Portland NORML News - Friday, May 14, 1999
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Update on HB 3052 - Medical Marijuana Compromise Legislation (An e-mail to
advocates for medical marijuana patients from Dr. Rick Bayer, a chief
petitioner for the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act, forwards a message from
Oregonians for Medical Rights about the status of the bill before the Oregon
legislature that would nullify much of the voter-approved initiative.
Yesterday the Oregon House approved HB 3052 by a vote of 49 to 8. The bill
now goes on to the Senate judiciary committee. Please contact your state senator
and ask him or her to vote "no" on HB 3502 when it goes to the floor. "Even
more importantly, get involved in politics and rid our Capitol of extremists
who have no concern for dying and suffering patients.")

From: "teleport isp" (ricbayer@home.com)
To: "Rick Bayer" (ricbayer@home.com)
Subject: FW: Update on HB 3052--Medical Marijuana Compromise Legislation
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 10:33:49 -0700

Dear supporters of the OMMA

I wanted to let everyone know about HB 3052, which I have described
rather harshly as "the enemy" and have taken criticism for that
description.

Amy Klare is working diligently to try to defend patients' rights and
gives a very good summary below of what is going on. This is a law
enforcement bill to try to curb what the voters passed. Most
legislators are hostile to us, law enforcement has the votes in Salem,
so we are playing defense. This is seldom a good position to be in.

In summary, Amy Klare & Geoff Sugerman (Oregonians for Medical Rights)
and Dave Fidanque (ACLU - Oregon) are doing a good job on an awful bill
to make it "less bad" but we don't have to like the bill and I don't.
This is no way detracts from the efforts of Amy & Geoff to get as much
protection for patients as they can negotiate.

I have also included Lee Berger's comments at the end. Lee, a defense
attorney, is involved in advocating for med mj patients and unfortunately
they are often clients. He summarizes my objections to HB 3052 quite well.

Once again, Lee & I disagree with HB 3052 but we are not criticizing the
tremendous efforts in a hostile environment that Amy Klare & Geoff
Sugerman & Dave Fidanque had to do so at to make this bill, "less
destructive than it is". Thank you Amy & Geoff & Dave.

If one is upset, please turn that negative energy into positive energy
by contacting your Senator and telling them to vote NO on HB 3502 when
it gets to the Senate floor. Even more importantly, get involved in
politics and rid our Capitol of extremists who have no concern for dying
and suffering patients. The year 2000 elections aren't that far away.
Please don't simply complain - harness that energy and use it for
positive political change.

Thank you.

Rick

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

[May 5, 1999 e-mail address change]

***

-----Original Message-----
From: amyklare@ix.netcom.com [mailto:amyklare@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 12:56 PM

Today the Oregon House voted 49-8 on HB 3502--the medical marijuana
"legislative fix" sought by law enforcement. (The Republicans have a
35-25 advantage).

A handful of Republicans voted against the measure because they just
didn't want to vote "aye" on any bill with the word "marijuana" in
(unless it were a recriminalization bill). The sole "no" vote on the
Democrat side was a rural legislator with an extremely conservative
district (Kurt Scrader D-Canby).

The real story is what isn't in the bill. As originally drafted, this
legislation would have gutted the affirmative defense protections for
patients, allowed cops to retain unlawfully seized medical marijuana,
and a whole host of other things that would have scrapped the
voter-approved law. The compromise legislation (the work of 3 month's
negotiations with various law enforcement types) basically does the
following:

1) Clarifies that for patients under age 18, the custodial parent (in
the case of divorce or separation) will make the decision regarding the
use of MMJ.

2) Regarding Affirmative Defense--Patients who intend to use this
provision must have been diagnosed with a debilitating condition with 12
months of arrest. They must also declare their intent to use the
affirmative defense at least 5 days before trial. (This mirrors protocol
for the alibi defense).

3) Medical Marijuana Patients will not be allowed to use their medicine
while incarcerated in correctional facilities.

4) Cops have to return useable marijuana (leaves and buds)--but do not
have to care for or return live plants they seize. According to law
enforcement, this scenario will most likely occur when patients exceed
the statutory limits on the number of plants, and when cops encounter
patients without their documentation from their physicians.

5) Requires caregivers to grow at a single location (this address must
be on file with the Oregon Health Division). This does not preclude a
caregiver from caring for other patients' plants at their homes.

The bill now goes on to Senate Judiciary - where we will work to ensure
that no draconian amendments are added. This late in session, anything
can happen, so we'll be vigilant.

That's all for now.

