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

When Patients Want To Use Marijuana For Medical Purposes - How Physicians
Should Respond (Dr. Rick Bayer, a chief petitioner for the Oregon Medical
Marijuana Act, forwards the Oregon Medical Association's new official legal
guidelines for physicians on how best to help a patient whose condition might
be improved by cannabis. The new guidelines have not been posted at the OMA
website, and so far have been distributed only to about 300 OMA delegates and
officers out of the more than 7,000 doctors in Oregon and 5000 OMA members.
But this is a big change for the OMA from their "just say no to OMMA" message
in December. There were no negative comments from any doctor about this
change in OMA policy.)

From: "Rick Bayer" (ricbayer@teleport.com)
To: "Rick Bayer" (ricbayer@teleport.com)
Subject: OMA official OMMA policy
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 19:22:57 -0700

Dear OMMA supporters

A few weeks ago we had the preliminary executive committee A report from
the Oregon Medical Association about how doctors "should respond" to a
request for mmj under the OMMA. The report is now official and the
change was a new line (E.) adding to have a PARQ (procedures,
alternatives, risks, and questions answered) conference with patients
and document it in the chart like we are supposed to do for all drug
therapies.

The official document is enclosed below and I know some of it is
intentionally scary. I cannot find it on the OMA website and am at a
loss as to how many doctors are going to be aware of this unless it is
included in some general mailing in the future. As of this moment, the
mailing has gone only to OMA delegates and officers (around 300 of the
7000 + or so docs in Oregon and the 5000 + OMA members). This is a big
change for the OMA form their "just say no to OMMA" message in December
of 1998. There were no negative comments from any doctor about this
change in OMA policy.

I may put it on the OMR website (http://www.teleport.com/~omr) and add a
link on the OMR website to the IOM study if people think that is a good
idea. Feel free to copy and paste the report below onto a document that
you can distribute to patients and doctors and policy makers.

Again special thanks to ACLU national attorney Graham Boyd (and ACLU
Oregon executive director Dave Fidanque who set this up) and California
Medical Association attorney, Alice Mead. Special thanks also to OMA
attorney Paul Frisch who eventually saw that he needed to do something
to protect Oregon Medical Association doctors from the feds.

As you know, the OHD has now made the administrative rules official as
of May 1. Dr. Higginson, the state health officer, returned my call
yesterday to tell me that the program is "up and going" and the
application forms are being mailed. The fee and plant maturity issue
are unfavorable but are not insurmountable obstacles. The fee is not
the fault of the OHD. We need to look to creative ways and private
funding for patients who cannot afford that. The whole plant maturity
and pre-arrest exception for patients who need more than three plants
worth of mj needs to be re-explored, but we have a bigger concern now.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, our enemy is now HB 3052 -
this is the conundrum that could force us back to the ballot for a
referendum if our legislature tries to undo the OMMA. Thanks to Geoff
Sugerman, Amy Klare, and David Smigelski (Oregonians for Medical Rights)
for tracking, lobbying, and testifying on the activities in Salem. Also
thanks to Dave Fidanque, Lee Berger, and others who have testified for
us on HB 3052.

Congratulations to John Sajo, Lee Berger, and Michael Rose of Voter
Power and the many others of you for working to get HJM 10 getting out
of committee. Wow! I'm stunned. Nice job. Special thanks to OMMA
chief petitioner, Stormy Ray, for tirelessly lobbying legislators on
protecting patient's rights on all the above issues.

I apologize for leaving out the many, many volunteers who have gotten us
to where we are today but you know who you are and thanks. The HJM 10
vote should come up this week (if someone doesn't find a technical way
to kill the resolution). HB 3052 has either passed through the House
Judiciary committee or is about to.

The legislative session usually ends in July and they don't come back
until 2001. Maybe we will get a few more tolerant (and tolerable)
individuals in the legislature by then. Please vote in 2000. Stay
tuned. . .

Thanks for your support.

