-------------------------------------------------------------------
Student Deferral ('Willamette Week' Article About A Portland Man
Sentenced To The Federal Prison In Sheridan, Oregon, After Being Arrested
Last November During A Protest Against The School Of The Americas
At Fort Benning In Columbus, Georgia, Fails To Mention The Primary Mission
Of The 'School Of Assassins' Is Providing Counter-Drug Operations Training)
Willamette Week
822 SW 10th Ave.
Portland, OR 97205
Tel. (503) 243-2122
Fax (503) 243-1115
Letters to the Editor:
Mark Zusman - mzusman@wweek.com
Web: http://www.wweek.com/
Student Deferral
(3/18/98)
Context:
The Web site for the School of the Americas Watch (www.soaw.org) offers a
critical look at the institution, including history, report summaries and
National Public Radio reports.
The Army's take on the school can be found at: http://home.fia.net/~soa/ Be
warned: The home page plays "The Star-Spangled Banner" over and over and
over. There is no way to turn it off.
For an online forum about the School of the Americas, check out the home
page of the Columbus Ledger Enquirer at www.l-e-o.com/news/soaindex.htm
***
Student Deferral
* A local activist's grad school plans are put on hold after his protesting
of the "School of Assassins."
BY PATTY WENTZ
pwentz@wweek.com
Christopher Jones is going to be late for school. The Portland native has
been accepted to the PhD program in anthropology at Tulane University. But
come September, Jones won't be in New Orleans. Instead, the 23-year-old
peace activist is going to be doing time at Sheridan Federal Correctional
Institute.
Last November, Jones was one of 2,000 people who gathered at Fort Benning in
Columbus, Georgia, to protest the relatively unknown School of the Americas.
Photo: KEITH COLLIER
[photo caption:]
Peace activist Christopher Jones says the SOA symbolizes the
United States' callousness and greed.
Started in Panama in 1946 to teach jungle-fighting tactics to
American GIs, the school now trains officers from Latin America.
In 1984 it moved to Fort Benning. Although all the students are
foreign, the school is funded by the Pentagon and costs American
taxpayers $4 million a year.
Critics say the school has earned the nickname "School of the
Assassins" in Central America because its graduates have been
linked to the torture and execution of countless victims of
military rule.
In 1989 the United Nations reported that six Jesuit priests killed in El
Salvador were murdered by SOA alums. More recently, U.S. Rep. Joseph Kennedy
has charged that SOA graduates are leading the Mexican government's
human-rights violations against the Chiapas Indians.
Since 1990, Father Roy Borgeouis has led protests against the school. After
last year's demonstration, 25 people, including Jones and Borgeouis, were
convicted of misdemeanor trespassing. They were sentenced to six months in
prison and given a $3,000 fine.
The sentences, which began last Monday, surprised protesters. "At the most
we thought we'd get one to two months," Jones says. "Two people even pled no
contest. But we all got the same sentence. The way the judge was responding
to the prosecutor, it made me feel as if something was worked out ahead of
time."
Presiding over Jones' trial was Georgia justice J. Robert Elliot, a
legendary civil-rights foe. In 1962, he banned Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
from his district. Twelve years later, he set aside the court-martial of Lt.
William Calley, convicted of premeditated murder in the infamous My Lai
Massacre. That decision was later overturned.
Jones says he was compelled to protest in Georgia because of his experiences
as an undergraduate in Belize, where he worked with refugees from Guatemala
and El Salvador.
"Everyone there has heard of the School of the Americas, and they know what
it stands for. In these countries, the security forces get totally out of
control." In Belize, Jones met a woman who had fled Guatemala after her
brother had been murdered by such soldiers. "It wasn't even a political
issue," Jones says. "They just basically robbed and killed him."
Jones' father, Dr. Stephen Jones, is chief of medicine for Good Samaritan
and Emanuel hospitals and a longtime member of Physicians for Social
Responsibility. Last Friday, the younger Jones spent one of his last free
evenings with the group and the Women's International League for Peace &
Freedom, telling them about the protest. "One out of 100 graduates of the
School of the Americas is linked to human-rights abuse," he said. "I want it
closed."
He isn't alone. Last year, Kennedy's bill to close the school narrowly
failed passage. Similar legislation is pending this year. U.S. Rep.
Elizabeth Furse, like the other Democrats in Oregon's congressional
delegation, supports Kennedy's measure. "The type of people being trained
there are the people who go back to countries that are dictatorships," she
says. Graduates of the school include Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and
Roberto D'Abuisson, leader of the El Salvador death squad. Training manuals
recently released from the school describe torture and interrogation
techniques that fly in the face of the Geneva Convention.
Furse, founder of the Oregon Peace Institute, says last year's protests
could make the difference this session. "We came very close to shutting it
down last year," she says. "Civil disobedience is always so impressive. This
is the sort of thing that tweaks the attention [of Congress]."
If not, protesters plan to be back later this year. Jones will be released
in time to be there. He's going, he says, but he won't break any laws that
could land him back in jail.
"I'm committed to the program at Tulane," he says. "I want to get into a
position of influence so I can do something to really help, possibly in the
United Nations."
Some of Jones' local supporters are seeking a presidential pardon, but Jones
is prepared to do his time. His stepmother, Beth Jones, says, "We're very
proud of him. There aren't many people who have the courage of convictions
Christopher has."
Originally published: Willamette Week - March 18, 1998
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guards' Union Impeding Prison Probe, Critics Say - Strong Political Presence
In Sacramento ('San Francisco Chronicle' Looks At How The Most Powerful
Prison Guard Lobby In The World Is Fighting The Federal Indictment Of Guards
At California's Corcoran Prison - Includes List Of Politicians
Who Get The Most Contributions)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:12:54 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US CA: Guards' Union Impeding Prison Probe, Critics Say
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: "Tom O'Connell"
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Contact: chronletters@sfgate.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/
Pubdate: Wed, 18 Mar 1998
Author: Robert B. Gunnison, Greg Lucas, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
GUARDS' UNION IMPEDING PRISON PROBE, CRITICS SAY
Strong political presence in Sacramento
Hours after a federal grand jury indicted eight Corcoran State Prison
guards on civil rights charges, Don Novey was on the phone to help find
them defense lawyers.
It's just part of Novey's job as president of the California Correctional
Peace Officers Association -- one of the most potent political forces in
the Capitol.
But these days, the association finds itself -- and its relationship with
the Wilson administration -- in an uncomfortable spotlight with the
indictment of the Corcoran officers, who were charged with staging fights
among rival gang members in 1994.
Federal sources said the U.S. Department of Justice entered the case only
after it became clear that the Wilson administration would not mount a
thorough investigation.
Peace Officers Association members even tried to interfere with the FBI
investigation, the federal sources say.
Critics contend that the inability of the Wilson administration to correct
problems among prison guards lies in the political influence the union
wields in Sacramento.
``They are so strong -- no one has the guts to stand up to them,'' said
John Irwin, a retired sociology professor at San Francisco State University
who has written four books on prisons.
Irwin said some prison guards enjoy ``an unrestrained police culture.''
``They develop a peculiar kind of sickness where they separate themselves
from the people they are guarding.''
The association has grown from a kind of social club at Folsom to a
27,000-member movement that Novey is taking to other states. His mission is
to bring respect to the job he calls ``the toughest beat in the state.''
With members contributing $49 a month, the association has given $4.8
million to candidates and propositions during the past decade.
One of its most dramatic contributions was $425,000 in October 1992 that
paid for the last week of Governor Wilson's television advertising in his
campaign against Dianne Feinstein.
The association has also contributed $143,891 to Attorney General Dan
Lungren, who investigated the alleged abuses at Corcoran at the governor's
request and found no wrongdoing.
The close relationship between Wilson and the association leads to the
perception that it is a Republican union -- an assertion that Novey denies.
``It's funny that we are pegged as a Republican union,'' he says.
``Proportionately, over the years, the Legislature has been 59 percent to
60 percent Democrat and our money has gone in that direction.''
Lawyers for the Corcoran officers will be paid for by the state, not the
union, the Department of Corrections announced late last week. ``I believe
these officers have acted appropriately,'' said C.C. Terhune, director of
corrections, in a statement.
The state's decision stunned Novey, who had been working to find lawyers
for the defendants.
``I was trying to do that. The administration said they were going to step
up the plate,'' said Novey after the announcement. ``I nearly fell on my
a--.''
The Corcoran probe involves allegations that guards staged ``blood sport''
fights in which one convict was shot to death by a guard. The defendants
are scheduled to make their first appearance in U.S. District Court in
Fresno today.
One of those indicted last month, Lieutenant John Vaughn, was appointed by
the Department of Corrections in June to the Office of Internal Affairs,
which investigates wrongdoing within the department.
The indictment charges that Vaughn permitted officers to release inmates
from rival gangs into a small exercise yard, where the inmates fought for
the entertainment of the staff. It states that he also prepared false
reports about the fights.
The problems are not limited to Corcoran. At Pelican Bay, Del Norte County,
prosecutors have proposed in court that a federal grand jury may be needed
to investigate the prison, where eight convicts have been killed in their
cells since 1996.
The FBI confirms that it also is investigating whether Department of
Corrections personnel selected inmates for ``some form of retribution
outside the criminal justice system.''
Both the Department of Corrections and Lungren investigated violence at
Corcoran.
The Department of Corrections said it was instructed by the FBI not to look
at the shooting death because the federal agency would open its own probe.
The Department of Justice said it, too, did not want to duplicate the
federal investigations.
But for critics like Catherine Campbell, a Fresno lawyer who represents the
family of Preston Tate, the slain inmate at Corcoran, the Department of
Correction's behavior showed that it had no intention of finding anything.
``They were fighting a media battle,'' she said. ``The entire thrust of
their investigation was at the media.''
And for her, the motivation is clear -- the political clout of Novey's
association. ``They don't want to jeopardize their campaign financing,''
said Campbell. ``I can't see it any other way.''
As union president, Novey must defend his members, even when they are
accused of the worst kinds of crimes. Nevertheless, he has called for the
state to provide psychological testing and better training for the
high-stress job.
In the nearly two decades since state employees won collective bargaining
rights, Novey has negotiated contracts that now provide officers -- who
control more than 160,000 inmates in the state's 33 prisons -- with an
average salary of $39,501.
``Our members' salaries are up there and commensurate with their peers in
law enforcement. That's all we wanted to achieve,'' Novey said in an
interview.
Asked to describe how the Department of Corrections gets along with the
union, corrections spokeswoman Christine May said it is a ``typical
management-labor relationship.''
``At times, we may have differences of opinion as to how to achieve a
goal,'' May said, ``but for the most part we have a good management-labor
relationship.''
Although the union has sought longer prison terms and more prison
construction -- generally backed by Republicans -- it has also backed more
job protections for organized labor, usually supported by Democrats.
The association has often given generously to crime victims groups, such as
the Doris Tate Crime Bureau, an important ally in seeking longer prison
sentences.
One Democrat to tangle with Novey -- and to come out in a good position --
is Senator John Vasconcellos, D-San Jose. Vasconcellos was a union target
in 1992, when he was running for re-election to the Assembly.
``They were going to put $200,000 against me,'' recalls Vasconcellos. He
said Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, D-San Francisco, then a member
of the Assembly, talked Novey into reducing the amount to $75,000.
``We won handily,'' Vasconcellos said. ``Afterwards, I spent time with Don
Novey and made peace. Since then, we've gotten along. In my Senate race (in
1996), they stayed neutral. I've been working with them on prison and
parole reform.
``Their endorsement, for people who think being tough on law and order is
the way to get elected, is valuable. (But) it is possible to win without
it.''
***
BC: CONTRIBUTIONS
Since 1987, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association has
given $4.8 million to candidates and propositions. Here is a look at some
of those contributions: .
Former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown $189,000
Lieutenant Govenor Gray Davis 37,500
Former Governor George Deukmejian 494,437
Former Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer 37,750
Attorney General Dan Lungren 143,891
Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush 45,631
Governor Pete Wilson 614,550
Figures are cumulative and in some cases cover contributions to candidates
for offices other than the ones indicated.