Amy

***

In a message dated 5/13/99 9:29:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
amyklare@ix.netcom.com writes:

>The bill now goes on to Senate Judiciary--where we will work to ensure
>that no draconian amendments are added. This late in session, anything
>can happen, so we'll be vigilant.

appreciate everyone's effort in making this not worse than it could have
been. will continue to actively oppose its passage, as it guts the choice of
evils defense (which Oregon activists had to insist be included, over Santa
Monica's objection), unnecessarily tampers with the affirmative defenses, and
unconstitutionally denies medicine to inmates.

OMMA ain't broke and it don't need fixin.

Lee Berger
Portland
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Lawmakers consider clipping the end off Oregon's cigar tax (The Oregonian
says the Oregon House of Representatives Revenue Committee approved HB 3371
Thursday on a party line vote of 5-4. The bill would limit a voter-approved
tax increase on cigars, now 65 percent of the wholesale price, to 50 cents a
stogie. The bill's supporters point to evidence that cigar consumers in
Oregon have been avoiding prohibitory state taxes for years by making their
purchases through the mail or via the Internet. With the cigar-buying public
avoiding the tax, the increase has hurt small businesses and cost the state
money, said Rep. Bill Witt, R-Cedar Mill, the bill's sponsor. Democrats said
the bill would undermine voters and send the wrong message about tobacco.)

Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Fri, May 14 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: James Mayer, the Oregonian

Lawmakers consider clipping the end off Oregon's cigar tax

* A House committee approves a bill that would limit the tax, now 65 percent
of the wholesale price, to 50 cents a stogie

SALEM -- Owen Seaton sat in a high-backed leather chair Thursday afternoon,
enjoying a $10 cigar after a wine-tasting at Cascade Wine and Cigar in
downtown Portland.

The good life, in other words.

Life for the 28-year-old college student could get even sweeter if a bill
that would slash cigar taxes makes it through the Oregon Legislature.

"I'd like to see it happen," Seaton said. "I'd spend more money on cigars in
Oregon."

Seaton, like many higher-end cigar aficionados, buys his stogies through the
mail or via the Internet from states such as North Carolina, which -
surprise - impose no tax on cigars.

"Only a fool would buy cigars in Oregon," said Don McIntire, the father of
property tax-cutting Measure 5 and a leading force behind the cigar bill.
McIntire said he spends $2,000 a year out of state on cigars.

Cigar store owners say the trend has accelerated since Oregon voters
increased the tax on cigars in 1996. Measure 44 increased cigarette taxes by
30 cents a pack and raised the tax on other tobacco products from 35 percent
of the wholesale price to 65 percent, with the extra money going to the
Oregon Health Plan.

But with the cigar-buying public avoiding the tax, the increase has hurt
small businesses and cost the state money, said Rep. Bill Witt, R-Cedar
Mill, sponsor of House Bill 3371. Democrats said the bill would undermine
voters and send the wrong message about tobacco.

Witt's bill would limit the tax to 50 cents a cigar.

That's a big cut for smokers such as Doug Berry, a Cascade employee who
testified for the bill. His favorite cigar, a Pardon 1964 Anniversary
Series, costs $18.55 a stick. The Oregon tax is $4.75.

"I didn't have that cigar at my wedding," Berry said. "I had to have a much
cheaper one."

The House Revenue Committee approved the bill Thursday on a party line vote
of 5-4. However, two Republicans, Max Williams of Tigard and Lane Shetterly
of Dallas, reserved the right to vote differently on the floor.

The committee approved a cigar-tax cut in the waning days of the 1997
session but reversed itself the same day after a reporter for The Oregonian
started asking questions.

"I walked down the plank last session, and I'm pleased to be here again,"
said Shetterly, who served on the 1997 panel.

The committee's action appalled advocates for curbing tobacco use. "Oregon
will be the only state in the nation to lower tobacco taxes," said Tom
Novick, a lobbyist with the Oregon Coalition for a Healthy Future.

Lawmakers lacked good information about the bill's revenue effect.

Dick Yates, a Legislative Revenue Office analyst, said the original bill,
which would have done away with the 65 percent rate and imposed a tax of 25
cents on all cigars, probably would have had no effect on net revenues
because it would have raised taxes on inexpensive cigars, which account for
most of the revenue from the tax. But amendments approved Thursday brought
back the 65 percent rate and increased the limit to 50 cents.

Yates said he did not know how the changes would affect revenues. He also
said he could not estimate how much revenue had been lost because of
mail-order cigar buying, or how much might be gained by buyers returning to
local shops.

