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

Oregonians For Personal Privacy (Eugene-Based Group Is Circulating
Initiative Petition To Legalize Personal Consumption, Cultivation,
Manufacture Of Cannabis)

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 23:38:48 -0800
From: opp (opp@efn.org)
Subject: Re: What's going on.

Here's some propaganda and check out http://www.efn.org/~opp

We are circulating a petition to legalize personal private use - on
web site check intent and purpose.

Thanks

Stephen

OREGONIANS for PERSONAL PRIVACY 420 (OPP 420)
is a grassroots organization with no financial backing.

If you want this petition to succeed, you must support it.

We need volunteers to circulate petitions,
as well as contributions of money and help getting the word out.

Oregonians for Personal Privacy 420
P.O. Box 24715
Eugene, OR 97402
(541) 485-4526
opp@efn.org

Self-addressed stamped envelope helpful.

A REGISTERED POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

REGISTER TO VOTE NOW
CIRCUTATE PETITIONS

THE ONLY WAY TO AMNESTY
IS THROUGH LEGALIZATION

"THE MANUFACTURE, POSSESSION, AND CONSUMPTION, IN PRIVATE, OF THE PLANT
CANNABIS AND ALL ITS FAMILIES AND BYPRODUCTS SHALL BE LEGAL FOR ALL CITIZENS
21 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER."

HELP STOP THE TEMPERANCE MARCH TO TOTALITARIANISM

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

Private Detective Gives Emotional Testimony ('The Herald'
Says Former Private Investigator Dale Fairbanks Broke Down In Tears Wednesday
As He Testified About Watching Everett, Washington, Lawyer Mark Mestel
Receive Marijuana From A Defendant - Mestel Not Charged, But Defendants
Seek Dismissal Of Charges At Hearing To Determine Whether Federal Prosecutors
Erred In 1996 When They Recruited Fairbanks To Help Investigate
His Boss's Former Clients)

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 15:00:57 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Olafur Brentmar 
Subject: MN: US WA: Private Detective Gives Emotional Testimony
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: John Smith
Pubdate: Thu, 19 Feb. 1998
Source: The Herald, Everett, WA, USA
Contact: letters@heraldnet.com
WebPage: http://www.heraldnet.com
Author: Scott North, Herald Writer
Note: You can contact Scott North by phone at 425-339-3431 or you can
send e-mail to him at north@heraldnet.com

PRIVATE DETECTIVE GIVES EMOTIONAL TESTIMONY

Informant Tells Court Of Pot, Friendship, Betrayal

SEATTLE -- A former private investigator at the center of the federal
government's case against an alleged drug ring broke down in tears
Wednesday as he testified about watching an Everett lawyer receive
marijuana from one of the men charged in the case. Dale Fairbanks wept
openly in U.S. District Court as he told Judge Thomas Zilly about the
alleged drug delivery to Mark Mestel in October 1995.

The testimony came on the second day of a hearing to determine whether
federal prosecutors erred in 1996 when they recruited Fairbanks to help
investigate former Mestel clients for an alleged conspiracy to grow
marijuana and hide drug money behind legitimate businesses.

Mestel is not charged with any crime.

Attorneys for defendants Gregory Haynes and James Denton have asked Zilly
to dismiss the case.

In court papers, they've portrayed Fairbanks as a mercenary liar, who after
being promised $150,000, helped the government run roughshod over the
confidential relationship between lawyers and clients.

Fairbanks and other witnesses who testified Wednesday presented a different
picture. The former Sultan police officer, who now runs a pawn shop, said
he enjoyed working as a private investigator on Mestel cases for most of
this decade.

Fairbanks said he became concerned in 1994 when Mestel befriended Haynes
and allegedly took legal steps to hide the Eastern Washington man's
involvement in a large marijuana farm near Stanwood.

Fairbanks said concern turned to sadness in October 1995, when he drove
Mestel to Cle Elum and watched Haynes give the lawyer a baseball cap
brimming with marijuana. The pot allegedly came from hidden farms Haynes
ran in Eastern Washington, including a large underground operation near
Moses Lake.

Fairbanks testified that Mestel said nothing when Haynes placed the pot in
Fairbanks' car. Mestel later took the marijuana home, he alleged.

"It hurt my feelings," Fairbanks testified through tears. "... I was
surprised. I was surprised Mark would put me in that position."

Mestel was not in the courtroom Wednesday. Judge Zilly on Tuesday
questioned Mestel about alleged drug deliveries, and the lawyer said Haynes
did send him small amounts of marijuana on at least two occasions, but that
he'd thrown away the drugs and taken steps to stop further deliveries.

The respected Everett attorney denied ever having received a hatful of
marijuana from anyone.

Prosecutors on Wednesday questioned Fairbanks about the drug delivery
allegations in part to explain his motives for approaching drug detectives
in late 1995 and early 1996 and agreeing to work as a confidential
informant.

Fairbanks said the government didn't offer him payment until he was already
deeply involved in the case. The former investigator also acknowledged that
he wasn't easily supervised, and at one point violated federal law by
deciding on his own to help Haynes illegally acquire two fully automatic
machine guns.

Fairbanks was later granted immunity for the gun deal.

Duane Stickels, an agent with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration,
testified Fairbanks did not relish the idea of becoming an informant.

"I don't think he wanted to be a confidential informant," Stickles
testified. "He was involved in a situation that was criminal and he didn't
like it and he wanted to come forward."

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

Orange County Gangs - New Recruits For Mexican Druglords?
('Orange County Register' Says US Authorities Have Indicted 10 Members
Of San Diego Gang They Allege Were Hired As Contract Assassins In Brutal,
Gangland-Style Ambush That Targeted Drug Dealer But Instead Took Lives
Of Highest-Ranking Roman Catholic Prelate In Mexico And Six Others
In May 1993)

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 19:12:06 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US CA: O.C. Gangs: New Recruits For Mexican Druglords?
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: John Black 
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Pubdate: Thu, 19 Feb 1998
Author: Guillermo X. Garcia

O.C. GANGS: NEW RECRUITS FOR MEXICAN DRUGLORDS?

Authorities are worried about that prospect since last week's indictments
of 10 San Diego men in an ambush that killed 7.

It was a crime that shocked Mexico and reverberated into Southern
California: A brutal, gangland-style ambush that targeted a drug dealer but
instead took the lives of the highest-ranking Roman Catholic prelate in
Mexico and six others.

U.S. authorities last week said they believe that the contract assassins
were members of a San Diego gang. They fear that gangs in Orange County and
Los Angeles also might be recruited by the drug cartel that controls the
border.

Almost five years after the May 1993 slaying of Cardinal Juan Jesus Posadas
Ocampo at the Guadalajara, Mexico, airport, U.S. officials unsealed an
indictment Tuesday charging 10 gang members, all with prior convictions, as
the hit men.

Border law-enforcement officials said it was the first time they could
recall that the Tijuana cartel headed by the notorious Arellano brothers
had hired U.S. street thugs. The American gang members allegedly acted as
bodyguards, as security on drug shipments, as collectors of overdue debts -
and as killers of Mexican lawmen and drug rivals.

Officials on both sides of the border say the powerful Tijuana cartel that
recruited the San Diego gang members now might try to entice Orange County
and Los Angeles gangs to do their contract work.

U.S. officials say the cardinal died in a fusillade of AK-47 rifle fire
intended for Joaquin "Chapo" Guzman, a rival drug dealer who was fighting
the Arellano Felix drug cartel for control of the lucrative Pacific Coast
drug smuggling corridors.

The indicted gang members, facing 10 years to life if convicted, are
charged with drug smuggling and dealing, attempted murder of several U.S.
citizens - and of being the hit men who apparently mistook the elderly
cardinal dressed in clerical garb for Guzman. They can't be charged in the
United States with the cardinal's death.

"Since the U.S. authorities have hit the (San Diego) gang with such a heavy
blow, I believe it is logical and a very real possibility that the cartel
will approach other gangs, and Orange County could be strategic for them,"
said Victor Clark Alfaro, head of the Tijuana-based Binationall Center
for Human Rights and an unofficial historian of Tijuana's illicit drug
industry.

For at least the past decade, the Arellano Felix brothers have ruthlessly
controlled the flow of illegal drugs over the Mexican border into
California, officials say. Since 1996, the cartel has been accused of or
linked to the deaths of eight high-ranking police commanders and
prosecutors assigned to Tijuana anti-drug operations.

U.S. law-enforcement officials say that 70 percent of the multi-billion
dollar drug traffic enters the United States from Mexico. Tijuana is the
leading port of entry to the so-called "O.C. corridor," linking the border
to distribution points in Southern California and the rest of the country.

The Mexican government has raised a $5 million bounty for the abrothers'
arrest, and the U.S. State Department is offering $2 million for their
capture. The FBI lists Ramon Arellano Felix, 33, the brother who allegedly
led the San Diego hit team to Guadalajara, on its list of 10 most wanted
fugitives.

"Orange County is ideal because it is linked by proximity to the border, it
has had an established and organized gang population for years, and lies at
the heart of the corridor used to distribute the drugs that are smuggled
into your country" by the Arellanos, said Clark Alfaro.

Orange County law-enforcement officials say they have no concrete evidence
that a connection has been established.

"We don't know that that is a fact, because we have not been contacted by
any law-enforcemnet agency about possible connections' between Orange
County gangs and the cartel, said Orange County sheriff's Lt. Hector
Rivera. "Are Orange County gangs sophisticated enough to establish
connections like that with Mexican gangs? We are just not now in a position
to say."

Federal agents who specialize in violent border gangs are reluctant to
comment because of ongoing operations, but they acknowledge Clark Alfaro's
scenario is credible.

"It is hard to say where the cartle will turn for replacements, but (hiring
U.S. gang members) worked for them for years," says San Diego FBI
supervisor Ed Walker, who coordinates the Bureau's violent-crime task force
gang group.

Contracting the San Diego members of the "30th St." Logan Heights gang for
bodyguard and enforcement was a smart move by the cartel, says Clark
Alfaro.

"When you look at it, (the Arellano organization) is a transnational
corporation working in a very competitive market and an unforgiving
business," he said. "I believe (the Arellanos) assumed that by using U.S.
gang members for their nefarious activities on this side of the border,
they could evade authorities.

"To apprehend groups operating on both sides of the border would require
that authorities on both sides work together in a co-operative venture.
That would have been unheard of" because of U.S. authorities' distrust of
their Mexican counterparts, he said. "The cartel was counting on that to
allow them to transact their business."

Beginning in the early 90s, the cartel increasingly turned to the Logan
gang after on of the gang's senior members abegan associating with the
Arellanos.

