-------------------------------------------------------------------
Can Weeds And Bark Be Better Than Drugs? (Staff Editorial In Vancouver,
Washington, 'Columbian' Casts A Skeptical Eye On The Recent
Anti-Medical Marijuana Copfest In Eugene, Oregon, Featuring
Both Of Oregon's US Senators, Wyden And Smith)
The Columbian
701 W. Eighth St.
Vancouver WA 98666
Tel. (360) 694-2312
Or (360) 699-6000, Ext. 1560, to leave a recorded opinion
>From Portland: (503) 224-0654
Fax: (360) 699-6033
E-mail: editors@columbian.com
Web: http://www.columbian.com/
In Our View: Tuesday, April 21, 1998
Can weeds and bark be better than drugs?
Quite a distinguished company of cops and prosecutors and politicians and
drug company representatives gathered in Eugene last week to bemoan the
possibility that Oregon voters might decide that pot is all right for people
wasting away from cancer, AIDS and other evil ailments.
They did not challenge the evidence that marijuana smoke stimulates the
appetite in people with wasting syndrome. U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden and Gordon
Smith and a spokesman for a firm that distills one essence of pot into
expensive little Marinol pills argued that people should not be allowed to
smoke or ingest or inject anything not produced by government-regulated
industries.
Lonnie Bristow, former president of the American Medical Association and now
a consultant for Roxane, which makes Marinol, said efforts to allow
medicinal uses of pot are akin to a doctor telling a patient to chew on tree
bark to cure a disease. "We used to do that 100 years ago," Bristow said.
By delectable coincidence, the Journal of the American Medical Association
was just then on the street with a Toronto study showing that bad reactions
to prescription and over-the-counter medicines kill 100,000 Americans a year
and seriously injure 2.1 million. Not counting prescribing errors or drug
abuse, bad medicine is the sixth leading cause of death. Among people taking
legal drugs under medical supervision, 6.7 percent have serious reactions
and 0.32 percent die. Add in the more than 300,000 deaths usually attributed
to the smoking drug that the government does permit, tax and regulate, and
the tally gets pretty grim.
Killer street dope, the threat of which constitutes the leading argument
behind the war on drugs, accounted for fewer than 10,000 deaths in the same
year; that includes 4,000 heroin junkies who overdosed. Amid all the hooraw
about what terrible things medical use of marijuana might do to the fabric
of society was not a single account of any death attributable to smoking pot
to reduce nausea or chewing on willow bark to ease a headache. Stomach
bleeding from frequent doses of aspirin, a concoction expensively derived
from willow bark, is among the more pervasive effects of store-bought,
regulated drugs.
-- D. Michael Heywood, for the editorial board
-------------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco Cannabis Club Officially Shut Down, Grand Reopening Today
('San Francisco Chronicle' Version)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:34:50 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US CA: S.F. Cannabis Club Officially Shut Down, Grand Reopening Today
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Contact: chronletters@sfgate.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Pubdate: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
Author: Glen Martin, Chronicle Staff Writer
S.F. CANNABIS CLUB OFFICIALLY SHUT DOWN, GRAND REOPENING TODAY
It could have been a scene out of ``Evita'' -- throngs of people standing
on the street, shaking their fists in the air and bellowing: ``PER-ON!
PER-ON!''
But they weren't screaming for Juan Peron, the charismatic Argentine
dictator of the 1940s and '50s. They were screaming for Dennis Peron, the
elfin, white-haired, pot-huffing director of the San Francisco Cannabis
Cultivator's Club -- which until its closing yesterday was the biggest
medical marijuana outlet in the country.
The shuttering of the Market Street club was the result of an order issued
last week by San Francisco Superior Court Judge David Garcia at the request
of California Attorney General Dan Lungren. Bad blood has existed between
Peron -- who authored Proposition 215, the 1996 medical marijuana
initiative -- and Lungren ever since state agents busted Peron's club three
months before the initiative passed.
Peron tried to reassure his acolytes that yesterday's development was all
for the best.
``It's been an honor to lead you, (and) this is a sad moment for me, but
I'm now opening another chapter of my life,'' he said as he stood outside
the club, holding one of his favorite potted marijuana plants. He had to
raise his voice to make himself heard over the cheers and an impromptu dog
fight that had erupted among some of his admirers' pets.