Source: Legitech
1998 San Francisco Chronicle Page A1
-------------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco DEA Chief - From Tough Streets To Top Agent ('Associated Press'
Profiles Michele Leonhart, The Highest-Ranking Woman
In The US Drug Enforcement Administration,
Chief Of 130 Agents In Northern California)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:39:48 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US CA: WIRE: SF DEA Chief -- From Tough Streets to Top Agent
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn)
Source: Associated Press
Pubdate: Wed, 18 Mar 1998
Author: Richard Cole, Associated Press
SF DEA CHIEF -- FROM TOUGH STREETS TO TOP AGENT
SAN FRANCISCO -- When Jorge Roca Suarez, the king of Bolivian cocaine
paste, closed his deals with the Colombian drug cartels, little did he know
that one day he would sit in a U.S. prison because someone stole a young
girl's blue bicycle in White Bear Lake, Minn.
Fourth-grader Michele Leonhart owned that bike, with its white basket and
pink streamers.
She refused to shrug it off. She asked questions. Checked around. And a few
weeks later, tracked it down in an alley a few blocks from her house.
``I started thinking I was a bit of an investigator trying to locate my
blue Huffy,'' she says three decades later.
That fourth grader set her eyes on a career in law enforcement -- and a
``bit of an investigator'' is what she turned out to be.
Leonhart is the highest-ranking woman in the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration and, as chief of 130 agents in Northern California, the only
woman to head a regional DEA office.
She's no token. First in her class at the Baltimore police academy in 1978.
First again in the DEA academy in 1980. Intelligence and enforcement group
supervisor in San Diego, No. 2 agent in Los Angeles. A string of
high-profile cases stretching from Canada to Bolivia.
But she almost had no law enforcement career. When Leonhart graduated from
college in 1978, police department after police department turned her down.
Los Angeles said she was too short. Chicago and Miami had residency
requirements. Every department seemed to have an excuse.
``One by one, I was being slapped with, `No, you don't qualify,''' she says.
But Baltimore -- a city she had to look up on a map because she had never
before left the Twin Cities area -- invited her to take their test. She
worked out to meet the strength requirements. And then aced the academy.
Woman officers were rare in Baltimore. The male officers turned Michele
into ``Mikey'' her first day on the job.
As a rookie, she found herself patrolling alone at night on the streets of
Baltimore's worst neighborhoods. She earned the grudging admiration of
street kids, who called the fearless 5-foot-4-inch officer ``Mighty Mike,''
and tipped her to who committed neighborhood burglaries.
She began to see the damage done by drugs. She battled with a PCP-loaded
suspect who had just thrown a traffic barrier through a store window. She
helped DEA agents serve warrants on drug suspects. She caught the bug.
``It would take me years to become a detective and get to the point where I
could investigate cases, and these DEA agents were doing it every day,''
she recalls thinking.
So she signed up with the DEA. As the top student in the academy, she had
her pick of cities, and decided to return to her native Minnesota. Other
agents criticized her for not picking a higher profile city like Miami or
New York. But Leonhart had an idea that she could be a bigger fish in a
smaller school.
She was right.
The day she walked in the door as the first female agent to work in
Minneapolis, she was handed what turned out to be one of her biggest cases.
A mysterious Puerto Rican millionaire was wowing the people of Princeton
near the Canadian border. He bought football uniforms for the high school.
He took seniors to lunch. And he put a lot of money into the local airport.
The newspapers called him ``Princeton's mysterious benefactor.''
The DEA had its suspicions. In went their newest agent, and within a day
the rookie ingratiated herself with the mystery man. He conveniently
pointed out the planes and property he owned, allowing the DEA to track his
cross-border flights. Their suspicions were right. Off he went to prison.
Leonhart had landed running and never stopped. She bought LSD from an
American Indian Movement leader in his home, trading supposedly stolen
VCRs.
She worked a Marielito Cuban bar in Minneapolis so tough the owner had
installed a metal detector that seemed to beep every time a customer walked
through.
``I was buying dope in the men's room and they were putting shotguns on the
pool table,'' she recalls.
Sitting in a conference room of the office she now heads, her eyes sparkle
when she talks about her undercover work.
``One day I would go in as the head of my own organization -- I'm in
charge, I want to buy drugs,'' she says. ``The next day I could be some
flunky, dumb girlfriend who would just sit there and make phone calls. It
was fun.''
The DEA had plans for the bright young agent that didn't include undercover
work. She found herself being kicked upstairs to higher posts.
The DEA, she acknowledges, has always had more of a cowboy reputation than
the more sedate FBI. It was made up, especially initially, of upwardly
mobile street cops who were facing heavily armed and equally macho drug
dealers. A woman moving up through the ranks was suspect, she found.
``There is always that doubt. `A woman on the job? I'm not quite sure,'''
she says. ``Each time I moved to a new post I would have to re-prove
myself.''
But her fellow agents, she discovered, cared more about making cases than
gender politics. Some of her early critics are now her biggest fans, she
says.
She also found the DEA more egalitarian when it came to assignments. During
one San Diego raid with another agency known for having women agents, she
and a fellow female DEA investigator stood shoulder-to-shoulder with their
colleagues as they entered the property.
``The other agency's women agents handed out sodas to the men -- that was
their job!'' she marvels. ``We have female agents who have died on the job
doing the same thing that men do. We jump out of helicopters. We were down
in Bolivia and Peru doing everything that the men do.''
It was the Bolivian connection that led to one of the DEA's biggest cases
and put a feather in Leonhart's cap. The San Diego group she supervised
patiently made a case against Jorge Roca Suarez, head of powerful drug
family in Bolivia. He supplied the cocaine paste, the base for all powdered
cocaine, to the Medellin and Cali cartels in Colombia.
Her agents nabbed Roca Suarez in Los Angeles, and he is now serving 40
years in prison. The DEA confiscated $14 million in property.
When she took over the San Francisco office in June of last year, she found
trends she had first spotted in Southern California had accelerated. The
enemy has become methamphetamine, responsible for 60-70 percent of DEA
cases in the region. Organized Mexican traffickers are taking over from the
bikers who once dominated the meth trade. And the San Francisco office also
has to watch Asian heroin -- and fret over pot clubs.
It keeps her too busy to spend much time thinking about breaking barriers.
``I don't see anything strange about it,'' she says. ``But when we look at
it, especially for law enforcement, it is a landmark. I do have to realize
that this is a good way to be a role model for women going into law
enforcement.''
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wound Botulism Associated With Black Tar Heroin
Among Injecting Drug Users (Text Of Report
In 'The Journal Of The American Medical Association')
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 19:07:18 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service
From: Richard Lake
Subject: MN: US: JAMA: Wound Botulism Associated With Black Tar Heroin
Among Injecting Drug Users
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn)
Source: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA. 1998;279:859-863)
Section: Abstracts
Pubdate: 18 March 1998
Contact: JAMA-letters@ama-assn.org
Editors note: Before writing to JAMA please review the requirements at:
http://www.ama-assn.org/public/journals/jama/letters.htm
Wound Botulism Associated With Black Tar Heroin Among Injecting Drug Users
Douglas J. Passaro, MD, MPH; S. Benson Werner, MD, MPH; Jim McGee, MSPH;
William R. Mac Kenzie, MD; Duc J. Vugia, MD, MPH
Context.-Wound botulism (WB) is a potentially lethal, descending, flaccid,
paralysis that results when spores of Clostridium botulinum germinate in a
wound and elaborate neurotoxin. Since 1988, California has experienced a
dramatic increase in WB associated with injecting "black tar" heroin (BTH),
a dark, tarry form of the drug.
Objective.-To identify risk factors for WB among injecting drug users (IDUs).
Design.-Case-control study based on data from in-person and telephone
interviews.
Participants.-Case patients (n=26) were IDUs who developed WB from January
1994 through February 1996. Controls (n=110) were IDUs newly enrolled in
methadone detoxification programs in 4 counties.
Main Outcome Measures.-Factors associated with the development of WB.
Results.-Among the 26 patients, the median age was 41.5 years, 15 (58%)
were women, 14 (54%) were non-Hispanic white, 11 (42%) were Hispanic, and
none were positive for the human immunodeficiency virus. Nearly all
participants (96% of patients and 97% of controls) injected BTH, and the
mean cumulative dose of BTH used per month was similar for patients and
controls (27 g and 31 g, respectively; P=.6). Patients were more likely
than controls to inject drugs subcutaneously or intramuscularly (92% vs
44%, P<.001) and used this route of drug administration more times per
month (mean, 67 vs 24, P<.001), with a greater cumulative monthly dose of
BTH (22.3 g vs 6.3 g, P<.001). A dose-response relationship was observed
between the monthly cumulative dose of BTH injected subcutaneously or
intramuscularly and the development of WB (2 for linear trend, 26.5;
P<.001). In the final regression model, subcutaneous or intramuscular
injection of BTH was the only behavior associated with WB among IDUs (odds
ratio, 13.7; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-63.0). The risk for development
of WB was not affected by cleaning the skin, cleaning injection
paraphernalia, or sharing needles.
Conclusions.-Injection of BTH intramuscularly or subcutaneously is the
primary risk factor for the development of WB. Physicians in the western
United States, where BTH is widely used, should be aware of the potential
for WB to occur among IDUs.
JAMA. 1998;279:859-863
>From the Division of Communicable Disease Control, California Department of
Health Services, Berkeley (Drs Passaro, Werner, and Vugia and Mr McGee),
and the Division of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine, Stanford
University Medical School, Stanford, Calif (Dr Passaro), and the Division
of Field Epidemiology, Epidemiology Program Office, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga (Drs Passaro and Mac Kenzie). Dr
Passaro is now with the Division of Infectious Diseases and Geographic
Medicine, Stanford University Medical Center. Dr Mac Kenzie is now with the
Division of Parasitic Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
***
[JAMA] EDITOR'S NOTE.-Despite the well-known hazards of injection drug use,
such as human immunodeficiency virus infection, endocarditis, and fatal
overdose, some substance abusers continue to inject heroin and other
illicit drugs. This case-control study evaluated injection drug users who
developed another dangerous complication, wound botulism, and examined risk
factors for this potentially fatal paralytic disorder. Injection of black
tar heroin (a dark, tarry form of the drug) subcutaneously or
intramuscularly (a practice known as skin-popping) was associated with an
increased risk for wound botulism, with a "dose-response" relationship
between the cumulative amount of black tar heroin injected via this route
and development of disease. Clinicians should add wound botulism to the
list of dangerous complications they may encounter in patients who inject
black tar heroin and other illicit drugs.
Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, Senior Editor
(c) 1995-1998 American Medical Association.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogan Now Backs Resolution Against Medical Marijuana
(According To 'The Glendale News-Press Leader,'
US Representative James Rogan, A First-Term Republican,
Says He Will Vote In Favor Of The House's Anti-Medical Marijuana Resolution,
372, Despite Having Supported Medical Cannabis In The California Assembly -
He Says His Position Is Unchanged)
Newshawk: From Richard Lake, Sr. Editor, DrugSense News Service
Source: Glendale News-Press Leader
Contact: FAX: 818-241-1975
Mail: Dan Bolton, Executive Editor, 425 W Broadway #30, Glendale, CA 91204
Pubdate: March 18, 1998
Author: Kevin Smith
Subject: MN: US CA: Rogan Now Backs Resolution Against Medical Marijuana
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Fax: 213-237-4712
Pubdate: March 18, 1998
ROGAN NOW BACKS RESOLUTION AGAINST MEDICAL MARIJUANA
Congressman says his position is no different than when he was an
assemblyman and favored limited use.
GLENDALE ~ Congressman James Rogan says he will back a resolution that
opposes the use of marijuana for medical purposes, despite having supported
the idea as a state assemblyman. The first-term Republican, whose 27th
Congressional District includes Glendale, nonetheless said he is taking the
same position he took in the Assembly.
House Resolution 372 expresses the sense of the House of Representatives
that marijuana "is a dangerous and addictive drug and should not be
legalized for medicinal use."
Resolutions carry no legal weight, but are often crafted to gauge support
for legislation on issues.
The resolution has already been approved by the House Subcommittee on Crime
and is expected to be brought to the floor for a full House vote, possibly
next week. Rogan, elected to the 43rd Assembly District eat in 1994, served
through 1996.