Rick Bayer

Rick Bayer, MD
6800 SW Canyon Drive
Portland, OR 97225
503-292-1035 (voice)
503-297-0754 (fax)
mailto:ricbayer@teleport.com

***

WHEN PATIENTS WANT TO USE MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES

HOW PHYSICIANS SHOULD RESPOND

Oregon's medical marijuana law was passed by the voters in November,
1998. It exempts certain persons from state criminal penalties for the
production, possession, delivery, or administration of marijuana or
paraphernalia used to administer marijuana provided they comply with
very detailed requirements. Oregon's law is unique in that the state
health division is charged with creating a means by which candidates for
exemption from prosecution are given registry identification cards so
that state law enforcement officials can readily determine their exempt
status. Oregon physicians figure into the law because unless the patient
has the required "written documentation" from their "attending
physician," they are not eligible for this exemption.

This law poses several important legal dilemmas for members. Physicians
who comply cannot be prosecuted criminally by state authorities.
However, nothing prevents the federal government through the Drug
Enforcement Administration from taking action against physicians for
"aiding and abetting" the commission of a federal crime. To underscore
the seriousness of this situation, consider this February 27, 1997
response of federal officials to a request from the California Medical
Association regarding that state's medical marijuana law:

' . . .Physicians may not intentionally provide their patients with oral
or written statements in order to obtain controlled substances in
violation of federal law. Physicians who do so risk revocation of their
DEA prescription authority, criminal prosecution, and exclusion from
participation in Medicare, and Medicaid programs."

In a March 8, 1999 letter, OMA asked these officials for clarification
of the above statement. OMA's letter poses the following question:

"Do statements in patient charts that the person has been diagnosed with
a debilitating medical condition and that the use of medical marijuana
may mitigate the symptoms or effects of the debilitating medical
condition constitute written statements in order to enable [their
patients] to obtain controlled substances in violation of federal law?"

OMA has not yet received a response. Pending that response, physicians
are advised that they are at risk unless they limit their activities to
those identified below.

A second and equally serious dilemma arises when physicians provide
their patients with a discussion of the possible risks and benefits
associated with the use of marijuana for medical purposes. To the extent
that such discussions occur, physicians need to know that nothing in the
law prevents patients, or their legal representatives if they die, from
bringing claims against physicians alleging failure to disclose all the
viable alternatives and material risks of using medical marijuana. This
is particularly important because patients must be suffering from a
"debilitating medical condition" at the time the discussions occur.
Patients with already compromised physical conditions make riskier
candidates. If they suffer a bad outcome coincidental to their use of
medical marijuana, they may try to blame their "attending physician."

I. Physicians are not obligated to participate.

II. If the patient requests it, physicians should do ONLY the following
things in order for their patients to benefit from Oregon's law
permitting medical use of marijuana.

A. Determine whether the patient suffers from a "debilitating medical
condition." If the patient does not qualify this should be documented in
the patient's chart.

B. If they do suffer from a debilitating medical condition, document
that fact in the patients chart.

C. Determine whether the use of medical marijuana "may mitigate symptoms
or effects of the person's debilitating medical condition." If you tell
the patient that its use may not mitigate symptoms or effects, then this
should be documented in the patient's chart.

D. If you tell the patient that "use of medical marijuana may mitigate
symptoms or effects", document that this conversation occurred in the
patient's chart.

E. Perform a PARQ conference and document it in the patient's chart.

I. Physicians SHOULD AVOID any of the following:

A. AVOID providing your patients with information about where they can
obtain medical marijuana.

B. AVOID talking with anyone by telephone or in person who offers to
help your patient obtain marijuana.

C. AVOID writing anything in support of the patient's desire for medical
marijuana other than that the patient suffers a "deliberating medical
condition" and that "medical use of marijuana may mitigate symptoms and
side effects..."

D. AVOID writing anywhere but in the patient's chart. This means not
supplying the patient with a letter or form signed by the physician.

