Massachusetts Medical Marijuana Research Program
May Breathe New Life From Assembly Measure

As amended by the state legislature, H. 2170 will direct the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) to pass rules and regulations within 180 days for the establishment of a marijuana medical research program. Like many states, Massachusetts had previously adopted legislation allowing for such a program, but had never addressed the issues of funding, regulations, or viable sources for marijuana.

"The new law does not solve the problem of the federal government's denial of access to legal marijuana, but it puts Massachusetts on the record as aggressively researching the issues of treatment and supply," said NORML Legal Committee member Michael Cutler.

"[It] creates pressure for a legal source to be created," added an aid from Rep. Jehlen's office. "[It is] a step in the right direction."

The measure also provides patients who are certified to participate in the program a legal defense against marijuana charges. This provision was a concession from the legislation's original intent which would have allowed any patient with a physician's pre-trial diagnosis of medical necessity to use the defense. Weld expressed concern that the bill's original language was overly broad.

The governor has 10 days to either sign or veto the measure.

"By enacting this law, [Gov. Weld] will allow attention to the medicinal needs of patients, whose access to treatment is blocked by the identity of their necessary medicine rather than by conduct which they can control," summarized Cutler. "For many patients, their use of marijuana enables them to support themselves and their families rather than being totally disabled and publicly supported. For these patients, who risk arrest and prosecution every day for the crime of desiring an ordinary quality of life, this law provides hope for a rational future of doctor-patient therapies free from governmental interference."

In the measure's original form, the law additionally denied "means-tested" federal benefits for five years for anyone convicted of a marijuana misdemeanor. Possession of a small amount marijuana is generally treated as a misdemeanor in all 50 states. The initial language was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate.

Gramm's amendment was altered during recent debate in conference committee. As the amendment stands now, it will only apply to future felony drug convictions and states will be able to opt out of the program if they enact legislation to do so. President Bill Clinton has agreed to sign the welfare reform package into law.

"The conference committee has provided relief for some marijuana smokers by altering Gramm's amendment; however, this bill still unfairly and inappropriately targets drug users," noted NORML Deputy Director Allen St. Pierre. Pierre noted that under the revised amendment, a murderer, rapist, or robber could receive federal funds and benefits, but not an individual convicted of cultivating marijuana.

For more information, please contact either Gwen Rubenstein of the Legal Action Center at (202) 544-5478 or Paul Armentano of NORML at (202) 483-5500.

Only Justices Marvin Baxter and Ming Chin voted to grant a hearing on the prosecution appeal; four votes are required for a hearing by the seven-member court.

"The use of thermal imaging devices can give law enforcement information regarding activities taking place inside a residence that they would not otherwise be privy to without procuring a search warrant and entering the house," stated NORML Deputy Director Allen St. Pierre. "By its very nature, it is an intrusive practice that constitutes an unreasonable search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Therefore, it should require a warrant. NORML applauds the actions of the California court."

In its decision this April, the 1st District Court of Appeals likened the use of thermal imaging to that of electronically tracking the movement of chemicals inside a home by using a beeper. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1984 (U.S. v. Karo) that a warrant must be attained before law enforcement can use a beeper.

"Like the beeper signal ... the thermal imaging scan of [the] residence told the police something about activities within the house which they could not otherwise have learned without obtaining a warrant," opined Justice Marc Poche. "Precisely because the thermal imaging is indiscriminate in registering sources of heat, it is an intrusive tool which tells much about the activities inside the home which may be quite unrelated to any illicit activity."

... [Therefore,] we find that society recognizes as reasonable an expectation that the heat generated from within a private residence may not be measured by the government without a warrant permitting such a search."

For more information on the use of thermal imaging, please contact Allen St. Pierre of NORML at (202) 483-5500.

The ad in question featured a teenager named David whose life plummets downhill because of an addiction to heroin. The ad concluded with the narrator saying: "And now I have sex with men for money to support my habit. ...I wish I didn't have to be like this."

GLAAD first voiced opposition to the spot early this month alleging that the ad "had the potential to exacerbate higher-than-average risks gay and lesbian youths face for substance abuse and suicide by implying that being gay is worse than being addicted to heroin." At that time, PDFA President Richard Bonette refused GLAAD's request to pull the ad.

Recently, however, Bonette has experienced a change of heart. He now says that the spots will be re-edited to omit the references to prostitution. "A perception of offense, however unintended, [may] dilute or interfere our basic message" of keeping adolescents drug free, Bonette recently explained in a letter to GLAAD.

Alan Klein, news media director at GLAAD said, "We're very much pleased that the Partnership has taken the concerns of the gay and lesbian community seriously."

Body Count

Miraculously, some Good Samaritans in inner Southeast Portland have stepped forward and the Portland CBC now has a home. A little grand opening party took place recently and the club is now in full operation. Registered patients can drop by during business hours.

A recent conversation with a Portland CBC representative confirmed that members are required to have the consent of their physicians, and that such consent is verified, if not always fully documented (due to possible sanctions against doctors).

Mike W wrote:

>I also think it would be a good idea for our movement to
>begin joining forces with other movements -- such as women's rights, gay
>rights, and in particular the movements for racial equality and
>environmental movement -- with whom our cause has much in common. I have
>yet to see much discussion on this list regarding how one might begin
>making these allegiances.
>
>Has anyone from the DPF talked to leaders in these movements?

I'm a civil rights activist from Humboldt County, California. Our civil rights issue is police misbehavior during drug raids - especially the annual Campaign Against Marijuana Planting (CAMP) helicopter raids in the summer. We see the civil rights issues fairly clearly and have been able to communicate those to the media. The cops treat everyone in the community as guilty until proven innocent, and the community doesn't like it. Believe it or not my mission this year is to convince drug reform advocates that there is a civil rights issue involved.