"I supported (medical use of marijuana) in the Assembly, but only in
limited circumstances of a physician being able to prescribe marijuana for
terminal patients," he said.
He does not support Proposition 215, approved by California voters in 1996,
because it is too broad in scope, Rogan said.
"It allows any medical practitioner to use it," he said. "And that could
mean an acupuncturist or ... a witch doctor. And not all of the patients
are terminal cases."
In September 1995, Rogan supported Assembly Bill 1529. The measure, which
ultimately failed, was intended to provide a criminal defense for personal
possession of marijuana for medical purposes, but only when approved in
writing by a licensed physician for patients with cancer, AIDS, glaucoma
and multiple sclerosis. Rogan's support for limited use of marijuana was
fueled by personal experience.
In 1980, Rogan's cousin was diagnosed with cancer and given just six months
to live.
Under his doctor's advice, he began using marijuana to gain weight and
combat the nausea brought on by chemotherapy treatments. Rogan believes his
cousin's use of marijuana helped him live for another 10 years.
"It had everything to do with him being able to get out of bed, eat, go to
work and be productive for another decade," Rogan said, according to a
transcript of his remarks in front of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Pasadena Democrat Barry Gordon, who is running for Rogan's seat, agreed
with Rogan that Proposition 215 was too broad. But, he said, the House
resolution Rogan plans to support is every bit as vague as Proposition 215.
"That seems to close the door pretty solidly to me" on using marijuana for
medicinal use, he said. "And it's contrary to what the voters expressed in
1996."
Since its passage, the controversial initiative has faced numerous legal
challenges. Many establishments that have tried to sell marijuana for
medical purposes have been shut down.
The California Nurses Association supports Proposition 215. "As nurses, we
have seen that marijuana helps patients with nausea, vomiting and muscle
spasms where other medications are not effective," said Jill Furillo, a
legislative advocate for the group.
"Fifty-six percent of the voters approved it as an effective healing
methodology. The CNA believes the voters' desire to implement Proposition
215 must be respected."
Sgt. Rick Young, a spokesman for the Glendale Police Department, said some
who have been arrested in Glendale for possession of marijuana have claimed
they needed the drug for medical reasons. But none has been able to prove
it and no legal challenges have arisen in Glendale, he said.
"This proposition (215) fooled a lot of people," he said. "It played on the
sympathy of the terminally ill."
Young said people who really need the drug can take Marinol, a marijuana
derivative that comes in the form of a pill and is available through a
prescription.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dissenting Views On US House Resolution 372 (Text Of Congressional Record
Shows Some People Are Reasonable About The Medical Marijuana Issue)
From: cwagoner@bendnet.com
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 16:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: CanPat - Text of Dissent to H. Res. 372
To: cannabis-patriots-l@teleport.com
Sender: owner-cannabis-patriots-l@teleport.com
DISSENTING VIEWS ON H. RES. 372
***
105TH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION -- REPORT 105-451, PART 1
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPORT [To accompany H. Res. 372]
Sense of the House of Representatives with Respect to Marijuana for Medical
Use
MARCH 18, 1998 -- Ordered to be printed
***
Page 12
DISSENTING VIEWS ON H. RES. 372
We believe that H. Res. 372 is mistaken in its factual premises, an
affront to fundamental principles of federalism, and needlessly cruel.
Let us first make it clear that we are not advocating the
legalization of marijuana. We agree that one of the greatest challenges we
faces as a nation is to keep our citizens -- especially our children --
away from the debilitating scourge of drugs. We feel every bit as strongly
as the majority on this point.
But this resolution is not about legalization of marijuana, or
about sanctioning its recreational use in any way at all. This resolution
is about the use of marijuana by desperately sick people for whom marijuana
may offer some relief from suffering. For these and the following reasons,
we dissent.
I. There Exists Substantial Evidence that Marijuana Has Legitimate Medical
Uses
The resolution is based on the premise that scientific evidence
clearly shows that inhaled marijuana has no medical use. That premise is
incorrect.
There is little doubt that inhaled marijuana does have a
physiological effect on the human body. (Indeed, it is precisely because
marijuana does affect the body that it is proscribed under the Controlled
Substances Act.) There is also widespread agreement that, as the majority
observes, the effects of marijuana on the body are generally harmful.
But that does not end the inquiry. Many substances used as
medicines have harmful side effects. The question is whether the substance
also has benefits when used as a part of a course of treatment for a
particular disease, and if so, whether those benefits outweigh the risk of
harm.
There is credible evidence that marijuana can benefit patients
suffering from certain diseases. The most well-substantiated medical uses
of marijuana are to counter nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy(1),
and to treat glaucoma(2). The benefits of marijuana for cancer patients are
so well established that a 1991 survey of clinical oncologists found that
44% of the respondent doctors said they had, on at least one occasion,
recommended that a patient procure and inhale marijuana -- despite the fact
that such conduct is illegal (3). In fact, during the Judiciary Committee
meeting at which H. Res. 372 was considered, one Member of the Committee
related the poignant experience of a cancer patient he knew personally who
had used marijuana to ease the agonies of chemotherapy (4).
Considerable research also attests to the use of marijuana in
stimulating the appetites of AIDS sufferers afflicted with "wasting
syndrome" (5). The clinical research on this use is less definitive than in
the case of cancer patients, primarily because U.S. researchers have had
difficulty gaining approval for their studies in recent years (6). However,
as with chemotherapy, it is clear that many physicians who deal with AIDS
patients every day believe that for some of these patients marijuana can be
useful as part of a course of treatment, and that many patients are in fact
illicitly seeking relief through the use of marijuana (7).
The majority argues that, to the extent inhaled marijuana does have
medical benefits in certain cases, there are alternative medications (such
as synthetic THC, which is the active ingredient in marijuana) which do not
have the harmful side effects that marijuana has. For two reasons, this
argument is unpersuasive.
First, not all patients respond to the alternatives. As doctors
know, almost all ailments can be treated with more than one medication, and
no medication is effective in 100% of the patients to whom it is
administered. It is standard medical practice to pick the most appropriate
treatment for a particular patient, and if the patient does not respond, to
try another treatment. The studies cited above establish that for some
patients, inhaled marijuana will be effective where other treatments fail.
Second, in the cases of patients suffering from life-threatening
diseases such as cancer and AIDS, the harmful side-effects of marijuana --
which are quite long term -- pale beside the benefit of making a
life-saving course of treatment tolerable. To a 65-year-old brain cancer
victim whom chemotherapy would, without marijuana countertreatment, render
an invalid, the majority's concerns about marijuana's long-term harm to
lungs, reproductive and immune systems must seem laughably absurd.
To be sure, we are not suggesting that there is a consensus in the
medical community that marijuana is an effective medicine. We concede the
majority's point that many physicians, and a number of the most highly
respected physician organizations, do not support the use of marijuana for
medical purposes. We do insist, however, that this is an issue for doctors,
their patients and public health officials to resolve, not the Congress.
There are too many desperately sick people whose physicians believe
marijuana might be helpful, and too much solid research in support of that
view, for Congress to state an unequivocal opposition to the medicinal use
of marijuana.
II. H. Res. 372 Offends Basic Principles of Federalism
In November 1996, voters in California and Arizona adopted
referenda purporting to authorize seriously ill patients to take marijuana
upon the recommendation of a licensed physician. The Arizona referendum was
subsequently nullified by the Arizona legislature, but the California
referendum remains nominally in effect (although Federal agencies have
countered the referendum by threatening federal penalties against any
physician who makes such a recommendation).
H. Res. 372 appears to be intended largely as a denunciation of
these referenda, and as an attempt to intimidate other States from
following suit. As such, we believe it is an inappropriate incursion by the
Congress into territory that properly belongs to the States.
Under our constitutional system, the States have the primary
responsibility for protecting the health and safety of their citizens. If a
State, by referendum or legislative enactment, adopts the policy that
marijuana can provide some relief to those of its citizens who are
suffering from AIDS or cancer, it is the height of Washington-centered
arrogance for the Congress to override that State's position.
III. The Sweep of H. Res. 372 is Needlessly Cruel
The majority seems to believe that efforts to make marijuana
available to sick people for medicinal use is tantamount to legalization.
That is simply not true. Let us be clear again: We absolutely do not
support those who would take advantage of "medicinal use" programs to make
marijuana available to the general public. To the extent that this
resolution is a condemnation of such subterfuges, or a statement that
marijuana should not be available for minor ailments, it is appropriate.
But the resolution goes way beyond that. The resolution expresses
an "unequivocal" and unqualified opposition to medicinal use of marijuana.
Thus the resolution brings within its ambit cases in which marijuana may
enable a terminally ill AIDS patient suffering from wasting syndrome, or a
cancer patient receiving chemotherapy treatment, to ingest sufficient
nutrition to regain some semblance of normal activity.
The majority cannot claim that it was unaware of the scope of its
resolution. There was ample discussion of this point in the Judiciary
Committee. Indeed, Rep. Conyers offered an amendment that would have
moderated the resolution as it applies to AIDS and cancer patients -- but
this effort was rejected. There is no reason the majority could not have
tailored the resolution to direct its opprobrium squarely at the excesses
associated with the medical marijuana movement. To condemn terribly ill
patients who are trying to relieve their suffering -- patients who, it
should go without saying, would give anything not to be forced to look to
marijuana for such relief -- is needlessly cruel.
JOHN CONYERS, JR.
ROBERT C. SCOTT
ZOE LOFGREN
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT
BARNEY FRANK
HOWARD L. BERMAN
JERROLD NADLER
MELVIN L. WATT
SHEILA JACKSON LEE
***
1. See, e.g., Vinciguerra, Inhalation Marijuana as an Antiemetic for Cancer
Chemotherapy, New York State Journal of Medicine, 525-527 (October 1988)
(among chemotherapy patients showing no improvement with standard
antiemetics, 78% responded positively to marijuana); Change,
Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol as an Antiemetic in Cancer Patients Receiving
High Dose Methotrexate, 91 Annals of Internal Medicine, 819-24 (December
1979) (smoked marijuana more reliably reduces vomiting than oral THC);
Sallan, Zinberg & Frei, Antiemetic Effect of Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol
in Patients Receiving Cancer Chemotherapy, 293 New England Journal of
Medicine, 795-97 (1975) (natural marijuana more successful than synthetic
THC for some patients).
2. See, e.g., Hepler and Frank, Marijuana Smoking and Intraocular Pressure,
217 Journal of the American Medical Association, 1932 (1971); Hepler, Frank
and Ungerleider, Pupillary Constriction After Marijuana Smoking, 74
American Journal of Opthamology, 1185-90, (1972).
3. Doblin, Marijuana as Antiemetic Medicine: A Survey of Oncologists'
Experiences and Attitudes, 9 Journal of Clinical Oncology (1991).
4. See transcript of meeting of the Committee on the Judiciary, March 4,
1998, statement of Hon. James Rogan.
5. See Lester Grinspoon and James Bakalar, Marijuana, The Forbidden
Medicine, 100-09 (1997), Ed Rosenthal, Tod Mikuriya and Dale Gieringer,
Medical Marijuana Handbook, 35-38 (1997); see also Roltin, Fischman and
Byrne, Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Food Intake and Body Weight of Humans
Living in a Residential Laboratory, 11 Appetite 1 (1998).
6. See "Government Blocks UCSF Marijuana Study by Bay Area Reporter,
September 14, 1995; "U.S. Drug Agencies Resist AIDS Medicinal Pot Plan:
S.F. Doctor's Study in Treating Wasting Syndrome Hits Stone Wall," in San
Francisco Examiner, January 8, 1995, at A-1.