Peron announced that a new club, called the Cannabis Healing Center, will
open today at the site of the old club. It will be directed by 78-year-old
medical marijuana advocate Hazel Rodgers, but it may face legal challenges,
too.
Rodgers received roars of adoration yesterday when she appeared at a
second-story window of the club. She seemed comfortable in her new role.
``At my age, it doesn't matter what I say,'' said Rodgers. ``One thing I
hope to do is to put a new brand of marijuana on the market called `Holy
Smoke.' ''
Peron said yesterday that he will have nothing to do with the management of
the new enterprise and will devote himself instead to running for governor
against Lungren in the upcoming Republican primary.
Dressed in civilian clothes and looking somewhat harried, San Francisco
County Sheriff Michael Hennessey served Peron at around 1:30 p.m. with the
court order to close the club.
Hennessey, a supporter of Proposition 215, said he backed medical marijuana
clubs because he knew sick people who appeared to derive therapeutic
benefit from the plant.
``I believe it is helpful to have well-run clubs,'' Hennessey said, adding
that he also approved of Garcia's ruling because it helped clubs conform to
the tenets of Proposition 215.
Hennessey said he didn't know whether the new club would be legal under
Garcia's order.
``I only follow the orders of the court,'' Hennessey said. ``(Garcia)
ordered (Peron's) club closed on a minor point -- that he was selling to
primary caregivers, as well as patients.''
Because Rodgers' club will only sell to patients, Hennessey said, ``it
could quite possibly meet the letter of the law and the judge's ruling.''
San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan agreed that the future of
the new club is uncertain.
``I hope they can work this out, because I'd like to see those patients
supplied with marijuana in a safe place rather than Dolores Park,''
Hallinan said. ``But it's a civil case rather than a criminal case, so it
can't be decided definitively by a jury. . . . So it can go on a long
time.''
Prior to Hennessey's arrival, Peron roamed the rooms of the cavernous
building that housed his club. His mood appeared both nostalgic and
melancholy. As staff members packed the last pounds of marijuana buds into
a big duffel bag, Peron inspected the basement rooms where hundreds of pot
plants once grew under lights. All that was left were a pile of spindly,
culled plants and a box full of ``shake'' -- low-quality leaves.
``We'll leave this for the deputies to confiscate,'' he said. ``We just
didn't have time to pack it all up.''
Upstairs, some of the club's 9,000 members participated in one last
smoke-a-thon. The atmosphere was festive, bordering on rowdy. But some
members said such uninhibited partying ultimately worked against the
medical marijuana cause.
``It's true that the clubs serve as a social center for the poorer or
socially marginalized members,'' said a man named Matthew, who smokes pot
to ward off the nausea caused by the protease inhibitors he takes to fight
HIV.
``But that's all people see in the media -- dope-smoking hippies,'' he
said. ``At least half of the people who come here to buy marijuana are
suit-wearing professionals like me. What isn't acknowledged is the fact
that medicinal marijuana increases the productivity and tax base for this
city because it lets a lot of people feel well enough to work.''
1998 San Francisco Chronicle
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheriff Reluctantly Shuts Down San Francisco Pot Club
('Associated Press' Version)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 20:13:46 -0300
From: Keith Alan
To: "scyndy.ross@pei.sympatico.ca"
CC: "mattalk@islandnet.com"
Subject: Sheriff reluctantly shuts down San Francisco pot club.
Sheriff reluctantly shuts down San Francisco pot club
April 21, 1998
Web posted at: 2:10 a.m. EDT (0610 GMT)
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A sheriff reluctantly shut down San
Francisco's largest medical marijuana club Monday, as
organizers waited in the wings to reopen under another name.
San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey served Cannabis Cultivators
Club founder Dennis Peron with an order closing down
the operation and ordered the building vacated. Peron and his
followers cooperated peacefully.
Hennessey made it clear he opposed the court order initiated by
state Attorney General Dan Lungren, whom Peron is opposing in a
David vs. Goliath campaign in the Republican gubernatorial
primary.
"I support the medicinal marijuana law in the state of California,
and it does seem this is an attempt to thwart that law," Hennessey
said.
