American Medical Association Shelves Report Drafted By NORML Board Member - 'Harm Reduction' Placed On Back Burner For Now

Dr. John Ambre, director of the AMA's Office of Medical Information Services, told reporters that he recruited Morgan to draft a report for the AMA, but would not divulge any information regarding the paper's contents or prospects.

Morgan said that he was contacted by the AMA's House of Delegates requesting a report on the subject of "harm reduction" - a policy commonly defined as helping drug users minimize the dangers to themselves without mandating that they stop using drugs. "It struck most of us that the biggest harm reduction we could see would be to stop putting people in jail [for drug use,]" Morgan explained. Morgan was assisted by fellow NORML board member Lynn Zimmer, Ph.D. of Queens College in New York, and Ethan Nadelmann, Ph.D. of the Lindesmith Center.

Although Morgan maintains that the reaction within the AMA to his proposals was largely favorable, the issue of harm reduction was absent from the association's agenda during its annual meeting in Chicago.

Mark Stuart, a spokesman for the AMA told reporters that he expected a revised version of the report to be submitted at the organization's interim meeting in December.

For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre of NORML at (202) 483-5500.

The Senate Committee's recommendation shocked many who noted that several of its members had publicly stated that they supported the decriminalization of marijuana. In an attempt to explain the Senate's last minute flip-flop, Committee Chair Senator Sharon Carstairs told the Montreal Gazette that the committee members were serious about decriminalization, but felt that such a recommendation would be politically futile at this point. "The majority of the Senators - and I was with them - felt all the evidence indicated decriminalization for simple possession [of marijuana] is the way we should be going," she reaffirmed. However, Carstairs said that many committee members believed such a proposal would violate several international treaties that Canada has signed and would have been struck down by the House of Commons.

If there is to be any relief for the cannabis community after the latest round of political debate, it may come by way of an approved amendment by Liberal Senator Lorna Milne that exempts "mature hemp stock" from the definition of marijuana. Although hemp industry proponents note that the passage of the amendment does little to open the door to allow for the widespread cultivation of hemp for commercial purposes, it does remove some of the regulatory restraints (e.g., licensing) that are currently in place regarding hemp fiber and products. "For Canada to develop hemp as an agricultural crop, the mature hemp stalk and the valuable fibre (sic) acquired from it must be free from over-regulation," Milne explained. "Without the amendment, the stalks, fibre and fibre products derived from them such as paper, would continue to be treated as though they were narcotic substances, simply due to the definition of the bill."

A staff member for Senator Milne informed NORML that he believes the Canadian government intends to draft a proposal to allow farmers to grow hemp for commercial purposes, but many Canadian activists feel that such legislation is still a long way off. Currently, tests plots of industrial hemp are grown in Canada under strict regulation for research purposes.

"The mindless and inexorable demand for a life sentence for minor offenses has become a bit more mindful," said Vincent Schiraldi, executive director of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.

"Because this decision was unanimous and from a conservative court, other courts [across the nation] may look to this opinion as challenges arise to their own laws," added Eric Sterling of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation.

The court's decision stemmed from a San Diego case in which a repeat offender was charged with possessing a small amount of cocaine. Feeling that the mandatory sentence was an unfit punishment for the crime, the judge moved to strike the defendant's previous convictions so he could plea bargain. The prosecutor in the case objected, maintaining that under the "three strikes" legislation, the judge lacked the right.

The ruling maintained that denying judges their traditional discretion over sentencing violates the separation of powers guaranteed in the state Constitution. The court asserted that their decision did not spell the end of "three strikes" law, but merely returned the customary power of judicial discretion back to the judges.

Following the court's decision, Gov. Wilson - an ardent proponent of mandatory sentencing - pledged to find a way to bypass the court's ruling with either a referendum or by introducing similar legislation. However, legal scholars believe that the court will strike these measures down as well.

"Those who repeatedly assault our citizens ... must pay a sever price for their crimes," Wilson said. "I intend to keep faith with the people of California who have every right to demand protection against career criminals and predators."

Proponents of the measure argue that the testing procedure offers significant advantages over urinalysis. Specifically, backers of the procedure maintain that hair testing gives employers a longer window of detection - commonly allowing employers to determine drug use that took place several months earlier. Proponents also maintain that hair tests are much more difficult to beat than is urinalysis.