Federal prosecutors say the powerful drug barons became indebted to David
Barron-Corona, a mostly small-time marijuana, PCP and cocaine dealer in
Logan Heights, a hardscrabble neighborhood framed by florid freeway murals,
warehouses and docks south of downtown.

The FBI's Walker said Barron got into the cartel's good graces in October
1992, when he saved them from an ambush in a Puerto Vallarta discoteque set
up by Joaquin Guzman.

Guzman first became a problem for the Arellanos because of his refusal to
pay the brothers a "tax" on the drugs he moved through their territory.

Mexocan police say that a sophisticated, nearly mile-long, air-conditioned
and lighted tunnel from Tijuana to a warehouse in Otay Mesa was constructed
by Guzman in the early 1990s to sneak his drug loads under the noses of the
Arellanos and police. The tunnel was uncovered by U.S. anti-drug
authorities with help from informants that Mexican police say were provided
by the Arellanos.

Within days of the disco shoot out, the Arellanos began planning their revenge.

Seven months later, they got their chance.

Guzman was to fly out of Guadalajara on the afternoon of May 24, 1993.
Ramon Arellano-Felix, Barron and seven other Logan gang members, armed with
AK-47s, were to ambush Guzman's entourage as it pulled into the airport's
VIP parking lot.

"The kill zone was set up. Unfortunately, the cardinal's white Ford Grand
Marquis pulled up just as the assassins were about to open fire," Walker
said, citing accounts of witnesses and gunmen interviewed by the FBI.

At the scene, authorities described a well-planned attack in which at least
five carloads of weapons, including machine guns, were placed in strategic
areas of the parking lot.

Shortly after the airport shoot out, the brothers went to Mexico City and
in a secret meeting with the Vatican's ambassador to Mexico declared their
innocence.

In the aftermath, Mexican military and elite law enforcement teams raided
Arellano facilities, mostly in Tijuana. Official reports say they
confiscated a chain of drugstores, 118 houses, five real estate firms, a
half dozen other businesses, heavy weapons, cell telephones and other
electronic devices, about a dozen vehicles and nearly $4 million in cash.

"The lure of illicit enrichment, drugs, discos and fast women is very
difficult to combat," Clark Alfaro said.

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

Druglords Easily Enter The US From Mexico? (Brief Item
In 'Orange County Register' Says Mariano Herran Salvatti,
Mexico's Special Prosecutor For Crimes Against Health, Charged Wednesday
That Mexico's Most-Wanted Druglords Travel Regularly To United States,
Moving Across Border Into California With Ease)

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 19:16:48 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US: Druglords Easily Enter The U.S. From Mexico?
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: John W. Black
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Pubdate: Thu, 19 Feb 1998

DRUGLORDS EASILY ENTER THE U.S. FROM MEXICO?

Mexico's most-wanted druglords travel regularly to the United States,
moving across the border into California with ease, a top Mexican anti-drug
official charged Wednesday.

Mariano Herran Salvatti, the special prosecutor for crimes against health,
said law-enforcement officers had found video footage showing one of the
brothers crossing the frontier and it "was clear he was going from the
United States to Mexico."

U.S. officials last week charged 10 members of a San Diego gang with
assisting in the Tujuana cartel's 1993 attempted hit against a rival
druglord at Mexico's Guadalajara airport.

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

California Prison Industry Homepage . . . Sickening . . .

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:48:05 -0500
From: Cheryl Dykstra & Scott Dykstra 
Organization: Dykstra Computer Repair Service
To: asobey@ncfcomm.com
Subject: California Prison Industry Homepage......Sickening...
Sender: owner-cannabis-patriots-l@teleport.com

http://www.pia.ca.gov/

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

People In The News (Separate Items In 'San Jose Mercury News' Roundup
Note Bidding War For Seattle Author's Novel, 'Easy Money,'
About A Cross-Country Chase Involving Female Dope Mule;
And Actor Robert Downey Jr. Gets Out Of Jail Briefly)

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:42:18 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US CA: Column: People in the News
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Marcus-Mermelstein Family 
Source: San Jose Mercury News
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Pubdate: Thu, 19 Feb 1998
Editor Note: There is a tidbit about Robert Downey Jr.'s life in prison at
the end of this article.

PEOPLE IN THE NEWS

Publisher's report

Jenny Siler, 26, a Seattle bartender, will have her first novel published
by Henry Holt after a publisher's bidding battle drove the price ``well
over six figures,'' according to her agent, Nat Sobel, who also reps James
Ellroy (``L.A. Confidential'').

Siler's book, ``Easy Money,'' is about a cross-country chase involving a
female dope mule who must deliver a computer disk that could get her
killed.

Another first-timer hitting the novel jackpot is freelance journalist John
Connolly, who got a $575,000 advance, one of the biggest ever for an Irish
writer. ``Every Dead Thing'' features ex-detective Charlie (Bird) Parker
and takes place entirely in the United States.

Said Connolly, 29: ``My first priority is to fix the heater in the car,
then to pay the tax man and the Visa bill I ran up researching the book in
America.''

Famous prisoner takes a trip

Robert Downey Jr. was escorted from jail to Paramount Studios for a
recording session -- at his own expense, the L.A. Sheriff's Department
said.

The trip was court-ordered, said Deputy Steve Sciacca, who offered no
further explanation.

After a series of drug arrests and second chances, the actor was led off to
jail Dec. 8 for six months for violating probation by failing to stay clean
and sober.

On Friday, Downey's nose was cut in a fight with another inmate in a common
area and he was placed in a cell away from the general population.

Also, deputies found drug paraphernalia in another area where Downey ate
and watched television with about 100 other inmates. Officials were trying
to determine the source of the contraband.

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

Group Seeks Anti-Drug Themes On TV ('Associated Press' Item
In 'Los Angeles Times' Says The Caucus Of Producers, Writers And Directors,
Group Of 200 Television Industry Members, Gives An Audience In Beverly Hills
To US Drug Czar General McCaffrey - Jerry Isenberg, Chair Of Caucus,
Says It Would Be Wise To Avoid 'The Simplistic Drugs Are Bad' Message
Because It Is Old And Ineffective')

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 21:09:28 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US: Group Seeks Anti-Drug Themes On TV
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield
Source: Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Pubdate: February 19, 1998
Fax: 213-237-4712
Author: Robert Jabloin, Associated Press Writer

GROUP SEEKS ANTI-DRUG THEMES ON TV

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif.-- Anti-drug themes should be made part of popular TV
and music programming to keep children off drugs, an industry group said
Wednesday.

The Caucus of Producers, Writers and Directors made its suggestion to White
House drug policy chief Barry R. McCaffrey, who was seeking input on
reaching children as young as age 9. "I came here to listen to those who
help shape America's values," McCaffrey said after a closed meeting with
the caucus steering committee.

"How do you communicate with adolescents? If anyone understands that, it's
some of the people in this room today," said McCaffrey, head of the Office
of National Drug Control Policy. The caucus, a group of 200 TV industry
members, suggested using music and TV shows as anti-drug forums.

But Jerry Isenberg, chair of the caucus, said it would be wise to avoid
"the simplistic drugs are bad" message because it is old and ineffective.

"The answer may be in characters and themes ... embedded in shows,"
Isenberg said. Bonny Dore, a TV producer and secretary of the caucus,
gave several examples. "If you were doing a 'Simpsons' episode and Bart
goes, 'You're using drugs -attitude check!"' she said.

McCaffrey has been seeking a partnership with Hollywood in spreading the
message, which is also going out in a $195 million-a-year ad campaign
beginning this summer. He said childhood was the crucial time to prevent
drug abuse.

"Almost nobody in his right mind starts using cocaine at 25, starts a
heroin habit in his mid-30s," McCaffrey said.

Isenberg said members of the caucus had no problem with the idea of
including an anti-drug message in programming.

"(There is) no party line. Everybody hates drugs," Isenberg said.

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

Ex-Governor Admits Mistake ('Grand Rapids Press' Quotes
Former Michigan Governor William G. Milliken Admitting He Made Mistake
Signing 'Drug Lifer Law' 20 Years Ago - Current Governor
Would Also Like Reform, But Chair Of Senate Judiciary Committee
Says It's Unlikely This Year Because Legislators Reluctant
To Appear Soft On Crime)

Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:08:45 EST
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: ltneidow@voyager.net (Lee T. Neidow)
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: Ex-Governor Admits Mistake

>From Grand Rapids Press Feb. 19, 1998, page B-4:

Former Michigan Gov. William G. Milliken admitted today that he made a
mistake when he signed the drug lifer law in to effect 20 years ago.

Milliken called the lifer law "inhumane", saying it "wastes precious
public dollars to lock up people for life, people who pose no threat
to society".

Michigan's lifer law is one of the toughest in the nation. It requires
that anyone convicted of possession of more than 650 grams of cocaine
or heroin - nearly 1 1/2 pounds - be sentenced to life in prison
with no chance of parole. The law has been criticized for catching low
level drug dealers rather than the king-pins it was designed to snag.

Currently, Milliken said, 220 inmates are serving life sentences
under the law - the majority of whom would benefit more from drug
treatment than incarceration.

There are Bills in both the Senate and House to reform the law, and
the current Governor has stated he is in favor of such reform.

However Sen. Van Regenmorter, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
says passage of the legislation is unlikely this election year, because
legislators are reluctant to appear soft on crime.

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

There's No Pleasing Tavern League (Staff Editorial
In 'Milwaukee Journal Sentinel' About Attempts To Modify Bill
Passed Last Legislative Session By Tavern League Of Wisconsin,
Requiring Municipalities To Charge $10,000 Fee For New Tavern Licenses,
Up From $500)

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 21:46:25 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Olafur Brentmar 
Subject: MN: US WI: Editorial: There's No Pleasing Tavern League
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: "Frank S. World" 
Pubdate: Thu 19 Feb 1998
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Contact: jsedit@onwis.com
Fax: (414) 224-8280
Website: http://www.jsonline.com/

THERE'S NO PLEASING TAVERN LEAGUE

Three state legislators and some other well-meaning folks learned a
valuable lesson from Wisconsin's barkeepers this week -- namely, you need
to know when you've had enough.

That limit should have been reached Tuesday when the influential Tavern
League of Wisconsin arrogantly rejected a compromise offered by three
Waukesha County legislators to resolve a bitter controversy over the new
tavern licensing law.

This terrible law - for which the Tavern League lobbied mightily - requires
municipalities to charge a $10,000 fee for a new tavern license, compared
to a $500 fee for an existing license. The point of the law is to increase
the value of existing bars by making their purchase more attractive to
would-be tavern owners than the purchase of a new license. One effect of
the law, of course, is to discourage new competition.