7. See generally R.C. Randall, Marijuana & AIDS: Pot, Politics & PWAs in
America (1991).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Book Review - 'Crack In America - Demon Drugs And Social Justice'
('The Journal Of The American Medical Association' Says
The Well-Coordinated Collection Of 17 Essays By An Expert Panel
Of Social Scientists Notes The Media In 1986 First Exaggerated
The Health Risks Of Crack Cocaine And Then Created A Public Perception
That Illicit Drugs Were The Nation's Preeminent Problem
At A Time When The Government Was Defunding Social Programs)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 19:39:50 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service
From: Richard Lake
Subject: MN: US; JAMA Book Review: Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social
Justice
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn)
Source: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA. 1998;279:885-886)
Section: Books, Journals, New Media
Pubdate: 18 March 1998
Contact: JAMA-letters@ama-assn.org
Website: http://www.ama-assn.org/public/journals/jama/
CRACK
Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice, edited by Craig Reinarman
and Harry G. Levine, 388 pp, with illus, $48, ISBN 0-520-20241-4, paper,
$17.95, ISBN 0-520-20242-2, Berkeley, Calif, University of California
Press, 1997.
The introduction and spread of smokable cocaine, or crack, has inflicted
tremendous harm to individuals and to society. Not the least, the authors
of this provocative book argue, is the inappropriate punitive reaction to a
largely mythical crack "epidemic." The much publicized war on drugs of the
1980s, which failed to stem the supply of crack or other illegal drugs, had
its origins in a misleading, medicalized view of drug abuse and in a
conservative ideology. As the editors assert, "Unemployment, poverty, urban
decay, school crises, crime, and all their attendant forms of human
troubles were spoken of and acted upon as if they were the result of
individual deviance, immorality, or weakness." In such a context, an
offensive was launched with the advent of crack in 1986 that did little to
help drug users and had numerous ill effects.
The authors of Crack in America may not convert any drug prohibitionists to
their view that "individual choices are influenced by social
circumstances." Nevertheless, they provide ample ammunition for those of us
who argue against drug wars and for new responses that focus foremost on
reduction of harm to society at large and to the marginalized populations
most at risk from drugs and the crossfire of drug wars.
We cannot radically reduce drug abuse until we begin to eliminate the
social conditions that foster it. An understanding of the complex social
factors involved is needed, not only to accurately describe the problem,
but also to formulate effective intervention strategies. To that end, this
book is very useful for policymakers, health care providers, and students
of medicine, social work, and public health. While it does not contain a
chapter on prevention or treatment for the minority of users who develop
serious addictions, its statements on the social and political contexts of
drugs in American society provide necessary background for all of us
working in the field.
Crack in America is a well-coordinated collection of 17 essays by an expert
panel of social scientists who believe that the dominant
psychopharmacological analysis of drug use has rationalized an approach
that deliberately ignores social factors. Two introductory essays by the
editors convincingly show how the media (including the televised appearance
of President Bush with a vial of the drug) exaggerated crack's dangers. The
media also created a public perception of illicit drugs as the nation's
preeminent problem at a time when the government was defunding social
programs addressing more prevalent issues. The editors argue that while
media attention, which included as many as 37 network news segments on
crack in July 1986 alone, may have had a perverse "advertising effect" on
use of the drug, still "lifetime prevalence of crack use began low and
declined thereafter." Citing figures from the National Institute of Drug
Abuse's National Household Survey, they show that by 1992 only about 3% of
18- to 34-year-olds had ever used crack, about 1% had used it in the year
preceding the survey, and less than 0.5% had used it in the prior month.
The book's central section assesses crack's "myths and realities" from a
variety of perspectives. One chapter reviews the scientific literature to
argue that powder cocaine and smoked crack do not have very different
effects on their users and that neither produces instant addiction as
claimed by numerous politicians, journalists, and even scientific
researchers. The more substantial differences are in the social profiles of
the users of cheap, mass-marketed crack vs the much more expensive powder
cocaine. Nevertheless, the demonizing of crack led to offensives against
its most vulnerable users, causing, through differential sentencing laws,
disproportionate incarceration of African Americans, who make up 15% of
American drug users but are half to two thirds of those imprisoned on drug
charges.
Three chapters are based on fieldwork. One stems from participant
observation in the underground economy of the crack business in New York
City. Another profiles the attempts of two cocaine users to free themselves
from dependence. Most useful, a chapter on "bingeing and addiction among
heavy cocaine smokers" provides insight drawn from interviews with the
users on the patterns of their use and implies that harm reduction
treatment approaches could extend the periods between binges among many
crack users. None of these empirically based studies, however, involves
large samples, nor do they include many women. More research needs to be
done using longitudinal and qualitative approaches that can penetrate more
deeply into the nature of crack use and other drugs. Qualitative research,
especially, will allow us to derive the meanings of the stories and
experiences of drug users. Such research, ultimately, will make it possible
to design better drug and other health and mental health treatment programs
that address sex and cultural issues and incorporate more fully
contextualized treatment approaches. Additionally, the differences in
psychology and social setting for female drug users make it critical that
treatment strategies for women be based on research that focuses on women
specifically, rather than extrapolating from existing data on male drug users.
A separate section examines why crack did not reach epidemic levels in
three comparable societies: Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands. The
Canadian experience may be most relevant, as Canada's proximity made supply
easiest and the heavy influence of the US media led the Canadian public to
expect a similar "plague." The authors suggest that the relative lack of
ghettoes in Canadian cities may be the determining factor in crack's
inability to find a market there. The negligible use of crack in the other
two societies makes them less enlightening models for understanding the
situation in the United States. However, the Netherlands has long had a
less punitive response to drug use, based on earlier alcohol use policies.
Decriminalization and an emphasis on harm reduction have had positive
results in the Netherlands in addressing problems related to other drugs.
For example, use of marijuana in the Netherlands is less prevalent than in
the United States, and needle exchange programs have largely prevented the
spread of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) among Dutch heroin users.
Furthermore, Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands have national health
programs and more extensive social services than the United States, which
makes it possible to treat people with drug problems in a context of health
care rather than law enforcement.
A third section of the book discusses the harmful impact of the American
drug war on civil liberties, and in the final section, the editors discuss
alternatives to the prohibition model for drug policy. They do not endorse
calls for a blanket legalization of drugs or expect changes of policy or
public opinion overnight. Instead, they seek to influence debate on drug
policy over the long run so that society can move toward gradual,
controlled decriminalization. In their view, there are now "signs of
significant undercurrents of opposition to U.S. drug policy at major
institutions of influence and power," including the media and the medical,
law enforcement, and public health professions. They note several African
American mayors, including Kurt Schmoke of Baltimore, Md, who espouse the
value of harm-reduction strategies, such as needle exchange programs, in
addressing problems caused by illegal drugs.
In 1995, $8.2 billion was spent on the federal drug war, yet resources for
treatment and prevention remain extremely limited. The authors describe a
mother who was prosecuted after giving birth for distributing cocaine to
her baby in the moments just after birth, but who was denied entry into
several day treatment programs while she was pregnant. In my own research
on drug use among poor, primarily African American and Latina women in New
York City, I interviewed a woman who was upset over testing negative for
HIV because, while drug treatment is often accessible for HIV-positive
individuals, none would be available for her.
Some recent figures indicate a waning in use of crack cocaine. While drug
prohibitionists may claim credit, the decline is far more likely the result
of a normal, cyclical pattern and the attendant buildups of publicity and
law enforcement. One author in this book argues that "preliminary evidence
suggests that initiation into crack use began to decline at precisely the
time-late 1989-when crack was cheapest and most abundant."
No one can deny the extensive damage to society caused by the effects of
drug abuse. My recent research, for instance, has found that 60% to 70% of
drug-using women are victims of spousal abuse, vs 21% to 34% in the general
population. What is clear is that the long-standing approach in the United
States of responding to illicit drugs by increasing law enforcement has
been wasteful of resources, ineffective, and even cruel. Creative,
innovative approaches are needed in applying harm reduction to the
recurrent problem of drugs in our society. What we need are drug treatment
programs in which the cornerstone is realistic education about drugs and
their outcomes. These programs must focus on the full context of drug use,
including economic, social, and sex-specific factors, and not just on use
of drugs per se. The public has supported the use of methadone in treatment
of heroin addiction and can be persuaded of the value of other
harm-reduction approaches. Schools, churches, and the media all need to
enlist in spreading knowledge-based information and awareness of the value
of socially constructed knowledge in understanding drugs in our society.
A shortcoming of Crack in America is its lack of reference to how the
movement toward managed care and cutbacks in social programs through
welfare reform will affect those in need of drug treatment. Current
research has shown that large proportions of drug users are found in the
criminal justice, primary health, and welfare systems. With more people
being dropped from welfare rolls and losing associated health insurance
benefits, we need to devise means of intervention before they are
encountered in the criminal justice system. Additionally, research is
needed into the particular difficulties current and former drug users may
face finding the jobs required by new welfare policies.
Access to treatment and the maintenance of an array of services is
critical. Family, medical, economic, and social problems all need to be
addressed together if inroads are to be made into the damage caused to
individuals and to society by illegal drugs. To have more such effective
programs, we need extensive changes in our public policy and our politics.
For those changes to begin to seem possible, we need research and social
and political analysis like that presented in this book.
Nabila El-Bassel, DSW Columbia University School of Social Work New York, NY
(c) 1995-1998 American Medical Association.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Experts - Treat, Don't Jail, Drug Abusers ('Dallas Morning News'
Says New Research From The Physician Leadership On National Drug Policy,
A Bipartisan Group Of Prominent Physicians And Public Health Leaders
From The Clinton, Bush And Reagan Administrations,
Shows That Abuse Of Alcohol And Other Drugs Is A Medical Problem
That Respond Much Better To Medical Treatment Than To Jail -
Long-Term Drug Treatment Is As Effective As Long-Term Treatment
For Some Chronic Diseases Such As Diabetes, Asthma And Hypertension)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:10:12 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US: Health Experts: Treat, Don't Jail, Drug Abusers
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: adbryan@onramp.net
Source: Dallas Morning News
Contact: letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com
Website: http://www.dallasnews.com
Pubdate: Wed, 18 Mar 1998
HEALTH EXPERTS: TREAT, DON'T JAIL, DRUG ABUSERS
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Drug and alcohol abuse are medical problems that respond
to medical treatment just as well as diabetes and other chronic diseases do
-- and treatment is cheaper and more effective than jail, says new
research.
Yet the nation spends only 20 percent of its $17 billion drug-control
budget to treat addicts, and the public believes that jailing addicts is
best, a bipartisan group of public health experts said Tuesday.
"We've been telling people to 'just say no' when addiction is a biological
event," said Dr. June Osborn, who chairs the new Physician Leadership on
National Drug Policy. "There must be a bridge between what the public
believes and the science," added Dr. Lonnie Bristow of the American Medical
Association.
The group of prominent physicians and public health leaders from the
Clinton, Bush and Reagan administrations commissioned the research. They
are using it to urge doctors to play a greater role in diagnosing and
treating addiction - - and are providing it to politicians who control
drug-treatment money.
Many of the 14 million American alcoholics and 6.7 million drug addicts
relapse after drug treatment, but the scientists concluded that:
Jailing a drug addict costs $25,900 per year. A year of traditional
outpatient drug treatment costs $1,800, intensive outpatient care costs
$2,500, methadone treatment for heroin users costs $3,900 and residential
drug-treatment programs range from $4,400 to $6,800 a year.
Drug treatment can cut crime by 80 percent, said Brown University addiction
director Norman Hoffman. Brown researcher Craig Love studied female
substance abusers who were in jail, and found that 25 percent who underwent
treatment were later re-arrested, versus 62 percent released without
substance abuse treatment. A California study of 1,600 drug abusers found
their involvement in drug sales, drug-related prostitution and theft
decreased threefold after treatment.
Every dollar invested in drug treatment can save $7 in societal and medical
costs, said former Assistant Health Secretary Philip Lee.
Long-term drug treatment is as effective as long-term treatment for chronic
diseases, said Dr. Thomas McLellan of the University of Pennsylvania.
One-year relapse rates for the diseases and for addicts all are about 50
percent, he said. Compliance with therapy is similar, too: Fewer than half
of diabetics comply with their therapy, as do fewer than 30 percent of
asthma and hypertension patients and fewer than 40 percent of alcohol or
drug abusers.
Drug treatment also helps society's health, McLellan said. Heroin users,
for example, are at huge risk of catching and spreading the AIDS virus or
hepatitis. A seven-year study of heroin addicts found 51 percent who never
entered drug treatment caught HIV during that period, versus. 21 percent of
treated addicts.