However, critics of the use of hair specimens in drug testing assert that the procedure has major flaws. For one, recent studies indicate that the hair of African-American males may collect nearly eight times as much drugs as either female African-Americans or Caucasians. These findings indicate the potential for racial and sexual bias in hair testing, critics warn. In addition, hair testing remains a new technology that many feel is still in need of further scientific evaluation. "Hair analysis for the presence of drugs is unproven [and] unsupported by scientific literature or controlled trials," said Food and Drug Administration (FDA) spokeswoman Sharon Snider in a 1995 Providence Journal interview.

Despite the procedures recent recognition in Florida, hair testing on a national basis has yet to receive the same level of technical and legal acceptance that has been accorded to urinalysis drug testing and many courts will not accept the findings of hair testing alone as a positive indication of drug use.

Body Count

Probably the highlight of the festival were the speeches by Elvy Musikka, one of eight Americans who still receive marijuana leaf for medicinal purposes from the federal government's ditchweed pot farm at the University of Mississippi. After being arrested for growing her own medicine, Musikka in 1988 proved conclusively in several trials that marijuana was the only thing that keeps her from going blind from glaucoma. Even the police in attendance listened intently as Musikka described numerous failed operations and medications, and then how her doctor urged her to use cannabis because it was the only thing that would save her eyesight. At first terrified of "drugs," Musikka eventually found that marijuana not only preserved her remaining eyesight, it restored some vision to one eye that had gone completely blind.

Musikka and the seven other patients who still receive federal leaf (four of them suffering from glaucoma) each obliged the government to send them marijuana instead of to jail under the Compassionate Investigational New Drug (IND) program. Only a dozen or so patients were able to complete the complex paperwork required by the program between 1976 and 1989. Then the much-publicized case of AIDS patients Kenneth & Barbra Jenks led to thousands of AIDS patients applying for federal marijuana beginning in 1989. In response, the Bush administration shut down the Compassionate IND program in June 1991, asserting that saving people's eyesight and so forth undercut the administration's opposition to the use of illegal drugs. Irrationally and unfairly, the government and prohibitionists continue to ignore legal precedent and maintain there is "no accepted evidence" that marijuana is a valid medicine.

Although The Oregonian received two press releases well before deadline, on May 16 and May 30, with characteristic bias it failed to mention the festival. Even the Friday, June 21, "A&E" arts and entertainment tab completely omitted any mention of the event in its music listings and "Fairs and Festivals" calendar. Willamette Week also received at least the two press releases but, despite its membership in the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, omitted all mention of the festival in its June 19 news and arts coverage. How can the editors justify the practice of withholding news? Portland-area radio and television stations also decided to choose for their audiences whether they might be interested in attending. Thanks to PDXS and other media who respected their audiences enough to let them decide for themselves. This all serves to illustrate the point that when the mass media begin to behave professionally, prohibition will be done for.

Many uniformed and plainclothes police were on hand, but according to Lt. Madison, only two arrests took place. Nine people were also excluded from the park without being arrested. The two people busted included a juvenile charged with disorderly conduct and the Eugene proprietor of a cannabis-food booth. The food-booth dude was initially popped in mid-afternoon for a live hemp plant he had at his stand. A crowd gathered as the police arrested him, and his shouting and commotion threatened the peace. Police subsequently found cocaine on "Danbo," who later admitted the cocaine was indeed his. He was charged for the illegal plant, cocaine, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. Still, the overall tone at the festival was peaceful. By way of contrast, "Police excluded 350 people from the Rose Festival Pepsi Festival Center at Tom McCall Waterfront Park during its 10-day run. The number was up from 201 last year," according to "Police exclude more people at festival center this year," in the June 12 Oregonian (p. B3). Lt. Madison confirmed rather explicitly that he did not see why Hemp Fest organizers should have any problem coming back next year.

That is good news, because the police went through a lot of trouble and expense in an attempt to prevent and then control this year's festival. At a meeting just days before the event, according to festival organizer Siouxsie Crawford, police came up with a variety of arbitrary and unprecedented demands designed to prevent the festival from happening. After three different lawyers went to work defending the civil rights of festival-goers against the police and park bureau, the festival was allowed to take place. On the day of the event, however, police blocked off a parking lot at Lloyd Center and set up a temporary cop shop in the nearby Red Lion Inn lobby. Uniformed police, mounted patrols and plainclothes officers were all over the place, and lots of official types with videocameras taped the proceedings from various vantage points all around the park. Another problem developed when Portland parks personnel required organizers to set up the stage at one particular site, and then did not have that site ready as promised at 6 a.m. on the day of the festival, but dragged things out until noon, delaying the start of the festival for two hours. It's hard to understand how police and city officials expect to promote responsible behavior when they engage in such childish and unconstitutional attempts to deny the people they are supposed to serve their right to assemble peaceably. Organizers are willing to meet any reasonable conditions, but it's only fair to state those conditions well in advance of the event.