The compromise - drafted by Assembly Majority Leader Steven Foti
(R-Oconomowoc), Rep. Frank Urban (R-Brookfield) and Sen. Margaret Farrow
(R-Elm Grove) - was certainly reasonable. Communities would have been
allowed to use their own discretion to set fees for liquor licenses
anywhere from $500 to $10,000.

The Alliance of Cities and the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, both of
which strongly oppose the new law, backed the compromise. But that wasn't
good enough for officials of the Tavern League, who made it clear by their
actions that they're really not interested in a compromise at all, despite
earlier comments to that effect.

By discouraging competition, the new statute is classic fence-me-in
legislation. If the state is going to take drastic steps to protect one
type of small business, why not do the same for others -- small groceries
or drugstores, for instance? Where would the line be drawn? Obviously, the
state should not be traveling down that perilous road.

Pete Madland, president of the Tavern League, wants the new law left in
place for one year before legislators consider changing it. That's fine for
him and his members, but what about municipal officials throughout the
state who complain about the law's impediment to new business development?
Should they live with a bad law for another year just because it suits the
Tavern League?

The answer for lawmakers should be obvious: It's high time to just say no.

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

Koop Says Smokers Will Shun Cigarettes But Not Nicotine
('Orange County Register' Says Former US Surgeon General Predicts
Next Few Years May See Increase In People Who Quit Smoking
But Continue To Satisfy Their Nicotine Addiction - But Fails To Explain Why
It Hasn't Happened Yet)

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 19:08:18 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US: Koop Says Smokers Will Shun Cigarettes But Not Nicotine
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: John W. Black
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Pubdate: Thu, 19 Feb 1998
Author: Jon Van - Chicago Tribune

KOOP SAYS SMOKERS WILL SHUN CIGARETTES BUT NOT NICOTINE

The former surgeon general predicts gum will replace puffing for many who
want to cut risks but need their fix.

PHILADELPHIA-The next few years may see a marked increase in people who
quit smoking but continue to satisfy their nicotine addiction in different
ways, Dr. C. Everett Koop, former U.S. surgeon general, predicted Sunday.

"I think you'll find among the 45 million Americans now addicted to
nicotine that several will decide they just can't shake their addiction,
but they'll quit smoking anyway to avoid the many health risks it brings,"
Koop told reporters at the annual meeting of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science.

"People will use inhalers, patches and chewing gum to get their nicotine
fix without smoking," he predicted.

Nicotine does pose a health risk for pregnant women and anyone with
coronary problems, but that risk is significantly less than the overall
threat posed by smoking, which is associated with one in five deaths, Koop
said.

The former surgeon general has been working to get American public health
organizations to form a consensus so they can speak with one voice on the
smoking issue as Congress considers how to handle the settlement worked out
between the tobacco industry and several state attorneys general.

"The settlement has practically unraveled as it comes before Congress,"
Koop said. "The climate has changed in Congress, and things that were once
unthinkable have become quite possible."

Revelations about the tobacco industry's efforts to sell cigarettes to
children and to hide their addictive nature have aroused disgust in Congress
even among many longtime friends of the industry, Koop said.

But he expressed caution about declaring a victory.

"I think the industry is so smart, it can devise ways of getting around
almost anything," he said.

One obvious step by tobacco companies would be to boost foreign sales to
make up for any reductions in the United States, Koop said.

"In the world market for tobacco, the United States accounts for only about
8 to 10 percent," he said. "The U.S. tobacco companies could make up for
losing their entire domestic market with just two years of promotion in
Asia, and I'm sure they count on doing that."

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

Drug Delusions About Mexico (Staff Editorial In 'Boston Globe'
Links The Certification Process To The 'Arrogance Of Power'
The Late Senator William Fulbright Regarded As The True Source
Of The Vietnam War)

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 23:52:57 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service 
From: Richard Lake 
Subject: MN: US: Editorial: Drug Delusions About Mexico
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: "Dick Evans" 
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Contact: letters@globe.com
Website: http://www.boston.com/
Pubdate: 19 Feb 1998

A BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL

DRUG DELUSIONS ABOUT MEXICO

During the Vietnam War, Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas lamented an
''arrogance of power'' that he regarded as the true source of that war. The
stakes today are different, but when a foreign leader such as Mexico's
President Ernesto Zedillo complains about the annual humiliation of having
to be certified by the United States as a properly zealous partner in the
war on drugs, Fulbright's lament can be heard between the lines. If Clinton
does not certify Mexico, then by law US aid to Mexico must be suspended.

Washington is certainly entitled to ask its neighbors and major trading
partners to cooperate in combatting the scourge of narcotics. Moreover, the
inevitable corruption that accompanies the drug trade does more harm to
Mexico, the transit country, than it does to the United States. But the
insulting sham of certification serves only to engender resentment against
the United States as a nation of sanctimonious hypocrites who blame
foreigners for their own frailties.

As a practical matter, certification accomplishes little. The laws of
supply and demand that govern the narcotics trade are hardly affected by
the exercise. When President Clinton is obliged to certify Mexico, as he
did last year, despite flagrant narco-corruption at the highest levels of
Mexican law enforcement, Mexicans and Americans alike may conclude that the
entire certification process can be inverted for reasons of state. In the
words of Zedillo: ''The balance of this process in terms of its
contribution to the fight against drug trafficking after so many years is
not only negligible but probably negative.''

Because of geography and the enhanced US-Mexican trade induced by NAFTA,
Washington has a considerable interest in Mexico's struggles to establish a
multiparty democracy, achieve social justice for marginalized groups such
as the Indians of Chiapas, reduce crime, and cauterize the corruption that
infects Mexico's political system. The certification process, with its
arrogant assumption of US superiority, can only cast doubt on the
possibility of Yanqui solidarity with Mexico's struggles.

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

National Marijuana Decriminalization Petition Launched In Wake Of
Olympic Controversy (Chris Clay Of Hemp Nation, Whose Unsuccessful
Constitutional Challenge To Canada's Prohibitory Laws Against Cannabis
Is Under Appeal, Will Organize Campaign To Deliver 100,000 Signatures
To Parliament By Year's End To Encourage Government To Act. -
Public Polls, LeDain Commission Support Decriminalization,
But Chretien And Other Leaders Summarily Dismiss Pleas)

From: muggles@hempbc.com (Cannabis Canada)
To: cclist@hempbc.com
Subject: CC: National decriminalization petition launched
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 21:47:01 -0800
Lines: 115
Sender: cclist@netnation.com
Reply-To: creator@hempbc.com
Organization: Cannabis Canada http://www.hempbc.com/

MEDIA RELEASE

February 19, 1998 - For immediate release

NATIONAL MARIJUANA DECRIMINALIZATION PETITION LAUNCHED IN WAKE OF OLYMPIC
CONTROVERSY

Chretien ignores calls for change

SUNSHINE COAST, BC -- In the wake of last week's brouhaha surrounding
Olympic gold medalist Ross Rebagliati, it's no surprise that the issue of
marijuana decriminalization has surfaced once again. Legalization advocates
have found the controversy a golden opportunity to place the issue back on
the legislative agenda, and the media frenzy has made it a hot topic across
the country.

However, despite recent polls suggesting overwhelming public support for
legal reforms, Prime Minister Jean Chretien has continued to ignore pleas
for change. As a result, BC activist Chris Clay has launched a nationwide
petition that will be sent to Parliament at year's end. "We hope to raise
100,000 signatures over the next ten months," he said. "It's time the
public sent a strong message to Ottawa that cannabis prohibition is no
longer acceptable. This is a health issue that doesn't belong in the realm
of the criminal justice system."

Clay, 27, received national press coverage last year when an Ontario court
heard his constitutional challenge to the marijuana laws. Osgoode Hall law
professor Alan Young and Toronto lawyer Paul Burstein represented Clay,
arguing that sections of the Narcotics Control Act and its new incarnation,
the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, violate basic rights that are
guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A number of high-profile
witnesses took part, including a Harvard psychiatrist, a senior scientist
at the Addiction Research Foundation and two members of the LeDain
Commission, a blue ribbon panel that recommended decriminalization over 25
years ago. Even Senator Sharon Carstairs filed an affidavit in support.

Last August, Ontario Superior Court Justice John McCart rejected the
constitutional arguments, but in his lengthy ruling he said that "the
national governments of Canada and the United States appear to be somewhat
out of step with most of the rest of the western world. [T]hey may adopt
some of the [decriminalization] measures which exist, for example, in
Australia and which I do not believe would meet with much objection from an
informed public." The verdict makes a strong case for decriminalization,
but Justice McCart concluded that change should come from Parliament, not
the courts.

While the case is being appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, both Clay
and Professor Young have renewed their efforts to raise the issue in the
House of Commons. Clay has launched his petition, which he plans to
distribute to activists and hemp stores across the country. It is also
available on his "Hemp Nation" website at www.hempnation.com. "We have over
1,000 visitors daily now," he said. "Supporters donated over $30,000 to the
constitutional challenge through the website, and I expect similar support
for the petition."

Young is taking a more direct approach, beginning with an open letter he
published in the Ottawa Citizen in October. The letter called on Minister
of Justice Anne McLellan and Minister of Health Allan Rock to either
initiate legislative reforms or justify the current prohibition. "At the
risk of losing faith in the concept of responsible and responsive
government," he wrote, "I invite you to explain to Canadians why their
wishes are being summarily dismissed."

So far, neither has replied though after an Angus Reid poll both called for
a national debate on medical marijuana. The survey, conducted last October,
found that 83% of Canadians support the medical use of marijuana and 51%
back its full legalization. It didn't ask about the more conservative
approach of decriminalization, but a 1994 Health Canada poll revealed that
69.1% of those surveyed hoped for some easing of the laws.

"Canadians have expressed the desire for law reform and the government has
never adequately explained why it has ignored the will of the electorate in
such a cavalier fashion," Young wrote in his open letter. "Even if you
believe that consumption of marijuana is a trivial recreational habit which
is not deserving of much legislative scrutiny, it is simply a disgrace that
the wishes of Canadians can be ignored by their elected representatives."

So far the statistics haven't influenced Prime Minister Jean Chretien. In
one of the few public remarks on the issue since being elected, he defended
snowboarder Rebagliati last week while refusing to relax the laws. "I don't
like any smoking," he told a Winnipeg radio show. "We have passed laws to
reduce the smoking of cigarettes because it is not good for health and it
is the same thing for marijuana." In contrast, Chretien was prepared to
take a different approach in the early 1980s, when he was Minister of
Justice in Pierre Trudeau's cabinet. After Trudeau promised
decriminalization in his 1980 Speech from the Throne, Chretien said, "We do
think that once in a while we have to modernize laws which have been on the
books for so long and do not cope with realities as they exist."