E. ABOVE ALL AVOID writing this information on a prescription.

As long as the discussions and documentation concerning the use of
medical marijuana occur just between a physician and a patient in a
medical office setting and the information conveyed is no more than that
which is required to fulfill the physician's part in the patient's
process of gaining exemption from criminal prosecution, OMA believes
that the risk of federal intervention is minimized. This is because the
foregoing actions are consistent with traditional physician functions of
diagnosing, and documenting advice and counsel. They also meet the
definition of the law's requirement of "written documentation" of the
patient's debilitating medical condition. At the same time they are
inconsistent with the actions described in the federal government's
letter to the California Medical Association. However, unless and until
the federal government provides OMA with a response to its March 8, 1999
letter seeking clarification of the government's position on Oregon's
law, no physician is fully protected.

[Source: Oregon Medical Association "Digest of Actions" 125th Annual
Meeting of the OMA House of Delegates, April 23-25, 1999]

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

Some die with their rights on (An editorial in the Oregon by Robert Landauer
says that just saying no to drugs might someday get you locked up in Oregon,
if a task force on civil commitment of the mentally ill manages to present a
bill to the Oregon legislature this session. Strenuously opposing forced
treatment are persons who call themselves psychiatric survivors. They
particularly fear anything that might lead to forced use of mood-altering
drugs. Some dwell on disagreeable side effects of certain medications. Others
say that forced drugging reflects a conspiracy of the pharmaceutical
industry, organized psychiatry and mental-health institutions to gain
clients, profits and power. Passions run high. There is no chance for
task-force agreement except for the need for more resources. That's a strong
signal that a bill should not go to this Legislature. The problems and
remedies need public airing.)

Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Tue, May 04 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/
Authors: Robert Landauer, editorial columnist, the Oregonian, can be
telephoned at (503) 221-8157 or reached by e-mailed at
robertlandauer@news.oregonian.com.

Some die with their rights on

* It's too late in the session to start dealing with mentally ill persons
who reject treatment

Just say no to drugs is a watchword of faith. But making that stand might
someday get you locked up in Oregon.

The issue here is not street pushers, zoned-out addicts and shooting
galleries of the sleazy narcotics trade. The controversy is about how to
help mentally ill people who won't accept treatment.

A task force led by by Mark Gardner, special counsel to Attorney General
Hardy Myers, has been searching for ways to require treatment for people who
appear to be heading toward serious breaks with reality but who can't be
shown at the moment to be dangerous to themselves or others. That is the
threshold of dangerousness the state must show the person has crossed before
it can force mental-health services on someone who hasn't broken any law.

Gardner, a former circuit judge, understands the importance of the
civil-liberties protections. He also knows the burdens families, schools,
jails, prisons, employers, hospitals, service agencies and taxpayers bear
when people who need help reject it or can't get it.

Family members are pushing hardest to lower the threshold under which people
could be locked up for evaluation and the state be required by judges to put
them under intensive case management. In practice, this means that many,
possibly most, would be pressured to "take their meds."

The relatives argue that the state intervenes too late, long after their
loved ones are able to make informed choices. The relations cite tragic
cases of their sons, daughters, spouses and siblings deteriorating to the
point of irreversible damage before help is given.

Strenuously opposing forced treatment are persons who call themselves
psychiatric survivors. They particularly fear anything that might lead to
forced use of mood-altering drugs. Some dwell on disagreeable side effects
of certain medications -- major weight gains, overwhelming drowsiness, loss
of creativity. Others say that forced drugging reflects a conspiracy of the
pharmaceutical industry, organized psychiatry and institutionalized mental
health to gain clients, profits and power.

Forcing people into court because they might become committable in the
future, and threatening to lock them up for failure to appear for evaluation
by judges, disturbs civil libertarians. They object to invasions of privacy,
intrusions on liberty and singling out this class of people for detention.
They worry, too, that many judges with low literacy about mental illness
will be making these decisions.

Passions run high. There is no chance for task-force agreement except for
the need for more resources, Gardner reports.

That's a strong signal that the proposals should not go to this Legislature.
At best they would get an end-of-session swift swipe.

The problems and remedies need public airing. Oregon's conversation should
include more evaluations from states that force treatment. More consumers --
there was only one on the task force -- need to testify about approaches
that engage the mentally ill instead of coercing and frightening them.