The sheriff also said he would not move against the club's
successor agency, the Cannabis Healing Center, which was
opening under a new director at the same site. "That has nothing to
do with this court order," he said.
Peron started the club four years ago and was a prime mover
behind the successful 1996 drive for the state's medicinal marijuana
law, which allows the sale of marijuana to patients for medical use.
Monday, he emerged from the club with his belongings -- including
a pot plant -- packed in a cardboard box.
"It's been an honor to lead you into a more loving and
compassionate society, and it's very sad for me to have this
moment in my life," Peron said to the shouts of "Peron! Peron!"
from 75 supporters.
The court order to close down the club was based on pot sales to
caregivers, rather than to patients. Peron, who has sold pot to
caregivers, called the issue a technicality that Lungren had seized
on, but took responsibility for the error.
***
http://cnn.com/HEALTH/9702/weed.wars/index2.html Weed Wars
http://cnn.com/US/9704/22/medical.marijuana/index.html San Francisco
club raid reignites conflict over legalized marijuana - April 22, 1997
http://cnn.com/HEALTH/9702/20/nfm/index.html Experts urge new study of
medical uses of marijuana - February 20, 1997
http://cnn.com/US/9701/15/marijuana.club/index.html Patients flock to
Cannabis Club for medicinal fix - January 15, 1997
http://cnn.com/US/9612/24/briefs.pm/drugs.html Source: U.S. won't let
doctors recommend marijuana - December 24, 1996
http://www.lacbc.org/ Los Angeles Cannabis Buyer's Club
http://www.rxcannabis.org/BRXCGC/ Berkeley's Rx. Cannabis Growers
and Buyers Club
http://www.hyperreal.org/drugs/marijuana/medical/ Medical Marijuana
http://www.mpp.org/ Marijuana Policy Project
-------------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco Medicinal Pot Club Closed - For a While
('Sacramento Bee' Version)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:54:20 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US CA: S.F. Medicinal Pot Club Closed -- For a While
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Contact: opinion@sacbee.com
Website: http://www.sacbee.com/
Pubdate: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
Author: John Lyons, Bee Correspondent
S.F. MEDICINAL POT CLUB CLOSED -- FOR A WHILE
Member given building lease so she can reopen
SAN FRANCISCO -- With medical marijuana supporters openly smoking pot
outside, sheriff's deputies shut down this city's busy Cannabis Cultivators
Club on Monday.
But club officials said they'd be back a few hours later under a new name.
The closure was part of an arranged plan to comply with a court ruling
ordering the club's founder, Dennis Peron, to vacate his five-story
marijuana dispensary in downtown San Francisco and quit selling pot.
"We're complying with the letter of the law," said Peron, who claims the
club was operating lawfully under the successful 1996 initiative that
legalized marijuana for medical use in California.
Under the guidance of San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey, about 10
deputies arrived at the club Monday to clear the building and change the
locks to its entrance doors.
Deputies confiscated about 10 boxes of pot paraphernalia, several live
marijuana plants and some smoking devices. No arrests were made.
Hennessey, who supports the club, said his mission was to close the
building and turn its keys over to the building owner. Whatever happened
next was "none of my business," he said, even if the owner gave the keys
back to club members to re-open the operation.
"We are having a cooperative eviction," Hennessey said outside the club.
"I'm sympathetic to medical marijuana users and to the law of the state. A
lot of people in this city support the club and would like to see the law
carried out."
A group of deputies visited the club Friday to prepare for Monday's action,
which came off peacefully as some club members, wearing pro-pot T-shirts,
occasionally chanted "Peron for governor."
Peron is running for the Republican nomination for governor against state
Attorney General Dan Lungren, who brought the civil case against the club
resulting in Monday's closure.
In a deal arranged last week, Peron passed the leadership of the club on to
one of its longtime members, Hazel Rodgers, 79, who says marijuana eases
her suffering from glaucoma. He also gave Rodgers the lease to the club's
downtown San Francisco headquarters with the understanding that she would
quickly reopen the club as the "Cannabis Healing Center."