According to Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby, the Liberals came close to
decriminalizing marijuana possession several times but "lost heart. They
just didn't have the courage to do it." Ruby, himself a legalization
activist during the 1970s, said that "most people realize it's logical to
do it, but nobody's willing to take the political risk involved."

As for Clay, he's hoping the recent attention will finally encourage the
government to act. "These laws should have been changed around the time I
was born, when the LeDain Commission delivered its recommendations," he
said. "I don't want to be debating this issue in another twenty-five years."

***

A documentary on Clay's efforts will air on CBC Newsworld this Saturday at
1pm & 9pm EST. "Stoned: Hemp Nation on Trial," is being featured on the
Rough Cuts program.

For more information, please contact:

Chris Clay
chris.clay@hempnation.com

HEMP NATION
http://www.hempnation.com/

***

CClist, the electronic news and information service of CANNABIS CANADA,
"Canada's National Magazine of Marijuana & Hemp"

***

Subscribe to Cannabis Canada! Call 1-800-330-HEMP for info.
Write to: Suite 504, 21 Water St., Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6B 1A1
Visit Cannabis Canada online at http://www.hempbc.com/

***

To unsubscribe from this list send an email to majordomo@netnation.com
with the words "unsubscribe cclist" in the body of the message.

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

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Television Documentary On Cannabis
February 21 ('Stoned - Hemp Nation On Trial,' Documentary On Last Summer's
Constitutional Challenge Mounted By Chris Clay, To Air Saturday Night)

From: muggles@hempbc.com (Cannabis Canada)
To: cclist@netnation.com
Subject: CC: CBC Television documentary on cannabis -- Feb 21
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:42:20 -0800
Sender: cclist@netnation.com
Reply-To: creator@hempbc.com
Organization: Cannabis Canada http://www.hempbc.com/

STONED: Hemp Nation on Trial

Are Canadians ready for a change in the marijuana laws? With the recent
controversy involving Olympic snowboarder Ross Rebagliati testing positive
for marijuana, CBC Newsworld (television) ROUGH CUTS presents the timely
documentary STONED: Hemp Nation on Trial, Saturday, February 21 at I p.m.
ET and 9 p.m. ET.

STONED: Hemp Nation on Trial follows the story of 27 year-old Chris Clay,
owner of the Hemp Nation store in London, Ontario, who was arrested in May,
1995 for selling a cannabis plant cutting to an undercover police officer.
Facing three life sentences for charges including trafficking in narcotics,
Clay and his lawyer, professor Alan Young, launch a constitutional
challenge to Canada's cannabis laws.

Produced and directed by lawyer/filmmaker Russell Bennett, the documentary
tackles the arguments for decriminalizing marijuana, while Clay fights to
stay out of jail. Marshalling an impressive array of defence witnesses,
Clay argues there is no hard evidence to link marijuana to dependency or
other hard drugs.

Although trial judge John McCart agrees with the extensive expert testimony
concerning the minimal harm of marijuana, he concludes, "It is a matter for
Parliament, not for the courts." Health Minister Allan Rock, also
interviewed, refuses to be pinned down on whether he personally has used
marijuana, but insists Canadians are not prepared to see a change in the
law. "I don't think that social attitudes have shifted enough to move the
yardstick on something like the decriminalization of marijuana."

Bennett, who spent a year making the documentary, says he wanted to
chronicle a potential landmark court case, which may overturn the longest
prohibition of a substance in Canadian history. "lt is the classic story of
a man risking his freedom to challenge the system", Bennett says.

Stoned: Hemp Nation on Trial also features several marijuana users, who
smoke it for health purposes, but must face both the black market and the
law to obtain the herb.

Stoned: Hemp Nation on Trial is produced by Russell Bennett, and
co-directed and co-written by Bennett and Sarah Jane Flynn. Jerry McIntosh
is senior producer for CBC Newsworld's Canadian documentary series ROUGH
CUTS.

***

CClist, the electronic news and information service of CANNABIS CANADA,
"Canada's National Magazine of Marijuana & Hemp"

***

Subscribe to Cannabis Canada! Call 1-800-330-HEMP for info.
Write to: Suite 504, 21 Water St., Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6B 1A1
Visit Cannabis Canada online at http://www.hempbc.com/

***

To unsubscribe from this list send an email to majordomo@netnation.com
with the words "unsubscribe cclist" in the body of the message.

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

Cannabis And Performance Enhancement (New Zealand Physician
Posts Five Studies Indicating Marijuana Enhances Performance -
Four Involving Driving Skills)

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 23:16:55 +1300 (NZDT)
To: drctalk@drcnet.org, mattalk@islandnet.com
From: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn)
Subject: Cannabis and performance enhancement

Just sent this off to the APA div28 list, responding to earlier posts by
people (including one a NIDA scientist) saying they were unaware of any
research evidence for a performance-enhancing effect of cannabis.Not too
surprisingly, this thread was spurred by the Rebagliati affair.

David

***

Research evidence suggesting that cannabis can enhance performance is found
in (at least) five studies, four of which concern driving.

A study performed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, (Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally
Injured Drivers.Final report, October 1992) concluded:

"In the absence of alcohol, no drug or drug group evidenced a driver
responsibility rate significantly different from the drugfree control group.
When drugs were combined with alcohol, no drug or drug group exhibited a
responsibility rate significantly different from alcohol itself. . . .The
THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drugfree
drivers, as was found previously by Williams and colleagues [Williams AF,
Peat MA, Crouch DJ, et al. Drugs in fatally injured young male drivers.
Public Health Reports 1985; 100: 19-25 (1985)]While the difference was not
statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself
was a cause of fatal crashes." (pp. 99-100).Importantly, this was one of
the few studies to make a substantial effort to determine whether fatally
injured drivers were *responsible* for the accident.

The possibility of enhancement of driving ability was also suggested by two
Australian studies, Drummer O., Drugs in Drivers Killed in Australian Road
Accidents: The Use of Responsibility Analysis to Investigate the
Contribution of Drugs to Fatal Accidents,Victorian Inst. Of Forensic
Pathology, Monash Univ., Melbourne, 1994 and a 1996 government "VicRoads"
study.As reported by the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council in its internet
"news of the day" feature (I don't have the actual study at hand):

"The Sydney Morning Herald, 10 May 1996, p3 'Marijuana: it doesn't make a
hash of driving'

The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 10 May 1996, p19 'Safe driving, with cannabis'
Herald Sun (Melbourne), 10 May 1996, p21 'Dope link to road deaths'

"The first two of the above articles both report that forensic scientist,
Prof Olaf Drummer, claimed that the combination of drugs and alcohol
provided the greatest risk to drivers, but cannabis alone could even be good
for driving because, where alcohol tends to make people take more risks on
the road, cannabis tends to make people slow down and drive more carefully.

"The second and third articles each focused on one of two recent studies
examining the issue: a VicRoads study which revealed that cannabis users
tended to be aware of the problems the drug caused and to compensate for
them and a study of 1000 drivers involved in major road traumas which
revealed that drugs could be linked to about 13% of fatal road accidents but
that drugs, including marijuana and amphetamines , directly caused only 5%
of road deaths and that 9% of drivers were affected by a cocktail of drugs
and alcohol. Both these articles also quote suggestions (from AMA federal
vice-president, Dr Keith Woollard and from Prof. Drummer) that to be safe it
would be better not to use drugs and drive."

The fifth study suggesting the possibility of performance-enhancing effects
of cannabis is Weil AT, Zinberg NF, Nelsen JM. Clinical and psychological
effects of marihuana in man. Science 1968; 162; 1234-1242.Lester Grinspoon
describes this study in his book Marihuana Reconsidered, together with the
important caveat that subjects' prior experience with cannabis is of vital
importance in determining what studies of performance under cannabis will find:

"One element which is apt to cause confusion on this general point [effects
of cannabis on performance/functioning] is the question of how long the
individual has been using cannabis regularly; when Weil et al. tested a
group of non-users and a group of regular users, they found that the regular
users actually improved their scores on two out of three tests (improvement
on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test - 'a simple test of cognitive function
often used on I.Q. tests'; improvement on the Pursuit Rotor Test - to
measure coordination and attention), and showed no change on the third (the
Continuous Performance Test, one which 'measures a subject's capacity for
sustained attention'), whereas the marihuana-naive subjects showed
impairment on both of the two tests for which the regular users showed
improvement, and no change on the same test for which the regular users'
scores were not affected.Accordingly, it is possible, say the authors of
the report, for a habitual user to ignore any adverse effects on mental
functioning, focus on a specific task, and actually improve performance."
(p.152)

David Hadorn, M.D.

***

APA division of psychopharmacology and substance abuse
div28@lists.apa.orghttp://www.apa.org/divisions/div28
enough? send: " SIGNOFF DIV28 "tolistserv@lists.apa.org
1 summary/day? "SET DIV28 DIGEST" .. Vacation?"... NOMAIL"

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

Cocaine Production In Peru Drops 27 Percent In 1997 ('Chicago Tribune'
Article In 'Orange County Register' Seems To Cite US State Department
Statistics Indicating Colombia Now Produces More Cocaine Than Peru -
And US Embassy In Lima For Explanation That 'The Dramatic Decrease In Peru
Is Largely The Result Of A Government Get-Tough Policy On Drugs,
Combined With A Timely Infusion Of US Aid To Coca Farmers
Looking For Alternative Crops')

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 19:15:15 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: Brazil: Cocaine Production In Peru Drops 27% In 1997
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: John Black 
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Pubdate: Thu, 19 Feb 1998
Author: Laurie Goering - Chicago Tribune

COCAINE PRODUCTION IN PERU DROPS 27% IN 1997

The decrease places the South American nation behind Colombia for the first
time.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil - In a war on drugs that often seems a lost
cause, there is some unprecedented good news from South America.

Peru, long the world's top producer of coca leaf, saw a 27 percent fall in
production last year, dropping it for the first time behind Colombia in
total acres under cultivation.

Over two years, Peru's coca acreage has dropped an impressive 40 percent,
and government officials are now talking seriously about eliminating
illegal coca - the active ingredient in cocaine - in five years.

The news comes as Washington prepares later this month to make its annual
decisions on certifying the anti-narcotics efforts of the world's
drug-producing and drug-transit nations. Colombia last year was decertified
for noncooperation, and both Colombia and Mexico face a threat of
decertification this year.