Severe shortage of treatment programs
Yet, there is a severe shortage of drug-treatment programs, the doctors
said About 15 percent of people who need treatment get it. Seven states
don't offer any methadone clinics for heroin addicts, and every U.S.
methadone clinic has a waiting list. Only 5 percent to 20 percent of
pregnant drug abusers can get drug treatment because of too few programs,
inability to pay or too few inpatient programs that will accept the woman's
other children, said Pennsylvania's Dr. Jeffrey Merrill.
The findings conflict with public opinion. An analysis of surveys being
published Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association
finds support for increased spending on drug treatment has dropped from 65
percent in 1990 to 53 percent in 1996.
In contrast, 84 percent of Americans say the solution is tougher criminal
penalties. Next on the list are anti-drug education, more police and
mandatory drug testing.
The survey also found Americans believe drug abusers are predominantly
poor, uneducated and minorities. In fact, the majority are like Dr. Richard
Corlin's son, once a cocaine addict: white, from well-educated families and
initially employed.
Dispelling those myths is vital to public commitment for drug treatment,
said Corlin, a Los Angeles medical professor. "People think it is someone
else's problem. It is not."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Study - Treatment, Not Jail, Best Response To Drug Addiction
('Associated Press' Version In Massachusetts' 'Standard-Times')
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:54:52 -0500
From: "R. Lake"
Subject: MN: US: Study: Treatment, Not Jail, Best Response to Drug Addiction
To: DrugSense News Service
Organization: The Media Awareness Project of DrugSense
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: John Smith
Pubdate: Wed., 18 Mar. 1998
Source: The Standard-Times, Serving the South Coast of Massachusetts
Contact: YourView@S-T.com
WebPage: http://www.s-t.com
Author: Lauran Neergaard, Associated Press writer
STUDY: TREATMENT, NOT JAIL, BEST RESPONSE TO DRUG ADDICTION
WASHINGTON -- Medical treatment for drug addiction works as well as treating
diabetes or other chronic diseases, dramatically reduces crime and is a lot
cheaper than jail, says a study released yesterday by bipartisan public
health experts.
But a separate survey indicates that the public believes just the opposite
-- that jail is best, while support for drug treatment is dropping.
That perception prompts the federal government to spend only 20 percent of
the nation's $17 billion drug-control budget to treat addicts, a proportion
the doctors' group concluded should increase.
"We've been telling people to 'just say no' when addiction is a biological
event," said Dr. June Osborn of the new Physician Leadership on National
Drug Policy, prominent physicians and public health leaders from the
Clinton, Bush and Reagan administrations that commissioned the research from
half a dozen universities.
"There must be a bridge between what the public believes and the science,"
added Dr. Lonnie Bristow of the American Medical Association, who is helping
provide the data to Republican congressional leaders who control drug
spending.
That's not to say medically treating the 14 million American alcoholics and
6.7 million drug addicts is a cure -- many do relapse. But the scientists
concluded that:
Jailing a drug addict costs $25,900 per year. A year of traditional
outpatient drug treatment costs $1,800, intensive outpatient care costs
$2,500, methadone treatment for heroin users costs $3,900 and residential
drug-treatment programs range from $4,400 to $6,800 a year.
Drug treatment can cut crime by 80 percent, said Brown University addiction
director Norman Hoffman. Brown researcher Craig Love studied female
substance abusers who were in jail, and found that 25 percent who underwent
treatment were later re-arrested, vs. 62 percent released without substance
abuse treatment.
A California study of 1,600 drug abusers found their involvement in drug
sales, drug-related prostitution and theft decreased threefold after
treatment.
Every dollar invested in drug treatment can save $7 in societal and medical
costs, said former Assistant Health Secretary Philip Lee.
Long-term drug treatment is as effective as long-term treatment for chronic
diseases, said Dr. Thomas McLellan of the University of Pennsylvania.
One-year relapse rates for the diseases and for addicts all are about 50
percent, he said. Compliance with therapy is similar, too: Less than half of
diabetics comply with their therapy, less than 30 percent of asthma and
hypertension patients and less than 40 percent of alcohol or drug abusers.
Drug treatment also helps society's health, McLellan said.
Heroin users, for example, are at huge risk of catching and spreading the
AIDS virus or hepatitis. A seven-year study of heroin addicts found 51
percent who never entered drug treatment caught HIV during that period, vs.
21 percent of treated addicts.
Yet, there is a severe shortage of drug-treatment programs, the doctors
said. About 15 percent of people who need treatment get it. About seven
states don't offer any methadone clinics for heroin addicts, and every U.S.
methadone clinic has a waiting list.
Only between one in 20 and one in five pregnant drug abusers can get drug
treatment because of too few programs, inability to pay or too few inpatient
programs that will accept the woman's other children, said Pennsylvania's
Dr. Jeffrey Merrill.
The findings conflict with public opinion. An analysis of national surveys
being published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association
finds public support for increased spending on drug treatment has dropped
from 65 percent in 1990 to 53 percent in 1996.
In contrast, 84 percent of Americans say the solution is tougher criminal
penalties.
Next on the list are anti-drug education, more police and mandatory drug
testing.
The physicians group has elicited early interest in the data from Republican
health and drug-policy leaders such as Sens. Jim Jeffords of Vermont and
Orrin Hatch of Utah.
National drug policy chief Barry McCaffrey also welcomed the data, and will
discuss it next week at a conference on how to improve drug treatment inside
prisons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It's Not A War Against Drugs (Transcript Of ABC 'Nightline' Program
On Treatment Versus Prisons)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 22:26:32 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service
From: Richard Lake
Subject: MN: US: Transcript: ABC Nightline: It's Not a War Against Drugs
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Marcus-Mermelstein Family
Source: ABC Nightline
Transcript: Produced by Federal Document Clearing House
Pubdate: Wednesday, 18 Mar 1998
Contact: http://www.abcnews.com/onair/email.html
Website: http://www.abcnews.com/
IT'S NOT A WAR AGAINST DRUGS - IT'S A WAR AGAINST A DISEASE
TED KOPPEL We are, in many respects, a nation of addicts. We eat too much,
we smoke too much, we drink too much coffee, we consume too much alcohol,
we take too much prescription medicine. Even in relatively benign areas
like diet and exercise, many of us are inclined toward wretched excess. But
in all of those areas, assuming, of course, that we're talking about
adults, we are acting within the law. Drug addiction, on the other hand,
falls into a unique category. Most of the time, the purchase, possession or
consumption of marijuana is illegal. That is true almost all the time of
powdered cocaine, crack or heroin. The laws differ from state to state, but
if you are a drug addict, you're very likely to end up in prison. That is
essentially a political judgment. American society as a whole has decided
that we should focus our manpower and money on trying to keep drugs out of
the country, that we should punish those who sell those drugs but also
those who buy and consume them. Our focus tonight is primarily on that last
group and most particularly on those consumers who are addicted to illegal
drugs. What if you were told that drug addiction is a chronic disease
comparable to heart disease or cancer? That, as Nightline correspondent
Dave Marash now reports, is precisely what some of the nation's leading
doctors and scientists are contending.
DAVE MARASH, ABC NEWS (VO) According to a survey of public opinion polls
going back almost 50 years, scenes like this define what most Americans
know about drug addiction. TV, these polls show, is where most Americans
learn what they know or think they know about drugs. This review of a half
century of polling published today by JAMA, the Journal of the American
Medical Association, reveals some interesting patterns. Most Americans
agree drug use has reached dangerous levels but, they say, not in their own
backyards. Eighty-two percent call drug abuse a serious problem nationally,
but just 27 percent see it locally. And while 43 percent of parents see a
national crisis of kids abusing drugs, just eight percent found the crisis
in their own children's schools. And with government statistics showing
drug abuse dropping significantly over the decade of the '90s, only 15
percent of Americans polled see the situation improving while 58 percent
think America's drug problems have never been worse. (on camera) And what
about drug treatment? Well, few Americans seem to believe that it works.
Just 19 percent of those polled gave drug treatment strong support.
Skepticism about drug treatment programs is epidemic in America.
1ST CITIZEN I can't imagine how addicts would benefit from treatment. I
think the old-fashioned way of going cold turkey would be the best way to
do it.
3RD CITIZEN I think they should be put in jail. I think they should be
treated for the crime that they commit like everybody else.
4TH CITIZEN I think a first-time offender, I would definitely opt for
treatment. Second time, third time, jail. (Clip of doctors-scientists meeting)
DOCTOR Around the turn of the century, narcotics were very widely used.
DAVE MARASH (VO) This week in Washington, some three dozen top doctors and
scientists gathered to tell the country most of what it knows about drugs
is flat wrong. Their message-drug addiction is like many other chronic
diseases, no more mysterious, no less serious than heart disease, asthma,
diabetes or hypertension, and no more likely to select as its victims poor
people or racial minorities.
JEFFREY MERRILL, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA The real demography of the drug
addict of today is a white, middle-class, educated individual or the
children of those white, middle-class, educated individuals. It is the
neighbor next door or maybe it's somebody in your own house but it's not
somebody who is located in another community of another race or of another
ethnic group.
DAVE MARASH (VO) Even more revealing, the doctors' report says many, if not
most addicts are no more responsible for their sickness than sufferers from
heart attacks or strokes.
DR ALAN LESHNER, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE An analogy here is to
lung cancer. People gave themselves lung cancer if they got lung cancer
from smoking, but once they have it, we treat it as lung cancer. The same
is true with addiction. Prolonged drug use changes the brain in fundamental
and long-lasting ways and we know that those brain changes actually are the
core, the essence of the compulsion that characterizes all addictions, you
know, the compulsion to use drugs. And that makes it, at its essence, a
brain disease.
DAVE MARASH (VO) Treating drug addiction, the doctors say, means not
counting cures, but measuring slow, subtle recoveries that add up to useful
lives.
DR DAVID LEWIS, BROWN UNIVERSITY It's a chronic disease with its ups and
its downs and abstinence may not occur easily or ever, but there's
functional improvement, there's decrease in crime, there's better health.
DAVE MARASH (VO) Modest goals, modest results. But Dr Lewis insists
realistic expectations for drug treatment will be repaid well over time in
functioning lives.
DR DAVID LEWIS So I'd say the percentage is better than 50-50 or 50 percent
when someone comes to treatment that treatment will help, and as repeated
treatments take place it goes up and up and up and starts to get in 70, 80,
90 percent.
CAROL SHAPIRO (PH) A lot of times people go through detoxification many
times and I think one of the things we're learning with the disease is
relapse is very common.
DAVE MARASH (VO) Carol Shapiro runs La Bodega, a New York City drug
treatment center based on healing addicts through their families. The
overwhelming majority of American drug addicts have health insurance, not
that this means their insurance offers much coverage for drug treatment.
Just two percent of today's full-time employees are covered for inpatient
rehabilitation and just one percent have full coverage for outpatient
treatment.
CAROL SHAPIRO I think it's a travesty that insurance would not pay for drug
treatment like we would pay for any other illness.
DAVE MARASH (VO) Senator Paul Wellstone wants insurance companies to start
thinking of alcohol and drug addiction as a chronic illness and remove the
limitations on their coverage that have become a part of the managed care
era of the 1990s.
SEN PAUL WELLSTONE, (D), MINNESOTA And we're saying that if in a health
insurance plan you have substance abuse coverage, treat that, pay for that
the same way you would anything else. Treat it the same way you would any
other kind of illness. Don't discriminate against people.
DAVE MARASH (VO) Wellstone says this would cost an additional $1.35 a year
per subscriber, an increase the insurance industry says could force some
customers to drop their health insurance policies entirely. Still, Dr David
Lewis, director of the physicians' campaign, insists whoever pays for it,
full coverage for drug treatment is a bargain.
DR DAVID LEWIS It decreases health costs and complications of addiction. It
decreases injury markedly. It increases productivity and it's a great
anti-crime measure.
DAVE MARASH (on camera) Getting drug addicts into treatment can, the
doctors claim, preempt their criminal careers and do so for a fraction of
the annual $25,900 per person cost of incarceration. Getting the American
public to recognize this, the doctors say, is their biggest challenge in
helping America deal effectively with its national drug abuse problem.