Rep. Ken Strobeck, R-Beaverton, the committee chairman, said he hopes better
information could be developed on the Senate side.

Strobeck dismissed the argument that voters had spoken with their decision
on Measure 44.

"I never heard anyone who said, 'Gee, this is great -- it raises rates on
cigars,' " he said.

But Ellen Lowe, a Measure 44 author, said sponsors knew what they were doing
when they included cigars in the measure.

"One reason we raised the tax was to encourage lower consumption," Lowe said.

You can reach James Mayer at 503-221-8234 or by e-mail at
jimmayer@news.oregonian.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Panel approves rollback on cigar taxes (The Associated Press version)

Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Fri, May 14 1999
Source: The Associated Press (OR)
Copyright: 1999 The Associated Press
Website: http://www.oregonlive.com/
Forum: http://forums.oregonlive.com/
Author: Brad Cain, AP

Panel approves rollback on cigar taxes

SALEM, Ore. (AP) -- An Oregon House panel has agreed to roll back a
voter-approved tax increase on cigars after hearing testimony that tobacco
stores are losing business to out-of-state cigar sellers.

Opponents of the move said it would thwart voters' wishes and cause a
potential loss of tax revenue at a time when lawmakers are scrambling to
find money for schools and other programs.

The measure endorsed Thursday by the House Revenue Committee would replace
the current tax -- which amounts to 65 percent of the wholesale price of
cigars -- with a maximum tax of 50 cents per cigar.

Cigar store owners and other supporters of the change said the current tax
has prompted many cigar smokers to buy their stogies from mail order houses
or over the Internet to avoid Oregon's taxes.

Among those who submitted testimony was David Hodgert, owner of a cigar
store in downtown Bend, who said he's been losing business ever since voters
raised taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products in 1996.

Hodgert said his retail business employed five people before the tax was
increased but that he's been forced to lay off three of those employees.

"This excessive tax is seriously hindering my ability to survive as a
business," he said.

Also weighing in on the tax cut was political activist Don McIntire, the
chief sponsor of a 1990 property tax limit and a cigar aficionado who said
Oregon's high tax has turned him and others into tax evaders.

McIntire said he spends $1,000 a year on cigars -- all of it out of state.

But a coalition of public health groups that worked for passage of the 1996
tax increase on tobacco products called the bill a slap at voters.

Tom Novick of Oregon Health Leadership Against Tobacco said voters approved
the tax hikes on tobacco products as a way to raise more money for the
Oregon Health Plan and anti-tobacco education programs.

"Plus, we know that one of the best ways to reduce tobacco use is to
increase the price," Novick said.

The tax cut won the House revenue panel's approval over the complaints of
several members who noted that legislative fiscal analysts weren't able to
say how much the measure would reduce state tax revenue.

"I find that a really sloppy process," said Rep. Anitra Rasmussen, D-Portland.

The measure, HB3371, now advances to the full House.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge cuts damages in Portland tobacco suit (The Oregonian says Multnomah
County Circuit Court Judge Anna J. Brown reduced a Portland jury's recent
assessment of $79.5 million in punitive damages against Philip Morris to $32
million, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's insistance that punishment has to be
proportionate to the level of wrongdoing. The $32 million, which is still the
largest judgment against a tobacco company, could have been reduced even
further but Judge Brown found that Philip Morris had not taken steps to keep
from lying in the future, interpreting the multistate settlement sponsored by
state attorneys general as lacking "substantial remedial steps" to prevent
wrongdoing.)

Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Fri, May 14 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: Patrick O'Neill, the Oregonian

Judge cuts damages in Portland tobacco suit

* The $79.5 million in punitive damages against Philip Morris is slashed to
$32 million because of legal obligations

A Portland judge on Thursday slashed a $79.5 million punitive damages award
from a lawsuit against Philip Morris to $32 million.

But the reduced amount is still the largest judgment ever against a tobacco
company.

Judge Anna J. Brown of Multnomah County Circuit Court said her decision was
a difficult one and was not a criticism of the jury's verdict to punish the
cigarette-maker for the death of longtime Marlboro smoker Jessie Williams of
Portland. Rather, she said, her decision was the result of legal obligations
imposed by both state and federal law.

"By no means is my personal point of view substituted for that of the jury,"
she said.

The $79.5 million award was granted by a jury on March 30 to the family of
Williams, a former school janitor who died of lung cancer in 1997 at age 67
after smoking for 42 years. Jurors said they were infuriated by documents
showing that Philip Morris executives had lied for decades about the link
between smoking and cancer.