South America's other coca-producing nations, however, are a different
story. The hefty drop in coca production in Peru last year comes on top of
a 5 percent decrease in Bolivia, another major coca producer. Colombia,
bucking the regional trend, saw its acreage grow by 18 percent in 1997.

Still, the combined effect is that the total acres of illegal coca grown in
South America dropped 7 percent last year, and the combined weight of coca
leaves produced dropped 14 percent, according to State Department figures.

"When this came out it was like a Christmas present," said Heather Hodges,
deputy chief of the U.S. Embassy in Lima. "For once we're proud Peru is not
No. 1."

The dramatic decrease in Peru is largely the result of a government
get-tough policy on drugs, combined with a timely infusion of U.S. aid to
coca farmers looking for alternative crops.

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

Cannabis - UN Report Leaked (Britain's 'Guardian' Says Finding
That Cannabis Is Safer Than Either Alcohol Or Tobacco,
Leaked To 'New Scientist,' Was Suppressed
By US National Institute On Drug Abuse,
UN International Drug Control Programme)

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 00:03:59 -0700 (MST)
From: "Colo. Hemp Init. Project" 
X-Sender: cohip@saturn.eagle-access.net
To: "Colo. Hemp Init. Project" 
Subject: U.N. Report on Cannabis Leaked

For background, see:
http://marijuana.newscientist.com

Cannabis: UN report leaked

By Tim Radford, Science Editor

The Guardian
Thursday February 19, 1998

United Nations health chiefs suppressed a finding that cannabis is
safer than either alcohol or tobacco, according to a report today.

A World Health Organisation report published in December was to have
concluded that even if cannabis was consumed on the same scale as
cigarettes and whisky, it would probably still be safer than either,
but the passage was scrapped at the last moment, says the magazine New
Scientist.

The comparison with alcohol and tobacco, the suppressed passage said,
was made "not to promote one drug over another but rather to minimise
double standards that have operated in appraising the health effects
of cannabis".

The disputed passage was leaked to New Scientist after it was
withdrawn, reportedly in response to pressure from the US National
Institute on Drug Abuse and the UN International Drug Control
Programme. It says: "In developed societies cannabis appears to play
little role in injuries caused by violence, as does alcohol." It also
says there is good evidence that alcohol can harm foetal development,
while the evidence that cannabis can harm foetal development is "far
from conclusive".

The WHO report does admit that, like heavy drinking, marijuana smoking
can produce psychosis in susceptible people. It also says chronic
cannabis smoking may contribute to cancers of the aerodigestive tract.
But one lung disease researcher, Donald Tashkin of the University of
California at Los Angeles, found that volunteers who smoked three
joints a day had much the same lung capacity and function as those who
smoked none.

However, dope smokers must inhale deeply and hold the smoke in the
lungs, so they got a large dose of potentially damaging tar.

The leaked UN report comes at a time of renewed pressure to think
again about drug policies.

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

Cannabis 'Safer Than Alcohol' (British 'Telegraph' Account Of WHO Report
Quashed By US Officials)

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 21:47:23 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Olafur Brentmar 
Subject: MN: UK: Cannabis 'safer Than Alcohol'
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: as684@lafn.org (John Humphrey)
Source: Telegraph, The (UK)
Author: Sebastien Berger
Contact: et.letters@telegraph.co.uk
Pubdate: Thu 19 Feb 1998

CANNABIS 'SAFER THAN ALCOHOL'

A STUDY showing that cannabis is safer than alcohol or tobacco has been
suppressed by United Nations health officials, it is reported today.

According to the New Scientist magazine, the analysis concluded that
cannabis does less harm to public health than alcohol or cigarettes and
would do so even if it were consumed in similar quantities to the legal
drugs.

The comparison, written by marijuana experts, was due to appear last
December in the World Health Organisation's first report on the effects of
cannabis for 15 years.

It was withdrawn at the last minute after a furious dispute involving WHO
officials, the report writers and external advisers. Sources quoted in the
magazine claim that the WHO gave way to political pressure, with American
drugs officials and advisers from the UN Drug Control Programme saying that
the document would be seized upon by organisations campaigning for the
legalisation of cannabis.

"In the eyes of some, any such comparison is tantamount to an argument for
marijuana legislation," said one of the report's authors.

Another said that WHO officials "went nuts" when they saw the draft
version. A leaked version of the report says the comparison was made "to
minimise the double standards that have operated in appraising the
health effects of cannabis".

On most points, cannabis was considered less harmful to health than
alcohol, with the illegal drug playing little role in injuries caused by
violence, unlike alcohol.

Evidence that cannabis could harm the development of babies
in the womb was considered "far from conclusive", while the grounds for
alcohol doing so were "good".

A WHO official said that the comparison was excluded because "the
reliability and public health significance of such comparisons is doubtful".

4 January 1998: MPs to press for inquiry into cannabis
19 November 1997: BMA in cannabis prescription plea
19 September 1997: Straw attacks call to make cannabis legal
18 June 1997: Cannabis does no harm says Stoppard

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

Blocked Report Says Cannabis Safer Than Tobacco And Drink
(Version In 'The Scotsman' About UN Report Leaked To 'New Scientist' -
Analysis Withdrawn Because Of Fears
It Would Give Ammunition To The 'Legalise Marijuana' Campaign -
Church Of Scotland Repeats Call For Cannabis To Be Decriminalised)

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 21:47:45 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Olafur Brentmar 
Subject: MN: UK: Blocked Report Says Cannabis Safer Than Tobacco And Drink
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: shug 
Pubdate: Th, 19 Feb 1998
Source: The Scotsman
Author: Jennifer Trueland, Health Correspondent
Website: http://www.scotsman.com
Contact: Letters_ts@scotsman.com

BLOCKED REPORT SAYS CANNABIS SAFER THAN TOBACCO AND DRINK

THE illegal drug cannabis is safer than tobacco and alcohol, according to a
report which was suppressed by the World Health Organisation.

The analysis, which was due to be part of a report published last December
on the harmful effects of cannabis, was withdrawn at the last minute after
a dispute between WHO officials, the cannabis experts who drafted it and
external advisers.

According to New Scientist magazine, the suppressed report concluded that
not only did the amount of cannabis smoked worldwide do less harm to
public health than drink and cigarettes, but that the same was likely to
hold true even if people consumed it on the same scale as the legal
substances.

In most of the comparisons made in the analysis, cannabis came out better
or at least equal to the other drugs.

In an editorial, New Scientist said that decriminalisation of cannabis was
inevitable. "Politicians will have to bite the bullet - dope will be
decriminalised," it said.

Last night a Home Office spokesman said that the Government did not intend
to review the position of cannabis, which is a controlled drug. The House
of Lords has started its own inquiry, however, and a two-year
investigation into the drug is being carried out by the Police Foundation.

But the evidence led to renewed calls for cannabis to be decriminalised.

Linda Hendry, Scottish spokeswoman for the Legalise Cannabis Campaign,
said: "The New Scientist is saying what we already knew - that cannabis is
not as harmful as other drugs like tobacco and alcohol. We welcome their
findings and hope it adds to the debate."

The New Scientist also publishes data from the Netherlands, where
possession of small amounts of cannabis was legalised in 1976.

According to results, although more people tried cannabis after it was
legalised, the move did not increase the likelihood of people becoming
long-term users.

Holland also had a lower percentage of cannabis and hard drug users than
many other European countries, including Britain. The study also showed
the number of hard drug addicts in Holland had not increased for a decade
while their average age was rising.

The New Scientist said the controversial analysis was withdrawn because
there were fears that it would give ammunition to the "legalise marijuana"
campaign.

It is understood that advisers from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse
and the UN International Drug Control Programme warned the WHO that it
would play into the hands of groups campaigning to legalise marijuana,
said the report.

Dr Maristela Monteiro, a scientist with the WHO programme on substance
abuse, confirmed that the analysis was dropped from the report but denied
the organisation had been pressured into doing it.

She said: "There were problems with that chapter. It was not a fair
comparison from our point of view and from a public health perspective it
was not very useful. We thought it was biased towards showing less harm
from cannabis."

She said the WHO was working with the Addiction Research Foundation in
Canada and planned to publish a book on cannabis in June.

The report also sparked repeated calls for further research into the
potential effects of decriminalising cannabis. The British Medical
Association, last year called for more research into the use of certain
derivatives of cannabis for medicinal use., following some anecdotal
evidence that the drug can help people with conditions including glaucoma
and multiple sclerosis.

The Church of Scotland yesterday repeated its call for cannabis to be
decriminalised. Ann Allen, convener of the board of social responsibility,
said: "We do not want cannabis to be legalised but we wish to see those
who have been caught taking it to be diverted from the criminal justice
system and into rehabilitation programmes."

A spokesman for the Scottish Liberal Democrats said: "We welcome the study
and would call on people to look calmly at it and make a reasoned
judgment."

"We feel there should be a Royal Commission on drugs. We are the only party
who has considered the issue seriously at all, and not just gone for the
emotional line of instantly dismissing any idea that it should even be
discussed.

"That, of course, stops short of any idea that it should definitely be
decriminalised."

Peter Wishart, the Scottish National Party spokesman on drugs, said: "The
SNP believe there's a case to be made for the decriminalisation of
cannabis, but it is not an argument we are convinced by at this stage.

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

Marijuana Special Report - Let's Be Adult About This ('New Scientist'
Says Politicians Will Just Have To Bite The Bullet -
Dope Will Be Decriminalised - After Thirty Years Of Research
Into Harmful Effects Of Cannabis, There Can Be No Hidden Dangers
Left To Discover)

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:58:37 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Olafur Brentmar 
Subject: MN: Marijuana Special Report: Let's be adult about this
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Zosimos 
Pubdate: Thu 19 Feb 1998
Source: New Scientist
Author: David Concard
Contact: letters@newscientist.com
Website: http://www.newscientist.com/home.html

LET'S BE ADULT ABOUT THIS

Politicians will just have to bite on the bullet--dope will be decriminalised

When Olympic officials decided last week to give errant snowboarder Ross
Rebagliati his gold medal back, the cheers drowned out the boos. It was a
minor scandal involving a minor sport, but it spoke volumes about the
world's shifting relationship with its favourite illicit drug.

A decade ago, Rebagliati would have been ostracised regardless of whether
cannabis was on the list of his sport's banned substances.

What's changed today is that our attitudes towards illegal drugs are
becoming more sophisticated and discriminating. After thirty years of
research into the harmful effects of cannabis, there can be no hidden
dangers left to discover. We know that it is plain nonsense to regard
cannabis as a performance-enhancing drug, just as it is a myth to think the
substance rots the brain or leads inexorably to harder substances.