My feeling is that police misbehavior is a constant problem and that it goes well beyond the war on drugs. It is not cureable, it can only be managed, so long as the dominant police paradyme is victory thru force. But at the moment the war on drugs brings out the worse in police misbehavior so that is where the struggle is.

It is interesting that Mike brings up the environmental issue, also. We (the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project) are working quite a bit on a lawsuit in the Federal District Court in SF called DPF v Bennett (or it was when Bennett was the drug czar, the new guy probably got his name on it now). The live issue in this suit is the US Government's failure to follow NEPA regulations when the army invaded Humboldt County in 1990's Operation Greensweep.

We monitor drug raids in a considerable part of Mendocino and Humboldt Counties and in 1995 began to really take note of environmental effects. For the most part in current raids the adverse effects on the environment come from the use of helicopters. They are surprisingly widespread. Among the most serious, however, are those involving endangered species of birds. The raiders do not know where the endangered species nests are and have been observed flying right over them with very loud helicopters at very low altitudes. This behavior would get timber companies in big trouble - it probably amounts to a take.

We have spotted owls and marbeled murrelet habitat in the area we observe as well as other endangered birds. Local environmentalists are well aware of the problems with helicopter raids. But I don't think that this issue is appreciated outside of our limited area. Think of it this way: a low flying helicopter can disturb birds in a wake about 1 mile wide behind it. If one helicopter flies 200 miles during a days raiding then 200 square miles have been affected. During the heaviest raiding season it is not unusual for there to be 4 helicopters operating on the same day.

Anyway, Mike, the gist of this message is that you have a good point. The issues generated by the drug war go far beyond the simple question of whether drugs should be illegal. Public sentiment concerning drug policy when seen thru the wider perspectives of medicine (marijuana) or civil rights ( police behavior) or environmental destruction (helicopter raids) tends to be favorable to reform.

You asked if the DPF leaders had contacted environmental and various rights groups leaders. Let me turn that around. You live in a city which is a hotbed of social activism. Have you contacted these groups? If not, then perhaps a good first question is: what would you need to know to convince them to make common cause? One way to find out is to ask them.

Anyone else with thoughts about these matters?

Judge calls for debate on drugs
Cannabis: Lord McLuskey says decriminalisation should be considered

One of Scotland's most senior judges, Lord McLuskey, has called for an open debate on the criminalisation of cannabis.

In a wide-ranging written attack on the Scottish Office's draft legislation on crime and punishment, which proposes a tough stance against all drugs, Lord McLuskey had appeared to come close top calling for the decriminalising of the soft drug.

The former solicitor-general, who has sat in the House of Lords for 20 years, also dismissed the white paper, which is intended as the Scottish Secretary's blueprint for his fight against crime, as "inadequate."

Asked last night about his submission, which became public late yesterday afternoon, he said it was not a call for decriminalisation, but he hoped decriminalisation would be considered.

He added: "The people who advocate the decriminalisation of cannabis need to be listened to and not condemned out of hand. Open debate is not only healthy, it is essential."

In his nine-page response to last month's white paper, the judge pointed out that cannabis could benifit health in some circumstances. He wrote: "A particular problem for the criminal justice system is that, if the law continues to treat all use of scheduled drugs (other than on prescription) as criminal abuse, it will further alienate and criminalise large numbers of younger people who regard the use of certain drugs in sensible quantities and settings as providing enjoyment without significantly threatening their health.

"Alienating large numbers of people, by making them into undetected offenders against the criminal law, greatly weakens the criminal justice system."

He also wrote: "Drug abuse is a major factor in crime in the UK. It needs to be considered carefully, dispassionately and thoroughly. There is an absence of convincing evidence that present policies are effective. More of the same is not likely to be effective. More severe criminal and restrictive policies have not succeeded in the USA."

Asked last night for his view on cannabis being legalised, he said: "You can ask, but I don't have an opinion. There's not a simple yes or no answer on the subject of any of these drugs. But I think the whole issue ought to be examined in a non-political context."

Lord McLuskey had also written that the Crime and Punishment white paper was produced with the unspoken assumption that while alcohol could be used or abused, any use of any illegal substance "must be an abuse."

The paper referred to drug misuse and abuse, but not use. It said victims of drug abuse had to be helped and drug dealers had to be firmly dealt with to stamp out the drug culture.

Proposals to lengthen the time served in prison before parole were "bad" and would lead to a "penal disaster," said Lord McLuskey, 67, who was solicitor-general during the 1974-79 Labour government.

American educators seldom allow students to hear alternatives to drug squad views. An exception was a high school teacher who invited a DEA representative and me to make a joint presentation. The teacher told me that not only did the DEA spokesman refuse to face me, but four different DEA detectives contacted the instructor and urged him to withdraw his invitation to me. The teacher said that DEA told him he was wrong to expose high school students to a felony drug abuser seeking to recruit young people into the drug culture. The DEA's claims about me were fabrications, of course, and the instructor refused to withdraw his invitation, but I wonder how many public high school teachers resist such pressure. The DEA promised to send someone to the class the day after I came. I suggested that the class members ask the DEA person why he rejected an opportunity to refute me on the spot. The kids responded instantly: "He's afraid. He knows you have facts. He just wants to scare us, and knows he can't succeed if you're in the room with him." Several students stated forthrightly that I had not advocated drug use at all; I had simply explained alternative ways of viewing the drug situation and presented ways of influencing drug-taking behavior without putting people in jail. Such is the information that the DEA wants to prevent teeagers from knowing.

'Six Months For One Joint'