Cost analyses need to explore how alternative approaches would affect the
Oregon Health Plan, jails, prisons and other public and private agencies, as
well as consumers' ability to live independently, hold jobs and become
taxpayers.

Let's take the task force findings to statewide hearings during the
legislative interim.

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

Drug Czar' Stand On Marijuana Belied By Facts (A letter to the editor of the
New London Day, by Mike Gogulski of the Connecticut Cannabis Policy Forum,
takes issue with statements about the Insitute of Medicine report made
locally by General Barry McCaffrey. Citing some excellent statistics and URL
references, Gogulski says it's time for the General Assembly to follow the
recommendations of the Connecticut Law Revision Commission's 1997 report on
drug policy, and decriminalize possession of less than one ounce of marijuana
by adults over 21.)

Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 19:40:05 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CT: PUB LTE: Drug Czar' Stand On Marijuana Belied By Facts
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: General Pulaski
Pubdate: Tue, 04 May 1999
Source: New London Day (CT)
Copyright: 1999 The Day Publishing Co.
Contact: editor@newlondonday.com
Website: http://www.newlondonday.com/
Author: Mike Gogulski
Note: Mike Gogulski is a founding member of the Connecticut Cannabis Policy
Forum (http://www.ccpf.org/), and Editor for the Media Awareness Project of
DrugSense (http://www.mapinc.org/)

DRUG CZAR'S STAND ON MARIJUANA BELIED BY FACTS

To the Editor of The Day:

I recently heard US Drug Czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey speak at the Aqua Turf
Club in Southington, and I take issue with his statements there about
marijuana.

Gen. McCaffrey told us that the criminal sanctions for drug use must remain
in place, and that the most dangerous drug in America is marijuana. This,
despite the recent findings of the Institute of Medicine report his own
office commissioned, which found marijuana to be not very harmful, not very
addictive, and not a "gateway" to harder drug use ("Marijuana and Medicine:
Assessing the Science Base," (http://www.drugsense.org/iom_report/).

Attendees received the "Statewide Interagency Substance Abuse Plan" for 1999
prepared by the Connecticut Alcohol and Drug Policy Council (CADPC), which
mentions that, according the 1996 Adult Household Survey conducted, 32
percent of Connecticut residents reported lifetime use of marijuana, and 3
percent reported using marijuana in the past 30 days. It also says there
are 2,537,535 adults in the state of Connecticut. According to the
statistics in this plan, Connecticut is home to at least 76,000 regular adult
marijuana users and 812,000 adults who have used marijuana at some point in
their lives. These numbers are doubtless low, because the Drug War climate
encourages respondents to be less than truthful in reporting their own
"crimes."

Now, I doubt that all or even most of those 76,000 thousand regular
marijuana smokers statewide are bad people in need of criminal convictions
for marijuana posession under current Connecticut state law, much less
desperate "pot addicts" in need of forced treatment for marijuana addiction.
Yet, according to a recent study by the General Assembly's Office of
Legislative Research, Connecticut arrests over 8,000 people per year for
marijuana "crimes." ("Marijuana Statistics",
http://www.cga.state.ct.us/olr/marchreports/99-R-0384.htm)

It's time that the General Assembly follow the recommendations of the
Connecticut Law Revision Commission's 1997 report on drug policy
(http://www.cga.state.ct.us/lrc/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicyRpt2.htm), and
decriminalize possession of less than one ounce of marijuana by adults over
the age of 21.

Perhaps in doing so the state can free up valuable resources needed to
combat real problems of addiction and drug abuse, programs for which,
according to CADPC, are desperately underfunded.

Mike Gogulski, Hamden

Mike Gogulski is a founding member of the Connecticut Cannabis Policy Forum
(http://www.ccpf.org/), and Editor for the Media Awareness Project of
DrugSense (http://www.mapinc.org/)

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

Old Drugs, New Uses (Style Weekly, in Virginia, says three professors at the
Medical College of Virginia hope to market marijuana and nicotine derivatives
as new medicinal treatments for cigarette addiction, severe pain, and slowing
the progress of Alzheimer's disease. Louis S. Harris, a professor of
pharmacology and toxicology at Virginia Commonwealth University's MCV, fellow
researchers Billy Martin, also a pharmacology professor, and Richard Glennon,
a professor of medicinal chemistry, have formed CogniRx Inc. in the hope of
capitalizing on research advances and discoveries they made during their
years at MCV. "The science that we're learning from marijuana can be very
valuable in developing drugs that will be useful in treating a variety of
conditions," says Harris.)

Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 19:18:11 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US VA: Old Drugs, New Uses
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Miguet (http://www.drugsense.org/dpfva)
Pubdate: Tues, 4 May 1999
Source: Style Weekly (VA)
Copyright: 1999 Style Weekly Inc.
Contact: rmail@richmond.infi.net
Website: http://www.styleweekly.com/
Section: Street Talk
Author: Richard Foster

OLD DRUGS, NEW USES

Three MCV professors hope to market marijuana and nicotine derivatives for
new medicinal treatments.

A better treatment for cigarette addiction. Quick, safe relief from severe
pain. Slowing the progress of Alzheimer's disease.

These are all treatments that a new company formed by three MCV professors
is hoping to bring to market over the next decade using compounds and
derivatives of two very controversial and politically charged drugs --
marijuana and nicotine -- in ground-breaking ways.

Despite the stigma attached to both, "the science that we're learning from
marijuana [and nicotine] can be very valuable in developing drugs that will
be useful in treating a variety of conditions," says Louis S. Harris, a
professor of pharmacology and toxicology at Virginia Commonwealth
University's Medical College of Virginia.

And, he adds, he and his colleagues are at "the cutting edge" of that
research worldwide.

Harris, who chaired MCV's department of pharmacology and toxicology for two
decades, and his fellow researchers Billy Martin, also a pharmacology
professor, and Richard Glennon, a professor of medicinal chemistry, are
partners in the newly formed CogniRx Inc., a company that hopes to
capitalize on research advances and discoveries the three made during their
years at MCV.

In March, the national Institute of Medicine, a federal advisory committee,
released a report calling for more research into ways to use chemicals found
in marijuana (known as cannabinoids) to treat pain. The report also exhorted
scientists to develop a safer delivery method such as an inhaler that would
be an alternative to smoking marijuana.

Enter Harris, Martin and Glennon, who have been researching marijuana for
years. CogniRx is poised to become the first company out of the gate with an
inhaler for pain relief.

Dr. William Regelson, an MCV medical professor and co-author of the
top-selling book "The Melatonin Miracle," calls the invention "a revolution.
... You carry this thing around in your pocket like we do for people who
suffer from asthma. It's tremendous. Somebody should invest in it. ...
They're winners."

It's long been known that marijuana has great value for pain relief and it's
scientifically proven to be less addictive than drugs like morphine, heroin
or cocaine, Harris says. Marijuana eases nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy
patients, stems weight loss in AIDS patients and helps glaucoma patients.
Furthermore, Harris says, there's never been an overdose death attributed to
marijuana, making it safer to work with than other narcotic pain-killers.

But Delta 9 THC, the active chemical in marijuana, is not particularly water
soluble, meaning that it can't be injected in drug form like morphine. Until
now, smoking marijuana has been the best method of receiving relief, but
it's generally illegal and it exposes the smoker to dangerous carcinogens.
The only other method thus far available has been a pill, legally available
for prescription, called Marinol. In pill form, however, THC takes a much
longer time to be absorbed through the blood stream, and less of the
chemical actually reaches the brain receptors.

Working with Peter Byron, a professor of pharmacy at MCV who has created a
device similar to an asthma inhaler, Harris and his partners have developed
a synthetic cannabinoid that can be absorbed into the blood vessels of the
lungs, from which it travels directly to the heart and brain and the rest of
the body.

Furthermore, it's not likely to be abused as a street drug because it would
cost more by prescription than it would to buy marijuana on the street,
Harris says. Besides, they're not even sure if their medical marijuana
derivative would produce a "high." They would have to do clinical testing to
discover that.