I'm Dave Marash for Nightline in Washington.
TED KOPPEL When we come back, a congressman who became a believer in drug
treatment after he was forced to confront his own alcoholism and the chief
judge of New York State, who spearheaded efforts to bring drug treatment
courts to New York.
(Commercial Break)
TED KOPPEL It was 1981 when then Minnesota state senator Jim Ramstad had
his last alcohol blackout. His arrest for disorderly conduct was front page
news. Seventeen years later, Representative Jim Ramstad is cosponsor of a
bill in the US Congress to oblige private insurers to cover treatment for
drug and alcohol addiction. He joins us here in our Washington bureau. And
joining us from our New York bureau, the chief judge of the state of New
York, Judith Kaye, who oversees the state's seven drug treatment courts.
And you'd better start by telling us, Judge Kaye, what a drug treatment
court does.
JUDITH KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE NEW YORK STATE (New York) Well, what a drug
treatment court does is to try to break the recycling, the cycling and
recycling of non-violent substance abusers through the criminal courts of
the state of New York.
TED KOPPEL By doing what?
JUDGE JUDITH KAYE By offering an intensive judicial supervision, drug
treatment, case counseling, a very, very rigorous program for those willing
to go into it with the cooperation of the district attorney, defense
counsel, numerous others and at the end of a year or two years, the person,
we believe and we see, will no longer be recycled through the system but
will go on, hopefully, to be a productive member of society.
TED KOPPEL Now, in some states, is it not true, and obviously it is not in
New York, but in some states is it not true that there is no option here
for a judge? In other words, some state laws are so rigorous that if
someone has used certain drugs, they are obliged to be sent to prison,
aren't they?
JUDGE JUDITH KAYE Well, true, but this is a nationwide movement now.
Indeed, 48 of the 50 states, Puerto Rico and Guam all are involved in this
drug treatment court movement. We're finding very, very promising success
with this experiment.
TED KOPPEL Congressman Ramstad, I can understand and I think most Americans
have become, over the years, sympathetic to the notion that alcoholism is a
disease. I'm not sure they're quite ready to believe that drug addiction is
a disease.
REP JIM RAMSTAD, (R), MINNESOTA (Washington) Well, unfortunately there's a
greater stigma in some quarters attached to drug addiction. The fact is
that whether your drug of choice is alcohol, as mine was, or marijuana or
cocaine or whatever, it's all the same, it's all about chemical abuse and
chemical dependency. If a person is totally chemically dependent then he or
she does suffer from a disease that's long been recognized by the American
Medical Association as such and we as policymakers have to start treating
substance abuse, chemical dependency as a disease.
TED KOPPEL That's going to be a problem, Judge Kaye, isn't it because it's
a very slippery slope and very easy to get to the point where then the
logical extension of all of that is to decriminalize drug use?
JUDGE JUDITH KAYE Oh, I don't think so at all and there are many offenders,
violent offenders in particular who should be punished with incarceration.
TED KOPPEL No, no, no. That's too easy, judge. I'm not talking about
violent offenders. I'm talking about simply someone who is a user of drugs.
If there's another crime involved, obviously that's no problem. But let's
say the only crime is the use of crack or the use of cocaine or the use of
heroin. If you were to say that in each of those instances we are going to
treat those people as though they had heart disease or emphysema or cancer,
then is it not logical at some point that you would say if, indeed, this is
a chronic disease we shouldn't be sending people like that to jail.
JUDGE JUDITH KAYE Fair enough, but we're not going to treat every single
non-violent offender, substance abuser who comes through the criminal
courts as diseased. Many of them are and it's just not right to incarcerate
diseased people who will simply come out the other end as substance abusers
again and be recycled through the system again. The real problem is to
identify those who are suffering from the disease of substance abuse and
help them help themselves to cure the disease.
TED KOPPEL Congressman Ramstad, let's move to an area that I know is very
near and dear to your heart and that is the notion of legalizing or making
mandatory that insurance companies would have to pay for the treatment of,
and are you talking about both drug and alcohol addicts?
REP JIM RAMSTAD That's right. We're talking about substance abusers who are
covered by insurance policies. We do not believe they should be
discriminated against vis-a-vis people with other diseases or surgical
services. And all our legislation, the Substance Abuse Treatment Parity Act
does is provide for parity, saying you cannot erect barriers for treatment
for chemical dependency that you don't have for physical diseases. You have
to treat them the same. Right now there are higher co-payments, higher
deductibles, limited treatment stays. It's alarming, Ted, that over the
last decade because of this phenomenon, these barriers that have been
created by the insurance companies, 50 percent of the treatment centers in
America have closed. Sixty percent of adolescent treatment centers have
closed. People don't have access to treatment. Right now there are 26
million Americans suffering the ravages of chemical addiction, 10 percent
of our population and 16 million of them are covered by insurance policies
which have these barriers. We need to knock down those barriers and we need
to provide access to treatment for those addicts/alcoholics.
TED KOPPEL Judge Kaye, you were giving me the impression before that some
sort of a distinction has to be made, though, in your courts even, that you
will not simply accept the claim of every drug addict who comes through
your court that he or she is sick, addicted.
JUDGE JUDITH KAYE That is true.
TED KOPPEL All right. Now how do you make that distinction and if you care
to address it, having made that distinction, does that mean that those
people who don't qualify in your court also wouldn't qualify for insurance
coverage?
JUDGE JUDITH KAYE Well I don't know the answer about insurance coverage,
but in the court system of course we make judgments all the time. That's
what judges do. We make the very fine judgment as to which of these people
would benefit from the program, which of these people, in effect, suffer
the disease of substance abuse and will merely, well, they'll be marching
to a drumbeat-drugs, crime, jail, drugs, crime, jail. And those are the
people we're looking for, the people who we can help to break this terrible
recycling, terrible for the courts, terrible for the defendants, terrible
for all of society.
TED KOPPEL Congressman Ramstad, I know you want to get in here. We're going
to take a short break and
I've got a question I want to ask you when we come back. More, in a moment.
(Commercial Break)
TED KOPPEL And we're back once again with the chief judge of New York
State, Judith Kaye, and with Minnesota Representative Jim Ramstad.
Congressman Ramstad, you heard the judge say before the break that she and
other judges and district attorneys make sort of ad hoc decisions as to who
should or should not qualify for treatment rather than jail, but you can't
make laws that way. I mean when you're making legislation, you can't sort
of leave it up to the insurance company to decide well this person ought to
go to jail but this person deserves treatment.
REP JIM RAMSTAD Well, first of all, let me say as chairman of the House Law
Enforcement Caucus and as one who has certainly followed a tough law and
order stance, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, that is,
incarceration and treatment. We have to deal with both, Ted, and I do not
support decriminalization of drugs. I think that sends exactly the wrong
message to our young people, makes the jobs of parenting, it would be a
disaster, I believe. But having said that, I think what we need to do is
to, if you look at the population in the American prisons, 1.2 million
people incarcerated tonight in America, 80 percent of them are there
because of drugs and/or alcohol. Now, we've got to very, at the very outset
concentrated on people already in prison because most of those prisoners at
some point are going to get out and if we don't deal with the underlying
drug and alcohol problem when they're in prison, we're just going to have
more hardened criminals when they're released.
TED KOPPEL But you understand, Congressman, better than most that society
doesn't really want to hear that. Society does not want to spend money on
rehabilitation. Society wants to spend money on warehousing. Get those
people off the street, get them off my block.
REP JIM RAMSTAD Well, that's part of our job as policymakers, we have to
educate and I agree with you, Ted, that America right now is numbed to the
pervasiveness of this drug and alcohol problem. We need to do a better job
of educating them and we need to also, I must say the level of
understanding of this problem and of treatment is much higher in the
Minnesota legislature than it is in the Congress of the United States a few
blocks from here.
TED KOPPEL Let me come after you for a moment because I think you're, the
beginning of your answer was a little bit facile. In other words, I
understand it's politically advisable to say that you are not in favor of
the decriminalization of drugs or the legalization of drugs and I
understand why you say that. But if, indeed, we are taking the position, if
these doctors and scientists take the position that what you are dealing
with is not criminals but people who have a disease, then on what basis are
we sending those people to jail, assuming, of course, that they haven't
held somebody up, that they haven't killed somebody, that they haven't
injured somebody? In other words, if another crime has been committed while
they were under the influence of drugs, different story. But simply the
drug user.
REP JIM RAMSTAD I committed disorderly conduct during my last alcoholic
blackout, as you mentioned at the top of this program. I went into
treatment. I didn't go to jail. Judge Kaye deals with first offenders,
non-violent property offenders for the most part, who are addicts, and
sends them to treatment. We have to deal, I think as Judge Kay pointed out,
on a case by case basis at the judicial level with non-violent first time
offenders who happen to be addicts or alcoholics. We need to deal with
their underlying problem of their addiction or they're going to come back
as more hardened offenders later on.
TED KOPPEL And yet, Judge Kaye, in every other respect, discretion is being
taken out of the hands of judges. It's three strikes and you're out, it's
mandatory sentencing. Why is this going to be the exception across the nation?
JUDGE JUDITH KAYE Well, not everything is mandatory. As you point out, some
things are, but by and large, what judges do is tailor made and depends
very much on the exercise, the individual exercise of discretion by judges
and ...
TED KOPPEL And so if I get a good judge, I'm lucky. If I get a bad judge or
an intemperate judge, I'm unlucky, right?
JUDGE JUDITH KAYE Oh, no.
TED KOPPEL That doesn't sound like a very good system.
JUDGE JUDITH KAYE No, it is a good system. We do depend enormously on the
discretion of judges and at the same time the enforcement of the law and
here we are finding an effective way to enforce the law and at the same
time to help people who are sick and not criminals but ill people.
TED KOPPEL Again, I just want to come back one more time, Congressman, to
the notion of this legislation that you and Senator Wellstone want to pass
here because you can leave certain things up to the discretion of judges,
but the insurance companies are going to want something definite. They're,
you know, you're not going to be able to leave this up to the discretion of
insurance companies as to whether someone is or is not sick. How are you
going to define that?
REP JIM RAMSTAD Just like any other disease. Medical doctors at treatment
centers make a diagnosis just like they do for heart disease or diabetes or
kidney disease. They diagnose people either chemically dependent, that is
sick with the disease of alcoholism and drug addiction or not. So that's up
to the local physicians, the chemical dependency professionals who make
these diagnoses every day.
TED KOPPEL Congressman Ramstad, Judge Kaye, thanks very much indeed.
Copyright ABCNews
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Smoking Is An Informed, Pleasurable Choice (Excellent Op-Ed
In 'San Jose Mercury News' Says Congress's Settlement With Tobacco Industry
Isn't A Public Health Issue, It's A Private Behavior Modification Regimen -
The Settlement Is Founded On The Idea That Individuals Aren't Responsible
For Their Own Actions - In Fact, As Kip Viscusi Of Harvard Meticulously Shows
In His Book, 'Smoking - Making The Risky Decision,' Americans,
Including Smokers, Have Been Brainwashed Into Thinking It's Worse
Than It Really Is - It's Easier To Quit Smoking Than To Lose Weight -
'Smokers Save Society 32 Cents A Pack,' Mainly Through Reduced Nursing Home
And Social Security Costs, Plus Another 53 Cents In Taxes - Lifetime Risks
Of Getting Lung Cancer From Smoking Are Roughly One In 10, But Smokers
See Them As 3.7 In 10 - The Risk Of Dying Prematurely From Smoking
Is Between 18 Percent And 36 Percent, But Survey Respondents Put It
At 54 Percent)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:14:04 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US CA: OPED: Smoking Is An Informed, Pleasurable Choice
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Marcus-Mermelstein Family
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Pubdate: Wed, 18 Mar 1998
Author: James K. Glassman
SMOKING IS AN INFORMED, PLEASURABLE CHOICE
HAVING just about completed its No. 1 legislative task of the year
-providing nearly $200 billion to the states in a pork-greased
transportation bill -- Congress is now ready to tackle task No. 2: the
tobacco settlement.