Brown made her decision after a two-day hearing between attorneys for the
Williams family and tobacco giant Philip Morris, makers of Marlboro. Her
decision did not affect $821,485 in compensatory damages the jury awarded
for medical costs and pain and suffering.

Attorneys for both the family and the cigarette company declined comment on
the ruling immediately after the hearing.

But William Gaylord, who represented the Williams family during the hearing,
appeared distressed by the decision.

"It's a significant award, Bill," Jay Beattie, one of the tobacco company
attorneys, told Gaylord after the hearing.

"I'm not going to say anything because I'll regret it later," Gaylord said.

Gaylord had said during the hearing that any reduction in damages would be a
public relations coup for the company.

The judge faced a fiendishly complex problem. The jury, acting under the
judge's instructions, had slapped the company with the huge punitive
verdict. But under the U.S. Constitution, punishment has to be proportionate
to the degree of wrongdoing.

Brown acknowledged that jurors might feel slighted by her decision, but she
said they acted appropriately, within the limits of their responsibilities.
Their job was to decide on a punitive damages figure based on the evidence
in the trial, she said. But although Oregon law sets no limits on the amount
of punitive damages a plaintiff can seek, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it
clear that the sky is not the limit.

"The U.S. Supreme Court said there are limits," she said. "They're not going
to tell us what they are."

Brown said previous cases involving punitive damages were too unlike the
Portland case to be of much use for comparison.

The $32 million figure, she said, is "my best call."

The punitive damages could have been reduced even further if Brown had found
that Philip Morris had taken steps to keep from lying in the future.

Beattie argued that the company's participation in a multistate settlement
sponsored by state attorneys general guaranteed that the company would
behave itself.

But Brown found that the multistate agreement did not amount to "substantial
remedial steps" to prevent further wrongdoing.

Gary Black, a tobacco-stock analyst with the New York investment firm of
Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., said investors are returning to cigarette stocks
because of favorable verdicts in other parts of country.

A Missouri jury found in favor of defendant tobacco company Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp. on Thursday.

"Most of the country, except the West Coast, says smokers should bear the
burden of their own actions," Black said.

Since 1959, he said, tobacco companies have lost only six of 32 suits filed
against them by individual smokers. Of the six, four have been overturned on
appeal. Only two - a San Francisco verdict and the one in Portland - are
still standing. The San Francisco verdict, in which a judge reduced $50
million in punitive damages to $25 million - is under appeal.

Tobacco company attorneys said Thursday it was too early to tell whether
they would appeal Brown's decision.

You can reach Patrick O'Neill at 503-221-8233 or by e-mail at
poneill@news.oregonian.com. The fax number is 503-294-4150. The mailing
address is 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland, OR 97201.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge cuts tobacco verdict from $79.5 million to $32 million (The Associated
Press version)

Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Fri, May 14 1999
Source: The Associated Press (OR)
Copyright: 1999 The Associated Press
Website: http://www.oregonlive.com/
Forum: http://forums.oregonlive.com/
Author: no byline

Judge cuts tobacco verdict from $79.5 million to $32 million

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- A judge has slashed a $79.5 million jury verdict
against cigarette-maker Philip Morris to $32 million, still the largest
judgment ever against a tobacco company.

Multnomah County Circuit Judge Anna J. Brown said her decision was the
result of obligations imposed by federal law, not a criticism of the verdict.

"The U.S. Supreme Court said there are limits," Brown said. "By no means is
my personal point of view substituted for that of the jury."

The $79.5 million award was granted March 30 to the family of Jesse
Williams, a former school janitor who died of lung cancer in 1997 at age 67
after smoking Marlboro cigarettes for 42 years.

Jurors said they were infuriated by documents showing that Philip Morris
executives had lied for decades about the link between smoking and cancer.

Brown made her decision Thursday after a two-day hearing between attorneys
for the Williams family and tobacco giant Philip Morris, maker of Marlboro.
Her decision to cut the punitive damages awarded by the jury did not affect
$821,485 in compensatory damages awarded for medical costs and pain and
suffering.

Attorneys for both the family and the cigarette company declined comment.

But William Gaylord, who represented the Williams family during the hearing,
appeared distressed by the decision. He had said during the hearing that any
reduction in damages would be a public relations coup for the company.

"It's a significant award, Bill," Jay Beattie, one of the tobacco company
attorneys, told Gaylord after the hearing.

"I'm not going to say anything because I'll regret it later," Gaylord said.

Beattie argued that Philip Morris participation in a multistate tobacco
settlement sponsored by state attorneys general guaranteed that the company
would behave itself.