And despite the anti-dope propaganda that circulates in the US, most people
are thankfully well aware that no great social disaster has befallen the
Netherlands, where cannabis has been sold openly in coffee shops for years.
It would take a perverse mind to twist the data from Amsterdam into a
argument for continued prohibition (see The Dutch experiment).

While no sensible person believes cannabis is totally safe, even police
chiefs back moves to decriminalise the drug. Only the politicians still
seem irrationally terrified by the idea of any relaxation in the law: they
think they can continue in the old way, lumping all drugs together.

Before anyone decides what decriminalisation should mean in practice,
however, we must take a hard look at every aspect of cannabis, from its
long-term effects on the brain to the social effects of legal reform. If
there is to be change, how far should we go? At one extreme, we could go
Dutch, at the other, we might decide to do little more than rationalise the
existing legal penalties and allow doctors to prescribe marijuana to people
with serious illnesses.

And if reefers are to be doled out on the NHS, for example, what
information should go on the side of the packet? Or should we wait until
researchers have figured out how to put cannabis into aerosol devices?

Such complexities are why Britain's House of Lords was right to defy Home
Secretary Jack Straw recently and launch its own inquiry--and why US drugs
supremo Barry McCaffrey was right to commission the US National Academy of
Sciences to report later this year on the harmful as well as the medicinal
effects of cannabis.

Conversely, the pressing need for an open debate about cannabis is
precisely why the WHO was so wrong to bow to political pressure and expunge
from a recent report an informative if controversial comparison of the
harms caused by different drugs including alcohol (see our news section).

Of course, ever since the splendidly named Indian Hemp Drugs Commission of
1894, independent panels have been politely saying that the evils of
cannabis have been exaggerated--and politicians have been politely ignoring
them. Change is looking more possible now because the forces pressing for
legal reform come with unprecedented levels of popular support.

In Britain, Tony Blair and his Cabinet can always discard the opinions of
the House of Lords, but they are fools to ignore opinion polls in tabloid
newspapers which suggest a majority of the nation is now in favour of legal
change.

And the US government may have already met its Waterloo on the dope issue.
In recent months, it has been locked in a bitter and futile dispute with
the states of California and Arizona which have independently ruled that
doctors should be allowed to prescribe marijuana with impunity. Even in
America, threatening vulnerable patients and their doctors with legal
action is no vote winner.

Something will have to give, and the best bet is that California and
Arizona will triumph in the end. If they do, it will be the beginning of
the end for outlawing marijuana because where the US government goes, the
rest of the world will quietly follow.

None of this, of course, means cannabis is as safe as some of its advocates
claim. But neither, as our special report shows (see A safe high?), are the
opposing claims of the world's biggest funder of research into marijuana to
be taken at face value.

Campaigners and pressure groups can be forgiven for trading propaganda, but
we should expect world famous scientific organisations like the US National
Institute on Drug Abuse to evaluate honestly the research that has been
done.

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

Marijuana Special Report - Drop In With Dr. Dave (In Keeping With Its Series
On How Drug War Corrupts US Science And Health Professionals, 'New Scientist'
Interviews David Smith, Founder And President Of Haight Ashbury Free Clinics
In San Francisco, Whose Funding Would Dry Up Immediately
If He Said Anything Other Than That Marijuana Should Remain Illegal)

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:58:37 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Olafur Brentmar 
Subject: MN: Marijuana Special Report: Drop In With Dr Dave
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Zosimos 
Pubdate: Th, 19 Feb 1998
Source: New Scientist
Contact: letters@newscientist.com
Website: http://www.newscientist.com/home.html

DROP IN WITH DR DAVE

To find out what is happening on the front lines of marijuana addiction and
treatment, Jonathan Knight spoke with David Smith, founder and president of
the Haight Ashbury Free Clinics in San Francisco. When Smith opened his
first clinic in 1967, the Haight Ashbury district was at the epicentre of
American hippie counterculture and drug experimentation.

Today the Clinics treat 50,000 people a year at 22 sites in the Bay
Area. David Smith also holds a professorship in toxicology at the University
of California's San Francisco Medical Center and consults to the White
House office on drug abuse policy.

How do you know when someone is addicted to a drug, and is cannabis truly
addictive?

"Addiction used to be defined in terms of the severity of the withdrawal.
Then we started seeing people who used amphetamines compulsively. But their
withdrawal was just a mild crash. They'd fall asleep or perhaps get a
little depressed.

That's when I coined the idea of the three Cs: Compulsion, loss of Control,
and Continued use despite adverse consequences, as a definition of
addiction.

Similarly for cannabis, withdrawal was characterised by anxiety and
insomnia. It wasn't significant physical withdrawal, but that didn't mean
it wasn't addicting. We would see people use compulsively every day, stop
going to school, and spend all their money on marijuana. So the toxicity
was lower than for heroine, but it still fit in to our definition of
addiction.

Has the pot that's available on the streets become stronger?

The tobacco industry used DNA technology to increase the amount of nicotine
in tobacco plants, and the cannabis growers do the same thing. They market
it on the street as more potent and charge more for it. The legalisation
people say that's not happening. But then are the dealers fraudulent? That
seems illogical, cause the consumer thinks the stuff is more potent and is
willing to pay more money for it.

And is it more addictive?

Of course it's more addictive, it's pharmacological logic. If you increase
the power, it's going to be more addicting. But there's no way to know if a
higher percentage of users are becoming addicted, or if only those who are
addicted use stronger stuff. The people we see are smoking potent forms of
marijuana, they are spending a significant amount of their income on it,
they are suffering psychotic reactions, anxiety and depression. But if you
smoke a joint at the Filmore auditorium on a Friday night and have a
wonderful time, you don't go see the Haight Ashbury clinic. And we don't
know how many people like that are out there.

Should cannabis be made legal?

I'm an opponent of marijuana legalisation. I don't want people to go to
jail, I want them diverted to treatment, but I also don't want more
marijuana available in the street. If marijuana were legalised I believe
the tobacco companies would be the main distributors of it. And they would
target youth as they did for tobacco. You would have the equivalent of Joe
Camel for marijuana.

I prefer medicalisation: demand reduction through education and treatment.
For example, 80 per cent of the people in the criminal justice system have
drug abuse problems but only 5 per cent get any treatment now.
Medicalisation puts much greater emphasis on treatment. If you get busted
for smoking while driving, you get diverted to treatment, not jail. We've
gone about as far as we can go with the criminal justice approach.

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

Marijuana Special Report - Opening Comments ('New Scientist'
Begins Four-Part Analysis Of Four Anti-Pot Claims Frequently Made
By US National Institute On Drug Abuse, Whose Simple Statements
Are Never Quite As Simple As They Seem)

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:58:37 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Olafur Brentmar 
Subject: MN: Marijuana Special Report: Opening Comments
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Zosimos 
Pubdate: Thu 19 Feb 1998
Source: New Scientist
Contact: letters@newscientist.com
Website: http://www.newscientist.com/home.html

OPENING COMMENTS

Only one thing is certain about the great marijuana debate: whether you are
Britain's prohibition-mad Home Secretary, or a stoned ex-hippy who would
like to dish out the drug for free, you are likely to have a lot more
opinions than facts.

Past commissions and reports have tried to clear the clouds of unreason but
have been universally ignored. This week we make our own attempt to tackle
the key issues, including the latest findings from the Netherlands where
possession of small amounts of marijuana has been legal for a decade. Our
report homes in on four key claims frequently made by the US National
Institute on Drug Abuse. As its name implies, this government institute
researches (and spends) hard in pursuit of the harmful effects of drugs.
Its data also have a vast influence on UN policy. But as the pages that
follow reveal, simple statements are never quite as simple as they seem . .

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

Marijuana Special Report - A Safe High? Claim One ('New Scientist'
Examines Research Behind US National Institute On Drug Abuse's Claim
That Marijuana Impairs Memory And Cognitive Functions
And Finds Its Methodology Fundamentally Flawed, Allowing NIDA
To Make 'Subtle And Subclinical' Impairments Sound Worse
Than Those Attributable To Alcohol Use)

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:58:37 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Olafur Brentmar 
Subject: MN: Marijuana Special Report: A Safe High?: Claim One
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Zosimos 
Pubdate: Thu 19 Feb 1998
Source: New Scientist
Contact: letters@newscientist.com
Website: http://www.newscientist.com/home.html

A SAFE HIGH?

Claim ONE: "Critical skills related to attention, memory and learning are
impaired among heavy users of marijuana . . ."

Most people think of marijuana users as dreamers with the attention span of
a gnat and no memory worth the name. Wrong. The picture emerging from
psychology labs is that there is at most a kernel of truth in this
stereotype, while some studies find no evidence of even subtle mental
impairment in heavy users. And even those that do are open to a range of
interpretations -- not necessarily worrying to marijuana users.

Take the latest findings on which the above claim is based. Harrison Pope
and his team at Harvard University compared 65 college students who smoked
marijuana daily with a control group of students who smoked it most every
other month. After a drug-free day, the subjects completed a range of
standard mental tests. Mostly, differences between the two groups were
slight. When it came to remembering lists of words, for example, the heavy
users recalled about 1 in 10 fewer words than the light users.

But in one test the heavy users underperformed more noticeably. The test
involved watching and mimicking the simple rules used by an experimenter to
match cards with coloured shapes on them, and then adapting whenever the
rule changed. Students who rarely smoked marijuana mistakenly carried on
with the old sorting rule on about 5 out of 100 occasions, while heavy
users made about 8 mistakes. Pope takes this seriously. "In the real
world," he says, "people have to deal all the time with situations in which
rules are changing..."

Fine. But over the years, much stronger claims have surfaced: heavy
marijuana users do badly at work or school, are more likely to be
delinquent and develop psychiatric problems, or have abnormal brain waves.
Time and again, however, such studies encounter the same objection: are the
problems caused by smoking marijuana, or is it just that people with
problems are more likely to end up using marijuana heavily?

In the case of delinquency, schizophrenia and mental illnesses, the balance
of the evidence points to the second explanation. Marijuana doesn't cause
the problems, although it may make them worse. Some schizophrenics, for
example, are drawn to the drug because it eases their sense of alienation.
And most researchers now accept that the evidence linking marijuana to
abnormal brain waves vanishes when people with psychiatric problems,
illnesses or a history of general drug abuse are excluded from studies.

But what about subtler problems like the card sorting deficiencies? After
all, it might just be that smart college students tend to smoke lightly
while others smoke heavily. In which case the card sorting results may have
little to do with marijuana.