Average Lengths of Federal Sentences:

Offense                    Sentence

Assault                    3.2 years
Manslaughter               3.5 years
Racketeering               5.0 years
Extortion                  5.0 years
Sex Offenses               5.8 years
Drug Offenses              6.5 years

Wormscan Files Posted

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the government cannot seize an innocent person's assets to pay a guilty spouse's debts for drug offenses.

The ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was issued in the case of Richard Lester, who was convicted in September 1992 of dealing marijuana.

In December 1993, the government sought to take a three-eighths interest he and his wife held in property in Eureka, Calif., to satisfy Lester's $2.5 million debt to the United States for his crimes.

Under federal drug forfeiture laws, the government can take property used to commit crimes or acquired with profits from drug deals, and when that property is unavailable, the government can take "substitute property."

Lester's wife, Sheila, complained that she owned half of their share under California community property laws and that the government had no right to her portion. A district court upheld the seizure.

The appeals court overruled that decision, saying federal drug forfeiture laws state that only substitute property of the defendant may be forfeited.

Neither Sheila Lester's attorney nor the U.S. Attorney's office representing the government returned calls from The Associated Press for comment Thursday.

[End quote]

More On California's Three-Strikes Decision

WASHINGTON (Reuter) - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal sentencing judges in drug cases cannot hand down a punishment below the minimum set by law without a specific request from prosecutors.

The high court, by a 7-2 vote, ruled that the judge does not have the power to depart from the minimum under the law without a prosecution request in cases involving federal sentencing guidelines.

The case involved Juan Melendez, who had entered into an agreement to plead guilty to cocaine distribution charges.

At sentencing, prosecutors moved for a lesser sentence under the guidelines in recognition of Melendez's cooperation, but urged that the judge not give a sentence below the statutory minimum of 10 years in prison.

The judge held that he could not go below the minimum without a request from prosecutors and gave Melendez 10 years in prison. A federal appeals court confirmed the sentence.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, ruled the judge in the case had been correct. The court agreed to decide the case after conflicting lower-court rulings on whether judges can give less than the minimum sentence.

In other action, the justices agreed to decide whether the right of a police officer in making a lawful traffic stop to order the driver to leave the car also extended to the passengers.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal by the state of Maryland that the passengers on a routine traffic stop can be asked by the police to leave the vehicle.

Twenty-five other states supported Maryland's appeal, arguing that it did not violate the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures to ask the passengers to get out.

The justices will hear arguments in the case during its 1996-97 term that begins in October, with a decision likely early next year.

The Courier Mail (Australia)
Friday 28th June, 1996, p. 23

Figures compiled by China's official press reveal that at least 222 people were executed in China on Wednesday, United Nations International Day Against Drug Abuse, in a massive one day crackdown on drug trafficking. A further 547 people received death sentences, or sentences to life imprisonment, as part of the crackdown. ... According to police figures, 575 kg of heroin and 234 kg of opium were seized during the first four months of this year. These seizures represent an increase of 73% and 10% respectively on the previous year.

A REPORT from Britain's Prison Service appears to confirm fears that prisoners are switching from cannabis to harder drugs to beat drugs tests (see "Welcome to Cell Block Heroin", 21 October 1995, p 14).

When prison inspectors visited the low-security Wayland jail in Norfolk, they were told by inmates that the use of opiates and crack cocaine was rising. Prisoners say this is because cannabis users may test positive 30 days after using the drug, whereas opiate users would pass an equivalent test within three days.

The Home Office says that this conclusion is unreliable because the study was based on what prisoners said. But the Prison Service has called for more research to find out whether a desire to beat drug tests is driving inmates to use crack cocaine and heroin.

AMA Shelves Report Urging Decriminalization of Drugs

A report commissioned by an influential committee of the American Medical Association has been shelved after some medical experts who reviewed a draft copy expressed outrage at its recommendation that marijuana be legalized and criminal penalties removed from other illegal drugs.