Other breakthroughs could come from the CogniRx professors' research into
another controversial substance, nicotine -- the addictive agent in
cigarettes. For starters, there's some scientific data showing that nicotine
can increase concentration skills and that the incidence of Alzheimer's
disease is lower among cigarette smokers. Hitchhiking off that research,
Harris, Martin and Glennon have been working on nicotine-based treatments
for Alzheimer's.

But the product with the most wide-reaching possibilities is (hold your
breath if you can, chain smokers) what could potentially be the best
treatment for nicotine addiction yet invented.

Every drug theoretically has another drug, called an antagonist, that
negates its effects. Harris, Martin and Glennon have found a drug that, in
mouse and rat trials, eliminates some of the effects of nicotine. They won't
name the compound, which they are in the process of patenting.

Mice trials are a long way from saying it would work in humans, Harris
cautions, but theoretically, he says, "If we can block the effects of
nicotine [from smoking] then people lighting up a cigarette are going to get
no effect from the cigarette and therefore, they should stop smoking because
they're not getting reinforcement anymore."

However, even if it's proven to work on humans, the treatment wouldn't be
foolproof, Harris readily admits. It would only be as good as the will of
the person who's quitting and their commitment to take the pills until they
quit for good.

CogniRx is also working on antidepressant treatments with serotonin.

Harris is quick to point out that all of the possible applications for his
and his colleagues' research are still years and years away from being
available to the public by prescription or otherwise.

With the possible exception of the inhaler, which may get green-lighted
earlier thanks to the national report, most of their applications may follow
the national average for new drugs, which generally take eight years and as
much as $150 million to go from lab to pharmaceutical production.

CogniRx is working on obtaining licenses from VCU for the professors'
research work. The company will then raise the capital to market the ideas
for sale to large pharmaceutical companies, which would, in turn, seek
federal approval to manufacture and sell the drugs.

"Our aim is not to become a pharmaceutical company," says Harris. "We're
trying to stimulate the development of these drugs because we think they
have uses in patients with diseases and disorders. That's our objective, to
get better treatments out there."

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

Rep. Hyde to Introduce Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill (A press release
from the Drug Policy Foundation, in Washington, D.C., says Henry Hyde, John
Conyers, Bob Barr and Barney Frank will co-sponsor a bill in Congress today
that would reform civil asset forfeiture laws.)

Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 12:08:15 EDT
Originator: dpnews@dpf.org
Sender: dpnews@dpf.org
From: "Drug Policy News Service" (dpf-mod@dpf.org)
To: Multiple recipients of list (dpnews@dpf.org)
Subject: Press Release: Rep. Hyde to Introduce
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill
X-ListProcessor-Instructions: Send an email to
listproc@calyx.net with the subject blank and the BODY
containing nothing but the word HELP for instructions.
X-Comment: The Drug Policy News Service is presented by
the Drug Policy Foundation - www.dpf.org.

DRUG POLICY FOUNDATION PRESS RELEASE

HENRY HYDE, JOHN CONYERS, BOB BARR AND BARNEY FRANK TOGETHER AGAIN
FOURSOME CO-SPONSOR BILL TO REFORM CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE; BILL TO BE
INTRODUCED TODAY

WASHINGTON, May 4 - Reps. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Bob
Barr (R-Ga.), and Barney Frank (D-Mass.), last seen bickering loudly during
the House impeachment hearings, are back together today in a much friendlier
fashion. Each is a co-sponsor of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, a
bill written by Hyde and scheduled to be introduced today. While the bill
has important policy implications, it will also be fascinating to watch the
old enemies come together around something they all support. DPF has worked
on civil asset forfeiture issues for many years and supports the passage of
the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act.

"Civil asset forfeiture is such a gross misuse of police powers that it's
easy to understand why lawmakers representing a broad spectrum of ideologies
are against it," DPF Senior Policy Analyst Scott Ehlers said. "Civil asset
forfeiture comes awfully close to being legalized theft."

Under the guise of fighting the war on drugs, law enforcement officers can
seize your home, car, or money without ever charging you with a crime. Known
as civil asset forfeiture (CAF), it is one of the most abused police powers
in America today.