Here opinions diverge. Pope believes the deficiency does have something to
do with marijuana because his team controlled for such obvious things as IQ
differences, psychiatric histories and heavy use of other drugs. But others
are not convinced. What worries some critics is that in this study, as in
others, the women drug users did so much better than the men in most tests.

Deviant males

"I know of no reason why there should be a gender difference in cognitive
response to cannabis," says John Morgan, a pharmacologist at the City
University of New York Medical School and co-author of a controversial new
book advocating decriminalisation, Marijuana Myths Marijuana Facts. Morgan
believes the reason the males underperform in such studies is that they are
"deviant" in subtle ways that escape the researchers' notice.

And what if the poor test results do turn out to be linked to marijuana? It
doesn't automatically follow that heavy marijuana use is causing
long-lasting brain damage. One possibility is that, deprived of their
favourite drug for a day, heavy users suffer withdrawal symptoms or become
so grumpy and distracted that they do badly in tests. Another is that a
single drug-free day is not long enough for the effect of their last smoke
to have disappeared. The Harvard team's follow-on experiments, in which
marijuana users are being tested over a 28-day "dry" period, should provide
answers.

Other research suggests that evidence of dramatic mental decline is
unlikely to be found, even as a result of long-term heavy use. Over the
past 25 years, Jack Fletcher at the University of Texas in Houston and his
colleagues have been visiting Costa Rica to test the mental skills of very
heavy users. Although some of them have smoked 10 joints a day for more
than 30 years, their ability to learn and remember lists of words is only
mildly impaired (see diagram below). And even when struggling with more
demanding tasks, such as recalling information while pressing a tapper as
fast as possible, their scores fall well within the normal range.

(image) Spot the difference: What cannabis does to memory skills

"The effects are subtle and subclinical," says Brian Page, an
anthropologist from the University of Miami, who was involved in the study.
"Although they could be bad for somebody who's trying to be an arbitrage
trader or Wall Street lawyer." And, Page adds: "People who sell bicycles
had better not ride while under the influence."

Or at any rate common sense suggests they should not. The verdict from
research into the impact of marijuana on road safety skills is less clear.
In Britain as many as 1 in 10 motorists involved in serious accidents test
positive for cannabis. And figures as high as 37 per cent have emerged from
studies in urban areas of the US. However, many of these drivers also test
positive for alcohol, and even the cases involving just cannabis cannot be
equated with people driving under the influence because the drug lingers so
long in the body.

In driving simulators, marijuana does impair visual skills and mental
dexterity. But studies of actual driving show that even high doses of
marijuana have less impact than alcohol, perhaps because smoking it doesn't
usually make people so reckless. In one study, low doses of marijuana made
drivers more cautious.

The same broad message is likely to be true for the subtler, longer-lasting
effects of marijuana on the brain. Researchers like Pope and Morgan may
look at the data very differently, but they agree about one thing: heavy
boozing is worse for your neurons than dope.

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

Marijuana Special Report - Claim Two ('New Scientist'
Examines Research Behind NIDA's Claim 'More Than 120 000 People In The US
Seek Treatment Each Year For Their Marijuana Addiction'
And Says It 'Cannot Be Taken Seriously' Since It Includes People Forced To Go
Into Treatment As An Alternative To Prosecution, As Well As Workers Who Test
Positive For Cannabis In Random Urine Tests And Opt For Rehabilitation
Rather Than Unemployment - Age Group Usage Rates And Comparisons
With Tobacco Addicts Also Show Very Different Pattern, Little Dependency)

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:58:37 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Olafur Brentmar 
Subject: MN: Marijuana Special Report: Claim Two
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Zosimos (mjc1947@cyberclub.iol.ie)
Pubdate: Thu 19 Feb 1998
Source: New Scientist
Contact: letters@newscientist.com
Website: http://www.newscientist.com/home.html

MARIJUANA SPECIAL REPORT: CLAIM TWO:

"More than 120 000 people in the US seek treatment each year for their
marijuana addiction . . ."

After years of decline, marijuana use among teenagers is now climbing
rapidly in almost every industrialised nation. Will this create a
generation of cannabis addicts?

The middle classes who enjoy a smoke once or twice a week may laugh at the
idea. But doctors who treat the minority of users who have lost control
take it more seriously. The pragmatic question is how big is this minority
and would it expand if the drug was decriminalised or even legalised? The
experience of the Netherlands (see Vraag een Politeagent) suggests the
answer to the second question is "no". The first question is tougher.

At the very least, NIDA's figure of 120 000 cannot be taken seriously. It
includes people who are arrested for cannabis offences and then given the
chance of going into treatment as an alternative to prosecution, as well as
workers who test positive for cannabis in random urine tests and opt for
rehabilitation rather than being fired. The figures don't tell us how many
people really get hooked.

At Columbia University in New York, addiction epidemiologist Denise Kandel
has been taking a different tack. She has been analysing data collected
every year in the US National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. And she
concludes that subtle symptoms of dependence are more widespread among
teenage users than previously thought.

Shocking statistic

About 15 per cent of teenagers who smoke marijuana report three or more
"symptoms" of dependence from a list of six possible symptoms. They range
from "feeling dependent" or being unable to cut down on consumption to
using ever larger amounts of cannabis to get the same effect. Applying
these same measures to alcohol, it turns out that marijuana is just as
addictive as alcohol for adults and even more so for teenagers (see below).
That shocks most marijuana users, but not Kandel, who believes kids may be
unusually "sensitive" to marijuana for biological as well as social
reasons. The way she sees it, the reason we have so many alcoholics is
simply that there are so many people drinking.

(image) Days of depence: marijuana's addictive powers wane with age

The problem with this kind of research is that it all depends on what is
meant by addiction. A drug addict is usually seen as a person liable to
both withdrawal symptoms and long-term damage to their health. But Kandel's
self-report criteria are based on a broader definition. If we applied them
to coffee, vast numbers of us would qualify as addicts. Similarly, many
people might describe themselves as "addicted" to shopping or television or
chocolate. Kandel's analysis suggests young marijuana smokers are more
likely to show symptoms of dependence than their beer-swilling
contemporaries, but it doesn't tell us which substance is the more
dangerously addictive.

What is clear is that as users enter their 20s, they report this dependence
far less frequently. And of the people who are still smoking the drug in
their 50s, fewer than one in 30 qualify in her analysis as being dependent.
Addiction rates for nicotine follow the opposite trend.

This leads to what is perhaps the most telling statistic about the
addictive powers of cannabis: more than 90 per cent of people who have ever
used the drug have long since quit. While most people continue drinking and
cigarette smoking long after the first flush of youth, people drop the weed
in droves after the age of 30.

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

Marijuana Special Report - Claim Three ('New Scientist'
Examines Research Behind NIDA's Claim 'Smoking Marijuana
Can Lead To Abnormal Functioning Of Lung Tissue' And Discovers
'Epidemiologists Have So Far Failed To Find A Link Between Marijuana
And Serious Lung Diseases' And 'No Impact On Any Physical Measure
Of Lung Function,' Though Dr. Taskhin At UCLA Is Hard At Work
Coming Up With Theoretical Long-Term Dangers From America's
'Marijuana Epidemic' That Will No Doubt Continue To Yield Him
Research Funding From US Government For Years To Come)

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:58:37 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Olafur Brentmar 
Subject: MN: Marijuana Special Report: Claim Three
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Zosimos 
Pubdate: Thu 19 Feb 1998
Source: New Scientist
Contact: letters@newscientist.com
Website: http://www.newscientist.com/home.html

MARIJUANA SPECIAL REPORT: CLAIM THREE:

"Smoking marijuana can lead to abnormal functioning of lung tissue . . ."

Smoking a couple of joints is as bad for your lungs as consuming a whole
packet of cigarettes, say the anti-dope brigade. Their opponents say
smoking marijuana has never caused anyone to die from lung cancer. So, is
marijuana smoke more -- or less -- dangerous than tobacco smoke?

The person to ask is Donald Tashkin, a lung expert at the University of
California at Los Angeles. For the past 15 years, Tashkin's team has been
keeping a close eye on the respiratory systems of more than 130 regular
marijuana smokers, comparing them with groups of people who smoke either
just tobacco, tobacco and marijuana, or nothing at all. It's the biggest
study of its kind in the world. And the results so far suggest that in some
respects, yes, marijuana is more dangerous than cigarettes. But in one
important respect, joints may actually be better for you -- especially if
you're an athlete.

First, the bad news. While the cigarette smokers in the study were
ploughing through 20 or more a day, the marijuana smokers seldom consumed
more than three or four joints. Despite this, the marijuana smokers coughed
and wheezed as much as the cigarette smokers. In both groups, about one in
five people complained of coughing up phlegm and suffering bouts of
bronchitis.

And when it came to cellular damage to the lungs, there was also little to
choose between them. Both groups had too many mucus-secreting cells lining
their airways and too few hair cells, and both groups showed evidence of
abnormalities in cell nuclei and changes in genes known to have an early
role in the development of cancers.

The similarity may seem puzzling given that the marijuana smokers were
consuming so much less plant material. But there are good reasons for it,
says Tashkin. The first is that joints yield up to three times the tar of
cigarettes because they are more loosely packed and don't have filters. The
second reason is that marijuana smokers inhale more deeply and hold their
breath longer.

"We actually quantified this and found that the breath-holding time was
increased about fourfold," says Tashkin. "That resulted in about a 40 per
cent greater deposition of tar." Tashkin's final factor -- contested by
some researchers -- is that marijuana smoke is richer in benzopyrene and
other polycyclic aromatics known to trigger cancerous changes in cells.

So smoking marijuana can cause lung cancer, after all? Well, maybe. Despite
the gloomy cell biology, epidemiologists have so far failed to find a link
between marijuana and serious lung diseases. That might be because there
isn't one. Or it might be because "the marijuana epidemic" (as Tashkin
calls it) is still young and the people who started smoking in the 1960s
haven't reached an age when cancers become common.

Meanwhile, some researchers are worried about another aspect of marijuana
smoke -- its ability to interfere with immune cells that help to fight off
lung infections. Tashkin's team has just discovered that immune cells
isolated from the lungs of marijuana users are unusually bad at killing
bacteria, 35 per cent worse, in fact, than similar cells taken from
cigarette smokers. The marijuana-exposed cells were also below par at
producing molecules needed to mount inflammatory responses. In normal
marijuana smokers, the effects may be too slight to make much difference.
Tashkin fears, however, that the same might not be true in people with
AIDS, many of whom use cannabis to stimulate their appetites.