Watch out. Politicians see the $368.5 billion deal as a huge pile of cash
for new spending projects. But far worse is the idea on which the
settlement is founded: that individuals aren't responsible for their own
actions. They are too stupid or crazed or manipulated to realize that
smoking is dangerous.
This view, so satisfying to elitists of all political stripes, is flat-out
wrong. Americans know that smoking kills, as Kip Viscusi of Harvard
meticulously shows in his book, ``Smoking: Making the Risky Decision.'' In
fact, they think that smoking is worse than it really is.
Lifetime risks of getting lung cancer through smoking are roughly 1 in 10,
but smokers see them as 3.7 in 10, Viscusi found. The risk of dying
prematurely from smoking is between 18 percent and 36 percent, but survey
respondents put it at 54 percent. Also, he writes, ``There is certainly no
evidence of greater neglect of smoking risks by the very young. Indeed, the
opposite is the case.''
Viscusi has also found that, far from costing the rest of us money,
``smokers save society 32 cents a pack,'' mainly through reduced nursing
home and Social Security costs (since they die earlier), plus another 53
cents in taxes.
But for anti-smoking zealots, it's not enough. President Clinton put the
case perfectly and chillingly last September: ``This is about changing the
behavior of the United States the behavior of the American people.''
Fully informed for many years that smoking can kill, about one-fourth of
Americans smoke, anyway. Are they nuts? No, they are making what they
believe is a reasonable decision -- the pleasures of smoking outweigh its
dangers.
We make decisions all the time that seek to balance pleasure with the risk
of harm -- having another piece of pecan pie even though it will raise
cholesterol and perhaps kill us quicker, skipping exercise to watch a TV
show, drinking more coffee or alcohol than we should.
Speaking of drink, the Centers for Disease Control calculates that alcohol,
since it kills people in their prime, deprives Americans of 1.5 million
years of life before age 65, compared with 1.2 million years for smoking.
Worse, drinking kills and injures other people.
Smoking, like drinking, can be addictive, and some people have a hard time
quitting. But people do it. There are now as many ex-smokers as active
smokers. It seems to be easier to stop smoking than to lose weight and keep
it off.
There is not the slightest doubt that, after they have finished with
smokers, the health police will proceed to drinkers, chubbies,
sport-utility drivers and on and on.
Sure, there's a role for government in protecting the public health, but as
the Economist said Dec. 20, ``Smoking is not like tuberculosis or air
pollution or drunken driving; it is not, strictly speaking, a public-health
or public-safety problem at all. Rather, like motorcycling or overeating or
skiing, it is a private health problem.''
In his superb new book ``For Your Own Good,'' Jacob Sullum writes: ``The
true nature of the crusade for a smoke-free society is an attempt by one
group of people to impose their tastes and preferences on another.'' No
matter what Congress decides, he writes, the crusade will continue
``because it is aimed at the behavior of individuals, not the behavior of
corporations.''
Exactly. I have no sympathy for the companies. First they lied; now they're
acting in a cowardly fashion. Rather than standing up for the principle of
individual choice and responsibility, they are leaping to pay a finite
penalty, however huge, so they can boost their languishing stock prices.
Meanwhile, the anti-smoking hysteria is laying waste to basic protections
and principles. For example, juries for decades denied claims against
tobacco companies, since smokers knew what they were doing was risky. So
the states, led by Florida, simply changed the rules.
``In a stroke,'' writes Sullum, ``the (Florida) law eliminated the
industry's most effective defenses. The state did not have to prove that a
single case of illness was actually caused by a defendant's product, and
the tobacco companies could not point out that people voluntarily choose to
smoke.'' Maryland is pushing similar changes.
But where's the outrage? Every business in America is threatened by the
precedent of the tobacco settlement. Every individual is threatened, too,
as the liberal ideals on which this country was founded -- freedom of
choice, personal accountability, limited government -- are trampled in a
stampede by some to get others to behave the way they want.
Let's kill the settlement and end the hysteria now.
James K. Glassman is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He
wrote this article for the Washington Post.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DrugSense Weekly, Number 38 (Summary Of Drug Policy News For Activists,
Including Original Commentary)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:08:00 -0800
To: mgreer@mapinc.org
From: Mark Greer (MGreer@mapinc.org)
Subject: DrugSense Weekly March 18, 1998 #038
***
DRUGSENSE WEEKLY
***
DrugSense Weekly
March 18, 1998
#038
A DrugSense publication
http://www.drugsense.org
***
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Feature Article
Federal Threat to 215 to Draw Patients From Across State to March and Rally
in San Francisco
***
Weekly News In Review
Medical Marijuana-
Hallinan: Let The City pass out pot if clubs close
Nevada Ballot Proposal Would Allow Medical Marijuana Use
Tobacco-
Don't forget the already addicted smokers
Law Enforcement-
Deportation Shatters Family
Forfeiture-
Editorial: Forfeiture Law Abused
International News -
Canada: LeDain Stands by '71 Report
Canada Lifts Ban On Commercial Hemp Cultivation
UK: Straw Rejects Review Of Laws On Cannabis As New MPs Own Up
Ireland: Gardai In Drugs War Opposed To Legalising Cannabis
Australia: PM Pledges Extra $100M For Drug War
New Zealand: When The Smoke Clears
Hot Off The 'Net
DrugSense Goes International
DrugSense Tip Of The Week
An Easy way of Searching for Letter Writing Material
Quote Of The Week
***
FEATURE ARTICLE
***
March 16, 1998
Federal Threat to 215 to Draw Patients From Across State to March and Rally
in San Francisco
By Michael Schelenberger
Communication Works
San Francisco CA
Patients, Religious Leaders and Political Officials to Pray, March and
Rally in Defense of Safe Access: Tuesday, March 24
SAN FRANCISCO - In a dramatic showdown between federal law and states
rights, medical marijuana patients, religious leaders, and political
officials from across California will converge in San Francisco on Tuesday,
March 24, to protest a federal lawsuit that threatens to close six major
dispensaries that provide marijuana to more than 11,000 sick and dying
people.
"The federal government must realize the grave results of providing no
alternative source for legal marijuana: either patients will resort to
street dealing and use or will be deprived of a recognized and effective
medical treatment," said San Francisco Supervisor Gavin Newsom, who will
speak at the rally. "I join the efforts of those opposed to this
ill-conceived backlash."
On March 24, medical marijuana advocates have planned a series of public
events to coincide with the first hearing in the U.S. suit filed against
six cannabis patient clubs in Oakland, San Francisco, Santa Cruz and in
Marin and Mendocino counties. Medical marijuana supporters, including 65
patients bussed in from Los Angeles, will march from the heart of the
Castro District to the U.S. Federal Court House downtown. A press
conference featuring passionate testimony and speeches by a doctors,
patients, and local politicians will be held on the court house steps
urging safe access to medical marijuana.
Since California voters approved an initiative allowing marijuana for
medical use in 1996, local and state authorities - many of whom have worked
with community groups to implement safe medical marijuana distribution
systems for the seriously ill - have repeatedly locked horns with the
Clinton administration. The federal government has sought to permanently
squelch cannabis dispensaries on the grounds that their operations violate
federal drug laws, but has offered no alternative distribution system.
Caught in the crossfire are suffering and dying people who depend on
marijuana to treat deadly illnesses like AIDS and cancer.
"While much is uncertain about how marijuana will be legally supplied, one
thing is abundantly clear: Thousands of seriously ill and disabled
Californians will be put in grave peril if these non-profit community-based
programs are closed," said Scott Imler, Co-Chair of the California
Conference of Medical Cannabis Providers. Imler's group is organizing the
March 24 events, along with the Medical Marijuana Patients and Caregivers
Fund, and the D.C.-based Common Sense for Drug Policy, among others.
The full schedule of events is as follows:
Los Angeles: Monday, March 23
What: Midnight Ride for Medical Rights
When: 11:00 p.m.
Where: Depart from the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center in West
Hollywood, 7494 Santa Monica Blvd, #215 at Gardner. Stop briefly at
Metropolitan Community Church Headquarters, 8714 Santa Monica
Blvd. at La Cienega Blvd., for additional riders.
San Francisco: Tuesday March 24
Prayer Breakfast for Medical Rights
When: 8:00 a.m.
Where: Metropolitan Community Church, 150 Eureka St. at 18th St.
Who: Speakers will include: (IN PROGRESS)
"Keep Faith with the Voters": A Patients March for Medical Rights
When: 11:00 a.m.
Where: Start at Harvey Milk Memorial Rainbow Flag Pole on the corner of
Market and Castro streets. March will proceed down Market St. to the
National AIDS Update Conference at the Civic Auditorium, 99 Grove St. at
Polk
Press Conference and Rally, followed by Federal Courthouse Vigil
When: 12:00 p.m., Noon
Where: U.S. Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate St. at Larkin St.
Who: Speakers will include: SF Supervisor Gavin Newsom, SF Supervisor
Tom Ammiano, Dixie Ramagno, medical marijuana patient (IN PROGRESS)
Statewide Unity Supper
When: 5:00 p.m.
Where: Metropolitan Community Church, 150 Eureka St.
Who: This event is sponsored by the California Conference of Medical
Cannabis Providers and will be hosted by San Francisco's Medical Marijuana
Delivery Service.
***
WEEKLY NEWS IN REVIEW
***
Medical Marijuana
***
Hallinan: Let The City Pass Out Pot If Clubs Close
COMMENT:
Possibly a very important development; should this come to pass, it would
be the first-ever direct confrontation between two governments over the
issue. As such, it could certainly prove interesting, and, if nothing else,
would show the depth of the federal government's commitment to keeping
marijuana illegal.
HALLINAN: LET THE CITY PASS OUT POT IF CLUBS CLOSE
If the federal government shuts down California's marijuana clubs, city
health workers could be called on to distribute the drug to patients who
need it, San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan said Saturday.
The former city supervisor and outspoken backer of medical marijuana made
the suggestion in court papers he Plans to file Monday in U.S. District
Court in San Francisco in an effort to keep open The City's pot clubs-
under siege by the courts and the U.S. Justice Department.
[snip]
Mitchell Katz, director of the San Francisco Health Department, said the
proposal remains "a hypothetical," but he expressed support for the
concept.
[snip]
The proposal, which would have to be approved by the Board of Supervisors,
could make San Francisco the first city in the world actively to provide
marijuana to its citizens and would continue The City's reputation as a
municipal maverick and testing ground for progressive ideas.
[snip]
Board of Supervisors President Barbara Kaufman said she had not heard
Hallinan's suggestion, but said the board would seriously consider it if
pot clubs in the area were closed down.
[snip]
Source: San Francisco Examiner
Pub Date: March 15, 1998
Byline: Zachary Coile
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n184.a07.html
***
Nevada Ballot Proposal Would Allow Medical Marijuana Use
COMMENT:
Another AMR initiative, this one a two-step process in Nevada. Reading the
full article reveals the AMR fingerprint: detailed concessions to potential
critics written into the language of the initiative. He who pays, calls the
tune.
NEVADA BALLOT PROPOSAL WOULD ALLOW MEDICAL MARIJUANA USE
CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) -- A ballot proposal to allow marijuana use
by Nevadans with serious health problems was filed here Friday --
following a lawsuit to ensure a lot of money can be spent on the
ballot campaign.
[snip]
The AMR is the same group that launched a successful 1996 medical
marijuana petition in California. But a big legal battle developed
over distribution through ``cannabis clubs.''
Dan Hart of Las Vegas, who is heading the signature-gathering for
the Nevada initiative, said the problems that occurred in
California shouldn't happen here.
[snip]
Hart must collect 46,764 signatures by Aug. 5 to get the proposal
on the ballot. Voters would have to approve the plan this November
and again in November 1990 before the Nevada Constitution could be
revised.
Source: The Associated Press
Pubdate: Sat, 14 Mar 1998
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n184.a01.html
***
Tobacco-
***
Don't forget the already addicted smokers
COMMENT:
This op-ed, part of the Clinton Administration's "plan" for the tobacco
settlement, will appear in other papers next week. Unfortunately, to avoid
indirectly casting aspersions on the drug war, the "plan" has no substance
as coherent policy. It calls for a weakened, vilified tobacco industry
selling ever less of its demonized product, and yet paying enough taxes to
give the nation a positive cash flow. Yeah, sure.