But Brown found that the multistate agreement did not amount to "substantial
remedial steps" to prevent further wrongdoing.

Gary Black, a tobacco-stock analyst with the New York investment firm of
Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., said investors are returning to cigarette stocks
because of favorable verdicts in other parts of country.

Since 1959, tobacco companies have lost only six of 32 suits filed against
them by individual smokers, he said. Of the six, four have been overturned
on appeal. Only two -- a San Francisco verdict and the one in Portland --
are still standing. The San Francisco verdict, which a judge reduced to $25
million in punitive damages from $50 million -- is under appeal.

"Most of the country, except the West Coast, says smokers should bear the
burden of their own actions," Black said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Port of Portland sells county land for jail (The Oregonian says the final
price for Multnomah County's new jail will depend on a survey, but is
expected to be about $5.5 million. The newspaper characteristically omits
the cost to taxpayers of interest on bonds and the annual cost of maintaining the
gulag, the funding of which hasn't been secured yet. The 525 beds could be
expanded later to 2,000 beds.)

Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Fri, May 14 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: Bill Stewart, the Oregonian

Port of Portland sells county land for jail

* Moments after the Rivergate sale, the Port purchases the Radio Towers
site, first choice for the lockup, for wetlands

After two years and an estimated 100 community meetings, Multnomah County
finally has a site for its new jail.

In a turnaround Thursday, the Port of Portland sold 26.7 acres in its
Rivergate industrial area to the county for the jail. More than a year ago,
Port officials pledged to take the county to court to block a jail on a
different Rivergate parcel.

Two factors changed, making the sale possible, said Bill Bach, senior
manager of Port property and development services. Sheriff Dan Noelle
reduced the amount of property he thought was needed, and the new site is
not served by a rail line, Bach said.

The new site is on a peninsula bounded on the west by Columbia Slough and on
the other sides by Smith and Bybee lakes.

The jail, which will include secure facilities for treating drug and alcohol
addictions, will include 525 beds. It could be expanded later to 2,000 beds.

Final price will depend on a survey, but the county expects to pay $5.5
million, or almost $207,000 a acre.

Conditions of the sale include: No prisoners will be released from that
site, and people being transported to and from the jail must be in custody.
Also, the county will extend the streets to the site, and the county will
pay $1 million toward the future widening of Marine Drive. If the Port
someday creates a local improvement district to finance a railroad overpass,
the payment would be credited for that.

County Commissioner Serena Cruz, who represents the area including nearby
St. Johns, said the agreement overcame her reservations about the site, but
she acknowledged that not everyone is happy. "There is still strong
sentiment in St. Johns against this site," she said.

Commissioner Lisa Naito, who had opposed the first choice of a citizens
siting committee, called the new property "as good as it gets."

The property first targeted for the jail was 91 acres, known as the Radio
Towers site because of towers located there, wedged between Portland
International Raceway and Metro's Expo Center.

Moments after selling the Rivergate site to the county, Port of Portland
commissioners bought the Radio Towers for themselves, to be improved as a
wetlands to make up for wetlands that might be destroyed at the Portland
International Airport or the planned marine terminal complex at West Hayden
Island.

Noelle, describing dealings with the Port as "at times a love-hate
relationship," predicted it will take several months to take care of
preliminaries and permits and then 18 months for construction.

He pledged to the Port and to St. Johns that the jail's name will not
mention North Portland, St. Johns or Rivergate. He said the name will help
the jail disappear.

Noelle said the jail, approved by voters more than two years ago, is
critically needed. An average of 40,000 people are booked into jail every
year, and 75 percent of the prisoners have drug or alcohol problems. During
the past four years, the sheriff said, about 36,000 prisoners have been
released early because of lack of space.

You can reach Bill Stewart at 503-294-7670 or by e-mail at
billstewart@news.oregonian.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Prevents Cities From Banning Smoking In Bars (The Associated Press says
the Oregon House of Representatives voted 36-22 Friday to approve HB 2806,
which would prevent cities in Oregon - except Corvallis - from enacting
smoking bans in bars and taverns. Some representatives said they found it
ironic the House voted earlier in the day to let cities zone sex businesses
into restricted areas, but then passed a bill taking away their rights to
enact tavern smoking bans. The bill now goes to the Senate.)

Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 14:04:38 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US OR: Bill Prevents Cities From Banning Smoking In Bars
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Fri, May 14 1999
Source: Associated Press
Copyright: 1999 Associated Press
Author: Brad Cain, the Associated Press

BILL PREVENTS CITIES FROM BANNING SMOKING IN BARS

SALEM, Ore. - A bill to prevent cities from enacting bans
against smoking in bars and taverns won approval Friday in the Oregon
House.