Footballer's fancy

There's some good news, though, for dope-smoking cricketers and
footballers: marijuana smoke won't lead to blocked airways or emphysema.
Despite all the cellular changes noted by Tashkin's team, the researchers
found that even heavy smoking of marijuana had no impact on any physical
measure of lung function. In fact, among their subjects, smoking three
joints per day caused no greater rate of decline in lung capacity and the
ability to breathe than smoking no marijuana per day.

And the reason for this silver lining? It could well be back to those
sluggish immune cells, speculates Tashkin: "If cannabis impairs the ability
of immune cells to produce inflammatory cytokines, you might be spared
mucosal damage in peripheral airways."

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

Marijuana Special Report - Vraag Een Politieagent . . . ('New Scientist'
Examines Cannabis Usage Rates In The Netherlands, US And Other Countries
After Holland Ended Penalties For Use In 1976 - Let The Drug Warriors Respond
To These Numbers)

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:58:37 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Olafur Brentmar 
Subject: MN: Marijuana Special Report: Vraag Een Politieagent . . .
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Zosimos 
Pubdate: Thu 19 Feb 1998
Source: New Scientist
Author: Debora Mackenzie
Contact: letters@newscientist.com
Website: http://www.newscientist.com/home.html

VRAAG EEN POLITIEAGENT . . .

Go ahead, ask a cop for dope. The Dutch don't mind

It is a weird experience. You walk up to a Dutch policeman, and ask where
to get some marijuana. You are smilingly directed to the nearest "coffee
shop", where the menu offers everything cannabinoid from something called
Space Cake to Northern Lights, a local weed.

In much of the world, this could never happen: the penalties for using
cannabis are severe. But in 1976, the Dutch legalised the possession of
small amounts. What has happened since? Some say that crime has soared,
schoolchildren drop out, and heroin addiction is rife. Others insist the
Netherlands is a stoned paradise of peace and love.

"I've visited their parks. Their children walk around like zombies," says
Lee Brown, head of the US Office for National Drug Control Policy. "Hard
drug use -- heroin and cocaine -- has declined substantially," says Paul
Hager of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union.

Most comments seems to seem to depend on the speaker's politics. So what is
the truth about the great Dutch cannabis experiment?

Hard addicts

"There was no immediate increase in cannabis use after 1976," says Arjan
Sas of the Centre for Drug Research at the University of Amsterdam. "Trends
in use have generally been the same as in other countries." The percentage
who regularly use either cannabis or hard drugs is lower in the Netherlands
than in many European countries, including Britain. And the number of hard
drug addicts in the Netherlands has not increased for a decade, while their
average age is rising.

Dutch statistics, however, are far from conclusive. The first national
survey of drug use in the Netherlands is only just being done. There have
been smaller-scale studies of particular towns or age groups but comparing
them is fraught with statistical problems.

Nonetheless, Dirk Korf of the Institute of Criminology at the University of
Amsterdam has used the smaller studies to estimate that 3 per cent of Dutch
people had used cannabis at least once in 1970, rising to 12 per cent in
1991. The best guess for 1998 is 14 per cent.

Most of that increase, says Korf, is because "lifetime use" figures are
cumulative: people who had used it in 1970 are still around, and are joined
by younger users over time. More to the point, he says, is to compare the
number of teenagers who start using cannabis. In 1970, he estimates that 20
per cent of all Dutch 18-year-olds surveyed had used it at least once; in
1980, that had fallen to 15 per cent. By 1987, it was 18 per cent, an
increase, Korf says, that mirrors the increase in the number of coffee
shops in the mid-1980s. Now, about 30 per cent of Dutch 18-year-olds are
said to have tried cannabis, though some researchers think that is an
overestimate based on studies of Amsterdam where coffee shops abound.

But did more people try cannabis after it was legalised? It seems so. At
the Centre for Drug Research, Sas and Peter Cohen divided Amsterdamers
surveyed in 1987, 1990 and 1994 into two groups -- those that were born
before 1958, who were 18 or older in 1976, and those that were born after
1976, for whom cannabis has always been legal. Only 19 per cent of the
oldies had tried cannabis, compared with 38 per cent of the younger group.

That difference could be partly misleading. Dutch surveys show that the
vast majority of people who use cannabis do so almost exclusively in their
20s. The drug became common in the Netherlands in the mid-1960s, so for the
older group members who were already more than 30, it was too late.
Nonetheless, the data suggest that more people did try cannabis after
decriminalisation.

But what counts, though, says Sas, is how many continue to use it. In
Amsterdam, 55 per cent of people who say they have tried cannabis only end
up using it a couple of dozen times or less. The rest may have used it more
often, but more than half have not used it in the past month. The data
show, says Sas, that legalising cannabis may make you more likely to try
it, but it does not make it more likely that you will continue to use it.

But it is by no means certain that the first half of that conclusion is
correct. Korf finds that surveys of the number of Germans who use cannabis
"virtually parallels" the peaks and troughs in Dutch surveys between 1970
and 1990, even though Germany has prohibited cannabis throughout the
period. Surveys of young Americans in the 1970s and 1980s found
"substantially higher prevalence rates" than in Holland, peaking at 50 per
cent of high-school seniors in 1980, although the US was strongly
prohibitionist.

Legal immunity

Since then, says Korf, there have been no discernible differences in use
between US states that have decriminalised, and those that have not, while
cannabis use has increased in the US and Western Europe since 1990,
regardless of the legal framework. "There is no appreciable causal
connection between the Dutch decriminalisation of cannabis and the rate at
which cannabis use has evolved," Korf concludes.

Last year, Robert MacCoun of the University of California at Berkeley and
Peter Reuter of the University of Maryland, compared trends in cannabis use
in the US, Norway (which bans it) and the Netherlands. They also concluded
that "reductions in criminal penalties have little effect on drug use, at
least for marijuana".

While the 1976 legislation may have had little effect on cannabis use, how
effective has it been in its main goal of keeping people off harder drugs?
The Netherlands has fewer addicts per capita than Italy, Spain,
Switzerland, France or Britain, and far fewer than the US. Frits Knaak of
the Trimbos Institute in Utrecht, the Dutch national institute for mental
health and addiction, says the number of hard drug addicts in the country
has been the same for a decade because fewer young people are joining their
ranks. The average Dutch junkie is now 44 years old and only 0.3 per cent
of Dutch teenagers had tried cocaine in 1994, compared with 1.7 per cent in
the US. In the Netherlands, virtually everyone who uses drugs tries
cannabis first, and many seem content to go no further.

Cannabis addiction and other problems are uncommon. "The number of cannabis
users treated in drugs outpatient facilities is low," says Knaak. "In 1996,
there were only 2000 [patients] in the whole country -- just 0.3 per cent
of all Dutch cannabis users."

Of those, 42 per cent "are also having trouble with alcohol or other drugs
-- the rest usually just need counselling to help change their lifestyle",
says Sas. Most people who find cannabis causing trouble with concentration
or memory at work or school, he says, apply rules, like no smoking on week
nights, or they limit their intake.

This self-policing seems to work. Dutch teenagers get among the highest
scores in the world on international science and mathematics tests. If
there are serious problems caused by legalising marijuana, then twenty-plus
years of the Dutch experiment has not revealed what they are.

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

Fortress Schools ('Herald Sun' Says Hundreds Of Schools All Over Australia
Are Resorting To Surveillance Cameras, Armed Security Guards
To Combat Vandalism, Theft, Drug Dealing - Growth Industry Got Push Last Year
After Controversial Drug Bust At Glen Eira Secondary College, Where Students
Were Charged With Drug Offences After Being Filmed By Surveillance Camera
In Male Toilets)

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 19:00:09 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: Australia: Fortress Schools
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Ken Russell
Source: Herald Sun (Australia)
Contact: nwt@newscorp.com.au
Pubdate: Thu, 19 Feb 1998
Author: Wendy Busfield

FORTRESS SCHOOLS

HUNDREDS of schools are resorting to surveillance cameras and armed
security guards to combat vandalism, theft and drug dealing. Individual
schools are spending thousands of dollars on video equipment and random
patrols to stamp out a rising wave of property damage and crime. And the
tough new line appears to be working, with some schools saving up to
$30,000 a year on damage bills.

The push to boost school security follows a controversial drug bust at Glen
Eira Secondary College last year. Students were charged with drug offences
after being filmed by a surveillance camera in the male toilets.

Security companies are cashing in, selling hundreds of camera packages
priced between $4000 and $30,000 in the past year.

Schools have told the Herald Sun that cameras and patrols bring instant
success. Other schools employ guards - often armed - to patrol school
grounds day and night. This follows the success of a project in East
Gippsland, where Bairnsdale Secondary College employs a full-time
policeman.

Each school reported strong support from parents, teachers and students.

Wantirna, Frankston and Viewbank secondary colleges were among the schools
praising their new security systems yesterday. Frankston High's principal
Ken Rowe installed cameras to create a secure environment for the school's
lap-top computer program. He said cameras also stopped vandalism. "And
the cameras have well and truly paid for themselves," he said.

Another school in Melbourne's east spent $5500 on two cameras to point
towards the toilet entrance. This school, which insisted on anonymity, has
had a stranger lurking around the toilets in recent months. "We will put
up signs on the toilet entrance and hope to scare them off," a school
spokesman said.

Schools often want cameras in bathrooms to stop students from ripping
toilet doors off hinges, punching holes in walls and snapping off tap
fittings. But most security companies refuse to install bathroom cameras
because of privacy laws. Education Department spokeswoman Lisa Walters
said security was a school council issue. But she urged schools to follow
government guidelines and consult parents and staff before taking action.

Privacy invasion was a major concern for Victorian Council of School
Organisations president Richard Williams. "The presence of cameras in
schools also creates an ethic of mistrust in schools," he said. "I'm
against it."

But Victoria's Secondary Principals Association president Ted Brierley said
school security was a fact of life. He said several hundred schools had
already taken up the camera option. "And it will keep growing because
schools will be forced to become smarter at spending and saving money," he
said.

Several security companies told the Herald Sun school surveillance was a
growth industry. National Guardian Security manager Adam Szylvester has
received dozens of calls from schools trying to catch criminals in the act.
He has set up cameras in 20 schools and supplies armed security guards at
12. Many schools were concerned about strangers on the grounds.

Another security firm, Caught in the Act, has set up cameras in more than
60 schools. "It's getting to the stage where schools have to put in
cameras to stop losing money," director John Perry said.

Private Eye Security boss Warwick Bennett connected video surveillance to
Banksia Secondary College in Heidelberg last year, setting up five cameras
to operate all day, every day for about $6000.

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

[End]