Civil asset forfeiture is based on the legal fiction that the property that
facilitates or is connected with a crime is itself guilty and can be seized
and tried in civil court (e.g., United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado
Sedan). Under civil forfeiture law, the government can take a person's
property on the basis of "probable cause," which is the same minimal
standard required for police to obtain a search warrant. In order to get the
property returned, an owner must prove by a "preponderance of the evidence" -
a higher standard of proof - that his/her property was not used to facilitate
a crime.

Whereas under criminal law the defendant is innocent until proved guilty, in
CAF proceedings the property is presumed guilty and the owner has to prove
otherwise to get it back. CAF funds often turn into unregulated police slush
funds. When police departments are allowed to keep what they take, CAF funds
exist beyond the purview of legislative or budgetary oversight so it's fairly
common for police to misuse CAF funds. Nearly a dozen newspapers have
documented this, including the Pittsburgh Press, which won a Pulitzer Prize
in 1991 for exposing CAF corruption.

"That police can take property without anyone being charged or found guilty
of a crime is an abomination," Ehlers said. "Civil asset forfeiture
basically provides police with a way to run around the Constitution by
allowing them to punish someone without having to go through the criminal
process."

A zeal for CAF funds has occasionally led to the use of "profiling," the
targeting of minorities by police which New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd
Whitman recently admitted was standard practice among the New Jersey State
Police. CAF-related profiling has been documented in Louisiana, Florida,
Washington and Maryland.

Hyde's bill, which was blocked by a cash-loving Clinton Justice Department
in 1997, would make numerous changes to civil forfeiture law, including:

-- Forcing the government to prove that seized property is related to a
crime, as opposed to the current practice of property owners having to prove
that their property is not guilty;

-- Create an "innocent owner" defense, whereby property owners unaware of
criminal activity occurring on their property could recover their property;

-- Provide indigent defendants with appointed counsel; and

-- Eliminate the cost bond requirement, which currently requires property
owners to pay up to $5,000 or 10 percent of the seized property's value in
order to contest the seizure in court.

Two DPF analysts, Scott Ehlers and Rob Stewart, will be available to the
media on Monday. They can both be reached at (202) 537-5005.

For more information, please contact DPF Deputy Communications Director
Tyler Green at (202) 537-5005.

***

The Drug Policy Foundation is the nation's oldest and largest membership drug
policy reform group. Established in 1986, DPF has over 23,000 supporters.

***

To support the Drug Policy Foundation's efforts to create reasoned and
compassionate drug policies, become a member online at:
http://www.dpf.org/html/join.html.

You can sign on or off this list by going to:
http://www.dpf.org/html/listform.html

***

Drug Policy Foundation
"Creating Reasoned and Compassionate Drug Policies"

4455 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite B-500
Washington, DC 20008-2328
ph: (202) 537-5005 * fax: (202) 537-3007
www.dpf.org
www.drugpolicy.org

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

Shot In The Arm For Drug Debate (The Australian says a half dozen volunteers
trialled the so-called Tolerance Room, or T-Room, during a "practice run"
last Thursday in the Wayside Chapel in Sydney's Kings Cross. The T-Room aims
to be a safe place for long-term injecting drug addicts to shoot up, using
clean equipment, under the eye of a trained nurse. The idea is that while the
users will get high, at least they won't die. Everyone connected with the
trial, including the chapel's Reverend Ray Richmond, could be arrested for
aiding and abetting the administration of a prohibited substance. "But if we
are closed down, if our energies and our suggestions are not taken up, the
experiment will be continued in one form or another. We are very determined
to get evidence-based policies relative to drug use," said the Reverend.)

Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 18:12:34 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Australia: Shot In The Arm For Drug Debate
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Kenneth William Russell (kwr01@uow.edu.au)
Pubdate: Tue, 4 May 1999
Source: Australian, The (Australia)
Copyright: News Limited 1999
Contact: ausletr@matp.newsltd.com.au
Website: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/
Author: Sally Jackson

SHOT IN THE ARM FOR DRUG DEBATE

NICK'S hypodermic, swab, tourniquet and foil of heroin are neatly laid out
in preparation for his hit. He is about to inject, but first he reaches for
a calming cigarette.