As a result, the volatile issue will be absent from the association's agenda when its annual meeting begins Sunday in Chicago.

The draft report, which was commissioned to look at ways to reduce the harm drugs cause to those who use them, said that neither criminal penalties nor treatment programs have substantially deterred drug use. It also suggests allowing addicts to refuse treatment, dropping criminal penalties for using illegal drugs, devising a way to sell marijuana over the counter and preventing undercover law-enforcement officers from buying drugs and arresting dealers.

The report did not specify which drugs its recommendations would affect, but it did not exclude harder drugs like heroin and cocaine.

The report was prepared for the association's Council on Scientific Affairs, which examines scientific and public-health issues for discussion by the House of Delegates, the group's policy-making body. The report was shelved after objections were raised by prominent medical groups that were asked to comment on the draft, and by doctors within the AMA, one of whom provided The New York Times with a copy.

Several of those doctors said in interviews that a national organization representing nearly 300,000 doctors should not be endorsing the greater availability of hazardous substances.

Dr. John Morgan, a professor of pharmacology at the City University of New York Medical School, said AMA officials had asked him to write a report on "harm reduction," which he defined as helping drug abusers minimize the dangers to themselves without demanding that they stop using drugs. He said the House of Delegates had requested such a report.

Morgan, who has spoken out for the liberalization of drug laws, said that in some resolutions by the house he had found much of the language on harm reduction that he then used in the report. "To my amazement," he said, "the House of Delegates wanted to explore the issues of drug legalization."

Morgan said in a telephone interview that he was assisted by Lynn Zimmer, a sociologist at Queens College in New York, and Ethan A. Nadelmann, the director of the Lindesmith Center, an institute based in New York that promotes more liberal drug policies.

"The AMA has not been quick to own important issues in drug policy," said Nadelmann, who has expressed views that coincide with those in the report. In other countries, he said, doctors have taken more of a lead in changing attitudes about drugs.

Dr. John J. Ambre, the director of the AMA's Office of Medical Information Services, said he had recruited Morgan to prepare the report, which he described as a draft. "It's not a document until it's approved by the council," said Ambre. He was unwilling to discuss the report's contents or prospects.

Calls to other AMA officials were referred to Mark Stuart, a spokesman for the organization, who said he expected that a revised version of the report would be submitted at the group's interim meeting in December. "The council decided it wasn't ready for the House yet," he explained. Stuart said it was not uncommon to hold back a report for revision and submit it later.

Dr. Herbert D. Kleber, a psychiatrist who is medical director of the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, said he had heard that the report was put aside after association officials realized what it recommended.

"It is my understanding that the AMA was not aware this was being put together by someone whose writings were clearly in favor of drug legalization," Kleber said.

The draft report was circulated to the American Psychiatric Association, the American Society of Addiction Medicine and the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, all of which urged that it be reconsidered. In a joint letter to the AMA, officials of the three groups said that the report raised serious policy concerns and that many of its recommendations were based on ideology rather than scientific data.

Morgan said he was told that reaction within the AMA was largely favorable. "The fact that there's been some criticism is OK," he said.

In one assertion that has upset some doctors aware of the report, it declared that "overall, abstinence-based treatment has a high failure rate." It also argued that "under all circumstances, participation in drug treatment should be voluntary." Currently, some drug users arrested on criminal charges are offered treatment as an alternative to jail.

The report also recommends that "moderate steps toward drug decriminalization be taken" in order to counter what they called "the clearly negative consequences of the present prohibition status."

The report emphasized the need to lift criminal sanctions against drugs, Morgan said, because "it struck most of us that the biggest harm reduction we could see would be to stop putting people in jail."

Other medical specialists disagree. Dr. Sally Satel, an addiction psychiatrist with Yale University who said she was aware of the report, said it seemed to be a plea to enable addicts to keep using drugs. "I think it has no understanding of how people even begin to recover," Satel said in a telephone interview. "The whole motivation for recovery is to come up against the consequences of your use."

The report suggested that marijuana "should be decriminalized, and a mechanism created for retail sales to those 18 years of age and older"; that the "use, possession and low-level sales of all psycho-active drugs should be a subject of police action only when these activities are associated with a disruption of public order," and that "all 'buy-and-bust' police actions should cease."

In the past, the AMA has pressed for more money to treat addicts. But it has also opposed legalization of drugs.

[End]