The bill would not affect Corvallis, which enacted a ban on smoking in
bars last year, but it would prevent other cities from doing the same
thing.

Backers of the bill said Oregon already restricts smoking in many
public places, including restaurants, and that it's going too far to
tell bar customers they can't smoke in public.

Rep. Ryan Deckert, a Beaverton Democrat who sponsored the bill, said
bars are patronized only by adults and that they should be free to
decide whether they want be in a place that allows smoking.

"Bars and taverns should be the one last place in which smokers are
able to congregate in public," said Deckert, who's a non-smoker.

But opponents said the Legislature should not try to prevent cities
from taking actions to protect bar employees as well as patrons from
the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.

"It certainly isn't a matter of personal choice for the people who
have to work in these places," said Rep. Diane Rosenbaum, D-Portland.

The American Cancer Society and other public health groups said Friday
they would work to defeat the bill in the Senate.

"The only winners today were the tobacco industry and those who profit
from them," said cancer society spokesman Jerry Spegmen. "The losers
are local communities and those whose health will suffer from the
effects of second-hand smoke."

Some representatives said they found it ironic that House voted
earlier in the day to let cities zone sex businesses into restricted
areas but then passed a bill taking away their rights to enact tavern
smoking bans.

Rep. Lane Shetterly, R-Dallas, also said that cities should be given
the freedom to be "quirky" and adopt ordinances that reflect local
sensibilities.

"Communities should have the right to establish their own identities,"
Shetterly said.

But supporters of the measure said allowing cities across the state to
ban smoking in bars and taverns would hurt Oregon's hospitality industry.

"Often people come to taverns because they want to smoke and drink,"
said Rep. Jackie Winters, R-Salem.

The bill, HB2806, was sent to the Senate on a 36-22 vote.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill curbs medical marijuana - Senate OKs pot limit, mandatory registry (The
Anchorage Daily News says the Alaska state senate voted 15-5 Thursday in
favor of SB 94, a bill that limits the medical marijuana law 60 percent of
voters approved last fall. Most significantly, the bill would require
patients to register with the state, and preclude a medical defense for
nonregistered patients. It would also limit the amount of marijuana a patient
can possess to one ounce or six plants. The bill now moves to the state house
of representatives.)

Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 12:09:04 -0800
From: Charles Rollins Jr (chuck@mosquitonet.com)
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: Alaska sen. Passes SB-94
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

Anchorage daily News may 14 1999
http://www.adn.com

Bill curbs medical marijuana Senate OKs pot limit, mandatory registry

By LIZ RUSKIN
Daily News reporter

JUNEAU - The state Senate passed a bill Thursday placing new limits on
the medical marijuana law voters adopted last fall.

"I assure members that this does not repeal the law," the bill's
sponsor, Sen. Loren Leman, said. "It makes it work."

Senate Bill 94 passed 15-5, with the minority Democrats voting no. It
moves to the House.

The voter initiative allows people with terminal or debilitating
diseases to use marijuana if they have a recommendation from their
doctor. It passed with nearly 60 percent of the vote in the November
election.

Leman, an Anchorage Republican, angered proponents of the marijuana
initiative in March, on the day the new law went into effect, by
introducing a bill to change it. He said he was trying to make it easier
for police to determine who is a legal user of marijuana and who isn't.
He said he wanted to prevent arrests of innocent patients.

On the Senate floor Thursday, Leman told his colleagues he had
compromised with the Alaskans for Medical Rights, the group that
campaigned for the voter initiative. The bill before them was different
from the one he originally proposed, he said.

The revised bill would still change the initiative in several ways.
Most significantly, it would require patients who want to use marijuana
for medical purposes to register with the state. The voter initiative
established an optional registry to give patients an identification card
that would ward off arrest. It would also limit the amount of marijuana
a patient can possess to one ounce or six plants. The initiative allowed
patients to seek an exemption if they could show they had a medical need
for more.

Sen. Kim Elton, a Democrat from Juneau, where the marijuana initiative
passed overwhelmingly, said he didn't think he should second-guess the
will of the voters.

"I think it's somewhat presumptuous of me to change an initiative that
got more votes than I did," he said.

After the vote, Senate Minority Leader Johnny Ellis of Anchorage said
the electorate liked the initiative they approved.

"The idea that the citizens didn't know what they were doing or that
they were ignorant or that legislators know best is pretty arrogant and
obnoxious," he said.