Big mistake: the nurse is on him immediately. "You can't smoke in here,"
she says sternly, pointing to the rules posted on the wall. Nick guiltily
shoves the pack back in his pocket and gets on with shooting up.

Such are the bizarre contradictions that arise when the heroin culture
collides with church rules.

The man we are calling Nick was one of half a dozen volunteers who trialled
the so-called Tolerance Room, or T-Room, at a "practice run" last Thursday.

Located in the Wayside Chapel in Sydney's Kings Cross, the T-Room aims to
be a safe place for long-term injecting drug addicts to shoot up, using
clean equipment, under the eye of a trained nurse.

The idea is that while the users will get high, at least they won't die.

Aiding and abetting the administration of a prohibited substance carries a
maximum penalty of a $2200 fine and/or two years' jail.

Everyone connected with the trial, including the chapel's Reverend Ray
Richmond could be arrested. He says the members of the T-Room group are
braced for anything.

"They are all going to come at us," he says. "We're going to be accused of
all sorts of nefarious, left-wing, pinkish tendencies.

"But if we are closed down, if our energies and our suggestions are not
taken up, the experiment will be continued in one form or another. We are
very determined to get evidence-based policies relative to drug use."

Among the others watching as Nick and some fellow addicts injected were
Tony Trimingham, the founder of Family Drug Support, his fellow director
Ella Inta and social worker Joey Nipperess.

Trimingham, whose son Damien died of a heroin overdose two years ago, says
they were driven to their act of defiance after years of frustration.

"I think it is intolerable that since my son died more than 1600 people
have died in Australia and that there is no strategy to save their lives,"
he says.

"It is only this action of civil disobedience from the community that will
bring results. It isn't meant to cause anyone any damage or promote drug
use. It is a symbolic act."

The group behind the T-Room first got together when Trimingham and Richmond
called an informal meeting of like-minded people last September to thrash
out ideas.

The most viable option seemed to be to open an injecting room. This had
been thoroughly researched by the NSW Select Joint Committee into Safe
Injecting Rooms, which was formed in 1997 after the Wood royal commission
recommended such rooms be trialled. When the proposed trial was eventually
voted down, in March 1998, it was a bitter disappointment to drug law
reform advocates. And there were more to come.

In December 1998 the NSW Government stopped distributing wide-bore syringes
through its needle exchanges, saying they were being used to inject
methadone syrup.

At the premiers conference in April, the Federal Government committed a
further $220 million to be spent on prevention, detoxification and
rehabilitation, but controversial options such as legalised injecting rooms
and a prescription heroin trial were not even discussed.

Meanwhile, several attempts to set up legal injecting rooms in Victoria and
the ACT failed.

The final straw came in March when, two weeks before the NSW election and
after turning a blind eye for a decade police raided and closed down three
shooting galleries in Kings Cross strip clubs.

Trimingham estimates that those strip clubs, which for between $5 and $10
provided junkies with a cubicle, a clean needle and someone to call an
ambulance if they collapsed, saved 25 lives each per week, based on the
number of overdoses that occurred in the clubs where people were revived.

Drug reform campaigner Alex Wodak fears their closure may cause many more
deaths than that, warning: "The combination of the closures of the
facilities, the current cocaine epidemic and the ban on wide-bore syringe
availability have set up all the conditions you need for a HIV epidemic."

In January, the T-Room group decided to open its own injecting room in the
hope they would force the NSW Health Department to step in and run a proper
trial itself.

Richmond was reluctant to host the trial, fearing it would create the
untrue perception the Wayside Chapel was only available to injecting drug
users. But, not surprisingly, finding alternative accommodation proved
difficult.

Richmond says they were also careful to pay for all the necessary
equipment, such as syringes and swabs, rather than "sneak it out the back
door of government-funded places".

The T-Room budget is around $20,000, which would cover set-up costs and the
current four to six-week demonstration, plus a second demonstration if
necessary. As of last week, the group had raised $5200, enough to keep the
T-Room open for just a few days.

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

[End]