On a more human level, Koop doesn't explain why nicotine addicts rate more
human concern than heroin addicts- must be because they're "legally"
addicted.
DON'T FORGET THE ALREADY ADDICTED SMOKERS
C. EVERETT KOOP
To date, most of the tobacco control efforts of this administration have
focused on preventing young people from taking up smoking. Everyone can
agree that teen-agers and younger children should not smoke. Even the
tobacco industry can safely join in that refrain, and frequently does, with
characteristic and clamorous hypocrisy.
[snip]
If we pretend that adult smoking is a consumer choice like any other, we
fall prey to the trap laid by Big Tobacco. Addiction makes the very notion
of choice moot. Who would freely choose sickness and suffering, lost
productivity or 50 percent chance of premature death?
[snip]
Source: San Mateo County Times
Date: March 13, 1998
Page A 9
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n184.a04.html
***
Law Enforcement-
***
Deportation Shatters Family
COMMENT:
This story poignantly reveals the self-righteous malevolence and inhumanity
of current federal law enforcement.
DEPORTATION SHATTERS FAMILY
Gerardo Anthony Mosquera Jr. was a good boy in a tough
neighborhood, his parents say. He took his studies seriously,
enjoyed sports, stayed away from drugs and worked after school to
help support his struggling family, which included three younger
siblings and an infant son.
That the 17-year-old junior at Bell Gardens High School would put a
bullet through his brain still seems inconceivable, says his
distraught family, except for one painful fact: Gerardo had been
despondent since his father--Gerardo Antonio Mosquera Sr., a legal
resident of the United States for 29 years--was deported in
December back to his native Colombia, part of a rising nationwide
tide of such expulsions. The father was removed because of a 1989
conviction for selling a $10 bag of marijuana--enough for one pot
cigarette--to a paid police informant.
[snip]
Authorities say he has no one but himself to blame. Officials at
the U.S. Embassy in Bogota denied him permission to return
temporarily for his son's funeral today.
[snip]
Source: Los Angeles Times
Pubdate: Saturday, March 14, 1998
Author: Patrick J. Mcdonnell, Times Staff Writer
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Fax: 213-237-4712
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n180.a12.html
***
Forfeiture-
***
Editorial: Forfeiture Law Abused
COMMENT:
This article from Waco indicates that there is belated recognition, even
in the heartland, that law enforcement can't be entrusted with a license
to extort property in the name of the drug war. Their admission that the
press was asleep at the wheel" when the law was passed is refreshing.
FORFEITURE LAW ABUSED
Overzealous Law Enforcement Unfairly Confiscates Property
If Congress members were asleep at the wheel when they gave law
enforcement a new crime-fighting tool in the 1980s, then so were
the nation's newspapers, civil libertarians and others who attempt
to guard the public from government abuses.
[snip]
It turns out that the warnings that the law could be easily abused
by overzealous law enforcement were right. Congress needs to
correct the mistake it made when it passed the asset-forfeiture
law.
[snip]
Police have used the forfeiture law as a way to enrich their
departments with seized property. This has led to law-abiding
citizens being victimized by police.
[snip]
Source: Waco Tribune-Herald
Contact: letters@mail.iamerica.net
Fax: 254.757.0302
Pubdate: Fri, 13 Mar 1998
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n180.a07.html
***
International News
COMMENT:
In the world beyond America, drugs and drug policy remain very much in the
news. There is a growing ferment at the grass roots level for either
legalization or decriminalization. This is being resisted by government
with similar rhetoric, but varying intensity, in every English speaking
country. I've tried to include representative articles from Britain and its
former colonies, as counterpoint to the weekly potpourri of American
outrages.
***
Canada: LeDain Stands by '71 Report
COMMENT:
Any one who has struggled through the LeDain report knows the Commission
set great store on differentiating between users and traffickers,
indicating they hadn't a clue about the role of prohibition law in creating
a criminal market to begin with. Nevertheless, their heart was in the right
place, and LeDain hasn't changed his mind.
LEDAIN STANDS BY '71 REPORT
The LeDain Commission was set up by the federal government in 1969
as the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-medical Use of Drugs. It
issued four reports including one in 1971 on cannabis, which
recommended that simple possession of cannabis and cultivation for
personal use be permitted, but importation and trafficking remain a
crime.
[snip]
"The heart of the study was, why should cannabis be treated so
harshly compared to tobacco and alcohol?" says LeDain, who was one
of three on the five-person commission who wrote the majority
opinion.
Virtually none of the commission's recommendations were made into
law, something LeDain blames on politicians.
[snip]
Source: Edmonton Sun (Canada)
Pubdate: Sun, 8 Mar 1998
Author: Kerry Diotte
Contact: sun.letters@ccinet.ab.ca .
Website: http://www.canoe.ca/EdmontonSun/
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n182.a01.html
***
Canada Lifts Ban On Commercial Hemp Cultivation
COMMENT:
What's significant here is that the commentary is by the Minister of
Health, not Agriculture.
CANADA LIFTS BAN ON COMMERCIAL HEMP CULTIVATION
TORONTO, March 13 (Reuters) - A 60-year-old ban on commercial hemp
cultivation in Canada was lifted on Friday, paving the way for the
tiny domestic research industry to transform itself into an
international supplier of the raw material.
"For the first time in 60 years, Canadian farmers who meet the
required provisions can now plan to grow hemp this spring," said
Canadian Health Minister Allan Rock in a statement.
[snip]
Source: Reuters
Pubdate: March 13, 1998
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n184.a03.html
***
UK: Straw Rejects Review Of Laws On Cannabis As New MPs Own Up
COMMENT:
The improbably named Jack Straw had his troubles added to by a poll of new
members of Parliament. The Independent is showing how one committed media
source can make a difference.
STRAW REJECTS REVIEW OF LAWS ON CANNABIS AS NEW MPS OWN UP
The Home Secretary, Jack Straw, ruled out a Royal commission to
review drug laws after one in five new MPs who responded to a
survey admitted they had smoked cannabis.
Campaigners for decriminalisation of the drug were given a further
boost when a Tory MP, David Prior, said he had used it when he was
in his 20s and admitted: "Yes, I did inhale".
[snip]
Writing in the 'Independent on Sunday', which has been campaigning
for reform, the MP for North Norfolk, who is the son of the former
cabinet minister Lord Prior, said the law was inconsistently
enforced and widely ignored.
"I associate my experience with drugs [soft ones] not with Mick
Jagger or Aldous Huxley but with passing my law degree and working
in a bank," he said.
[snip]
Source: Scotsman (UK)
Pubdate: Mon, 16 Mar 1998
Author: Gavin Cordon
Contact: Letters_ts@scotsman.com
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n186.a05.html
***
Ireland: Gardai In Drugs War Opposed To Legalising Cannabis
COMMENT:
The quotes from this law enforcement worthy are straight from mid-fifties
America; they might have been uttered by the late HJA himself.
GARDAI IN DRUG WAR OPPOSED TO LEGALISING CANNABIS
GARDAI Commissioner, Pat Byrne, has pledged to continue the fight
against Munster's drug dealers after over £6m was seized by members
of the National Drugs Unit in Operation Blackwater in the past two
months.
[snip]
Speaking in Cork, the Garda Commissioner also hit out at media
commentators calling for the legalisation of cannabis.
"Commentators who criticise the use of Garda resources seizing
cannabis worth millions of pounds as being wasteful seem clear in
their objectives. They promote a supposed soft drug as being
harmless and advise the Gardai to concentrate on heroin or drugs
that are perceived as being more dangerous.
"However Garda research shows that cannabis is used as a gateway
drug and that there is a very strong connection between drug taking
and crime," Commissioner Byrne said.
Garda research showed that among addicts, cannabis was the initial
drug for just over 50%.
[snip]
Source: The Examiner (Ireland)
Pubdate: Thu, 12 Mar 1998
Author: Gardai in drugs war opposed to legalising cannabis
Contact: exam_letters@examiner.ie
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n180.a05.html
***
Australia: PM Pledges Extra $100M For Drug War
COMMENT:
In Australia, prohibitionist premier Howard has struggled manfully, and
thus far successfully, to keep the lid on pressure for liberalization. He
shot down the heroin trial last summer; this is more of the same.
PM PLEDGES EXTRA $100M FOR DRUG WAR
The Prime Minister yesterday committed an extra $101.6 million over
the next four years to alleviate the enormous personal and
financial cost to the community of drug abuse, bringing the funding
for his "tough on drugs" campaign to almost $190 million.
But any moves to decriminalise drug use remain firmly on the
backburner, with Mr Howard's hand-picked Australian National Council on
Drugs - also revealed yesterday - told it must adhere to
his "zero tolerance" credo.
[snip]
Source: Sydney Morning Herald
Pubdate: Tue, 17 Mar 1998
Author: Tom Allard
Contact:(letters@smh.com.au)
Web:(http://www.smh.com.au)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n187.a12.html
***
When The Smoke Clears
COMMENT:
A dream interview with a reformer. David Hadorn was able to deliver an
unopposed indictment of current US policy along with a plea for local
decriminalization.
WHEN THE SMOKE CLEARS
A group of prominent New Zealand scientists and professionals say
that it's high time cannabis was treated the same way as alcohol
and tobacco.
[snip]
Hadorn is convinced there is a mood for change in New Zealand. That
optimism has been shored up recently by the leaked 15-year WHO
study on cannabis which confirmed that cannabis is safer than
alcohol and tobacco.
[snip]
But even if the Government was prepared to risk the political
fallout by considering cannabis reform, it would face huge pressure
from the US to abort any liberalisation..
[snip]
Source: New Zealand Listener
Pubdate: March 21-27, 1998
Author: Noel O'Hare
Contact: editor@listener.co.nz
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n186.a10.html
***
HOT OFF THE 'NET
***
DrugSense goes international
http://www.mbp.org/
The ideas and concepts developed by the DrugSense organization are
spreading rapidly. The first known European effort has been launched at:
http://www.mbp.org/
This exciting page is an attempt to not only gather and further distribute
drug related news but to translate it into numerous languages and to
coordinate multi-national and multi-lingual letter writing efforts.
It is the first serious attempt to create a European version of DrugSense
and MAP efforts. This is a very challenging undertaking and we encourage
and support the efforts of Jörg Jenetzky (jj@hanf.org) in getting the
project going.
***
TIP OF THE WEEK
***
An Easy way of Searching for Letter Writing Material
http://www.mapinc.org/lte/
The above URL is a collection of over 700 published letters and articles written
by DrugSense volunteers as part of The Media Awareness Project. This
searchable archive is an extremely valuable research tool for new letter
writers, those wanting to research a letter writing effort, and for those
wishing to help recruit and point out the significant accomplishments that
the reform movement is achieving.
***
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
***
"...First, is the dangers of futility; the belief there is nothing one man
or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills--
against misery and ignorance, injustice and violence. Yet many of the
world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work
of a single man. -Robert F. Kennedy, "Day of Affirmation," address
delivered at the University of Capetown, South Africa, June 6, 1966,
'Congressional Record,' June 6, 1966, vol. 112, p. 12430.
***
DS Weekly is one of the many free educational services
DrugSense offers our members. Watch this feature to learn
more about what DrugSense can do for you.
Editor: Tom O'Connell (tjeffoc@drugsense.org)
Senior-Editor: Mark Greer (mgreer@drugsense.org)
We wish to thank all our contributors and Newshawks.
NOTICE:
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes.
REMINDER:
Please help us help reform. Send any news articles you
find on any drug related issue to editor@mapinc.org
PLEASE HELP:
DrugSense provides this service at no charge BUT IT IS NOT
FREE TO PRODUCE.
We incur many costs in creating our many and varied
services. If you are able to help by contributing to the
DrugSense effort please Make checks payable to MAP Inc.
send your contribution to:
The Media Awareness Project (MAP) Inc.
d/b/a DrugSense
PO Box 651
Porterville,
CA 93258
(800) 266 5759
MGreer@mapinc.org
http://www.mapinc.org
http://www.drugsense.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[End]
to 1998 Daily News index for March 12-18