits, tobacco products have long presented public-policy issues very different from those presented by foods, drugs, medical devices and cosmetics," wrote the companies' lawyer, Richard Cooper. The tobacco companies challenging the FDA include Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Philip Morris Inc., Lorillard Tobacco Co., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and United States Tobacco Co. Joining them were the National Association of Convenience Stores and the North Carolina Tobacco Distributors Committee Inc. The high court will hear arguments from the Clinton administration and tobacco companies in the fall or early next year and render its decision by July 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Marijuana Bill Tabled (The Calgary Herald says Reform MP Keith Martin introduced legislation in Canada's Parliament yesterday that would decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, as recommended last week by the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs. The chiefs say they could maximize their dwindling resources by targeting organized crime instead of busting potheads. Justice Minister Anne McLellan is willing to look at the law, but not until after formally meeting with police chiefs in August.) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 20:15:52 -0700 From: email@example.com (MAPNews) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: MN: Canada: Marijuana Bill Tabled Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: email@example.com Pubdate: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 Source: Calgary Sun (Canada) Copyright: 1999, Canoe Limited Partnership. Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.canoe.ca/CalgarySun/ Forum: http://www.canoe.ca/Chat/home.html Author: Mike Dunn MARIJUANA BILL TABLED Move would aid police forces OTTAWA --Reform MP Keith Martin introduced legislation in Parliament yesterday that would decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. Martin's private members' bill would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and parallels elements of a policy adopted by the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs last week. The chiefs say they could maximize their dwindling resources by targeting organized crime instead of busting potheads. "I would like to see our police officers pursuing rapists and organized crime barons, not people for simple possession," said Martin, a doctor by training. His bill was also the source of some embarrassment because it also called on the Feds to decriminalize trafficking of marijuana in small amounts. Bureaucrats were called to fix the blunder. Amendments were sought by police chiefs so police would have the option of charging someone with 30 grams or less of marijuana or one gram or less of cannabis resin. Police want to be able to use their discretion, including the option of issuing a ticket that would come with a fine and no criminal record. Justice Minister Anne McLellan is willing to look at the law, but not until after formally meeting with police chiefs in August. "I have no problem reviewing the possible use of the act for possession of small amounts of marijuana,'' she said outside the Commons.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Reform Party Tables Pot Bill (The Toronto Sun version) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 19:07:56 -0700 From: email@example.com (MAPNews) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: MN: Canada: Reform Party Tables Pot Bill Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: EWCHIEF@aol.com Pubdate: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 Source: Toronto Sun (Canada) Copyright: 1999, Canoe Limited Partnership. Contact: email@example.com Website: http://www.canoe.ca/TorontoSun/ REFORM PARTY TABLES POT BILL Reform MP Keith Martin introduced legislation in Parliament yesterday that would decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. Martin's private members' bill would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and parallels elements of a policy adopted by the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs last week. "I would like to see our police officers pursuing rapists and organized crime barons, not people for simple possession," said Martin, a doctor by training. His bill was also the source of some embarrassment yesterday because it also called on the Feds to decriminalize trafficking of marijuana in small amounts. Bureaucrats were called to fix the blunder. And amendments were immediately sought by police chiefs so police would have the option of charging someone with 30 grams or less or marijuana or one gram or less of cannabis resin. Police want the option of issuing a ticket that would come with a fine and no criminal record.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Magazine Stays (According to the New Zealand Herald, police in New Zealand are stymied in their efforts to remove High Times magazine from shop shelves. The Health Ministry was able to ban the importation of overseas cigar magazines by saying that they breached the Smokefree Environments Act, but the ministry decided it has "no jurisdiction over marijuana promotion.") Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 20:15:02 -0700 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) To: email@example.com Subject: MN: New Zealand: Magazine Stays Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: The Hemp Store (firstname.lastname@example.org) by way of Richard Lake (email@example.com) Pubdate: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 Source: New Zealand Herald (New Zealand) Page: A4 Copyright: New Zealand Herald Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Mail: PO Box 32, Auckland Website: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/news MAGAZINE STAYS Police say they are powerless to remove a marijuana magazine, High Times, from shop shelves. Distributors have stopped importing overseas cigar magazines after a Health Ministry warning that they breached the Smokefree Environments Act, but High Times remains on magazine stands. Its distributors say 3000 copies are sold each month. The United States magazine includes growing tips, a guide to marijuana movies, interviews, cannabis paraphernalia giveaways and mail order forms. It was banned for about nine months last year after the Office of Film and Literature Classification ruled that it was objectionable, but the distributors sought a review. The review board allowed it to be imported again, but with an R18 classification. The ministry said it had no jurisdiction over marijuana promotion. -------------------------------------------------------------------
The articles posted here are generally copyrighted by the source publications. They are reproduced here for educational purposes under the Fair Use Doctrine (17 U.S.C., section 107). NORML is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit educational organization. The views of the authors and/or source publications are not necessarily those of NORML. The articles and information included here are not for sale or resale.
Comments, questions and suggestions.Reporters and researchers are welcome at the world's largest online library of drug-policy information, sponsored by the Drug Reform Coordination Network at: http://www.druglibrary.org/
Next day's news
Previous day's news
to the 1999 Daily News index for April 23-29
to the Portland NORML news archive directory
to the 1999 Daily News index (long)
This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/ii/990427.html