David Finkelstein, a former legislator who is working for Alaskans for
Medical Rights, said he still doesn't like the bill but it's much
better than it was. It's true that SB 94 doesn't repeal the initiative,
he said, but it burdens the patient with new requirements.

Many medical marijuana users planned to register, he said, but some -
particularly AIDS patients - feel they have to keep their condition a
secret and won't sign up. If Leman's bill becomes law, the medical
marijuana initiative will offer no protection from prosecution to
patients who refuse to register.

"To make it mandatory just isn't fair," Finkelstein said. "They're not
criminals. They're not sex offenders."

Bill Kozlowski said he doesn't like the mandatory registration or the
strict limits on how much medical marijuana is allowed. Kozlowski is a
27-year-old Juneau man with severe hemophilia. He testified to a
committee this week that he smokes about an ounce of marijuana every
10 days. That's not so much, he said, considering the doses of morphine
and other narcotics he's been prescribed to control the pain from his
internal bleeding. Marijuana, he said, lets him sleep at night and
makes the days more bearable.

"It doesn't take away the pain, but it makes it so, in my head, the
pain isn't the only thing that's there," he said Thursday.

He declined to say how he gets his supply. Both the initiative and
Leman's bill allow patients and caregivers to grow marijuana, but they
don't say where the plants or seeds would come from in the first place.

"I don't know how this all works, but the people wanted it," Sen. Robin
Taylor, R-Wrangell, said during Senate debate.

Kozlowski said part of the reason he doesn't want to register is that
no matter what the state does, marijuana use still violates federal law.

"Why should I risk my already short and difficult life to be put on a
list that can be used against me?" he asked.

Even though the registry would be confidential, his disease wouldn't be
listed and law enforcement officers could use it only for certain
purposes, Kozlowski is skeptical that his privacy would be respected. He
doesn't want to put his name on a government list because of his medical
condition and legislators wouldn't want to either, he said.

"Would they want to be put on a list for their heart medication or
their diabetes medication?" he asked. "I don't think so, because it is
nobody's business."

Finkelstein said there is at least one thing he likes about SB 94:
money. The funds for the patient registry aren't in the House or Senate
versions of next year's operating budget. If SB 94 becomes law, it would
provide $58,000 for the administration costs.

"We want the money. We want the registration system," he said. "We just
don't want it mandatory."

Reporter Liz Ruskin can be reached at lruskin@adn.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Eli Lilly targets weekend, late-night TV viewers with Prozac infomercial (An
Associated Press article in the online Nando Times says the pharmaceutical
company based in Indianapolis will begin airing a 30-minute advertisement for
the world's top-selling antidepressant on May 17. The ad will be broadcast
during time slots when more depressed people are expected to be slouched in
front of the tube. Late-night viewers will also no doubt appreciate a break
from all those Partnership ads.)
Link to 'Quotes from the Prozac Survivor's web site'
From: GranVizier@webtv.net Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 13:25:14 -0400 (EDT) To: cp@telelists.com Subject: [cp] Prozac infomercial http://www.nando.com/noframes/story/0,2107,48680-78458-558252-0,00.html Eli Lilly targets weekend, late-night TV viewers with Prozac infomercial LOS ANGELES (May 14, 1999 8:58 a.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - Midnight couch potatoes, take heart: Television's glut of half-hour ads for food dehydrators, countertop broilers and exercise videos will soon be joined by an infomercial about Prozac. Eli Lilly and Co. has created a 30-minute program on the world's top-selling antidepressant. It will air on TV stations and cable channels in the middle of the night and on weekends, time slots when more depressed people are expected to be slouched in front of the tube. Millions of Americans pay about $60 a month for Prozac, which treats depression, bulimia, obsessive-compulsive disorder and other ills. Its side effects include sexual dysfunction and sleeplessness. The infomercial, which begins airing Monday, is aimed mostly at women, with all but two patients featured being female. It includes shaky camera shots of people who are presumably depressed and testimonials from people who have benefited from Prozac. "It really gives us an opportunity to tell people about a disease that really goes under-reported or undertreated," said the infomercial's host, Freda Lewis-Hall. The drug generates nearly $3 billion in annual sales for Indianapolis-based Lilly. Copyright (c) 1999 Nando Media Copyright (c) 1999 Associated Press
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Third Massachusetts News (UPI says Stephen Greaney, a police detective in New
Bedford, Massachusetts, has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges
of taking $3,500 from a drug dealer for the name of an undercover police
agent who had infiltrated his operation.)

Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 09:12:43 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US MA: Wire: Third Massachusetts News
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: EWCHIEF
Pubdate: Fri, 14 May 1999
Source: United Press International
Copyright: 1999 United Press International

THIRD MASSACHUSETTS NEWS

A New Bedford police detective has been indicted by a federal grand jury on
charges of taking $3,500 in bribes from a drug dealer. Prosecutors say
Stephen Greaney in exchange gave the drug dealer the name of an undercover
police agent who had infiltrated his operation.

Subscribers with questions or suggestions are urged to call UPI-Boston at
781- 324-2511. The fax number is 781-324-3711. For line or equipment
problems, call the UPI Customer Service Desk at 800-795-4874.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Pot ruling indictment of Health Canada (A staff editorial in the Toronto
Star, excerpted from an editorial in the Montreal Gazette, says Jim Wakeford,
a 54-year-old Toronto resident dying of AIDS, should not have had to sue the
Canadian government to safeguard his use of marijuana to relieve his pain and
suffering. An Ontario Superior Court judge's ruling this week that he has
waited long enough is a damning indictment of Health Canada's approval
process for the medical use of pot.)

Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 09:20:48 -0400
To: mattalk@islandnet.com
From: Dave Haans (haans@chass.utoronto.ca)
Subject: TorStar: Pot ruling indictment of Health Canada
Newshawk: Dave Haans
Source: The Toronto Star (Canada)
Pubdate: Friday, May 14, 1999
Page: A26
Section: Editorials and Opinion: Worth Repeating
Website: http://www.thestar.com
Contact: lettertoed@thestar.com

Pot ruling indictment of Health Canada

The terminally ill should not have to go to court to get relief from their
pain and suffering. But that's just what Jim Wakeford was forced to do to
get the marijuana he needs for medicinal purposes.

Mr. Wakeford, a 54-year-old Toronto resident, is dying of AIDS. Smoking
marijuana has helped to keep him alive by counteracting the nausea and loss
of appetite brought on by his medication.

Yet, after he applied for special exemption from criminal prosecution under
Canada's drug laws, Mr. Wakeford spent months in bureaucratic limbo waiting
for his application to be approved by Health Canada.

This week, an Ontario Superior Court judge ruled that he has waited long
enough.

The judge granted him a constitutional exemption from prosecution while
Health Minister Allan Rock figures out what to do about Mr. Wakeford's
request. It is a significant victory for those who believe in the medicinal
value of marijuana, but it is a damning indictment of Health Canada's
approval process for the medical use of pot.

Mr. Wakeford's lawyer has estimated that at least 20 other Canadian
patients who medicate themselves with marijuana are in the same position,
waiting for a Health Canada exemption under the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act. The court's ruling is likely to trigger many more legal
cases like this one.

Fortunately, Mr. Rock has said he will not appeal the court's decision.
That would only have condemned other suffering Canadians to the same
interminable delays.

The court has come down on the side of compassion and common sense.

Evidence, still largely anecdotal, indicates that marijuana can be
effective in easing pain and nausea, relieving glaucoma and cutting the
incidence of epileptic seizures.

Not every doctor will agree that prescribing marijuana is the right thing
to do from either a health or ethical standpoint. (The tar in a marijuana
cigarette alone is enough to give the medical community pause.) But doctors
who prescribe it in good conscience should be able to do so, free of the
fear that they and their patients might be prosecuted.

This is an excerpt from an editorial first published in the Montreal
Gazette.

***

Dave Haans
Graduate Student, University of Toronto
WWW: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~haans/
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Our ancestors knew better . . . (A list subscriber quotes an item in today's
Sydney Morning Herald noting the sale at auction of the world's oldest
cookbook, from 15th century Italy, that includes a recipe for cannabis
bread.)

Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 03:21:25 EDT
Originator: friends@freecannabis.org
Sender: friends@freecannabis.org
From: David Brooks (davidsb@tpg.com.au)
To: Multiple recipients of list (friends@freecannabis.org)
Subject: Our ancestors knew better...

Item in the Sydney Morning Herald 14 -5 99.

"An anonymous bidder paid 10,000 at an auction for what was billed as the
worlds oldest cookery book. The 15th century Italian tome detailed 300 recipes
in Latin, including bear on the bone, leftover hog and cannabis bread."

Did they know something we don't?

David

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

[End]

Top
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. E-mail

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

Back to the 1999 Daily News index for May 14-20

to the Portland NORML news archive directory

Back to the 1999 Daily News index (long)

This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/ii/990514.html