Superior Court Judge David Garcia ordered the club closed April 15, ruling
that the club was "clearly engaging in the illegal sale of marijuana," by
distributing pot to people who are not recognized as patients -- a key
provision of the state law.
Lungren had no official reaction to Monday's events, a spokesman said.
Peron said the action by the Sheriff's Department was preferable to a
takeover by state drug agents, who raided the club at Lungren's direction
two years ago, and were authorized to close the club this time if the
sheriff declined to act.
Peron also faces criminal charges brought by Lungren in Alameda County, and
is a co-defendant in a federal civil case brought by the U.S. Justice
Department, which is seeking to close down six Northern California pot
clubs.
California's medical marijuana law, known as Proposition 215, legalized the
possession of marijuana by the seriously ill and their caregivers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lungren Forces Largest Pot Club In San Francisco To Close
('Orange County Register' Version Of 'Associated Press' Account)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:08:33 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US CA: Lungren Forces Largest Pot Club in S.F. to Close
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk:John W.Black
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Pubdate: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
Author: Richard Cole - The Associated Press
LUNGREN FORCES LARGEST POT CLUB IN SF TO CLOSE
The sheriff heeds the attorney general's order-then blasts it as 'an
attempt to thwart the law.'
San Francisco-A reluctant sheriff shut down San Francisco's largest medical
marijuana club Monday as organizers waited in the wings to reopen under
another name.
San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey served Cannabis Cultivators Club
founder Dennis Peron with an order closing down the operation shortly after
1 p.m. and ordered the building vacated.Peron and his followers cooperated
peacefully.
Hennessey made it clear he personally opposed the court order initiated by
state Attorney General Dan Lungren, whom Peron is opposing in a David vs.
Goliath campaign in the Republican gubernatorial primary.
"I support the medicinal marijuana law in the state of California, and it
does seem this is an attempt to thwart that law," Hennessey said.
The sheriff also said he would not move against the club's successor
agency, the Cannabis Healing Center, which was opening under a new director
at the same site.
"That has nothing to do with this court order," Hennessey said.
Peron started the club four years ago and was a prime mover behind the
successful 1996 drive for the state's medicinal marijuana initiative.
Monday, he emerged from the club with his belongings - including a pot
plant - packed in a cardboard box.
To shouts of "Peron! Peron!" from 75 supporters, the sometimes emotional
activist said it was time for him to move on.
"It's been an honor to lead you into a more loving and compassionate
society, and it's very sad for me to have this moment in my life," Peron
said.
Customers of the club were relieved that the new cannabis center was
opening apparently unmolested but bitter about the attempt to shut it down.
"Dennis Peron helped me keep 17 people alive this year," said an angry
Houston Broglin. "Pot makes AIDS patients eat. If you take this away, then
you actually put a lot of people in the ground."
Peron noted that he had begun his involvement with the marijuana issue as
an AIDS activist.
"I started it for AIDS patients, and then cancer patients came to me, and I
said, 'Sure.' Then glaucoma patients came to me, and then other sick people
came to me, and I began to realize this was a bigger problem."
The court order to close down the club was based on pot sales to providers,
rather than directly to patients. Peron called the issue a technicality
that Lungren had seized on, but took responsibility for the error.
"When I started this, there was no road map. Maybe I made some mistakes
along the way. Who knew you couldn't sell to caregivers?" he said.
The new Cannabis Healing Center is run by Hazel Rodgers and is posted with
notices that pot can be sold only to patients, and not caregivers.
It's also covered with "Peron for Governor" posters, pins and bumper stickers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Grandma, 79, Takes Over Pot Club ('San Francisco Examiner'
Notes Hazel Rodgers Assumes Helm Of Dennis Peron's
Former Medical Marijuana Dispensary, Now The Cannabis Healing Center)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:57:38 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US CA: Grandma, 79, Takes Over Pot Club
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Contact: letters@examiner.com
Website: http://www.examiner.com/
Pubdate: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
Author: Tyche Hendricks of the Examiner Staff
GRANDMA, 79, TAKES OVER POT CLUB
Sheriff evicts Dennis Peron, premises reopens as the Cannabis Healing Center
San Francisco is getting a new medical marijuana club with a new director,
a 79-year-old grandmother who smokes pot to treat her glaucoma.
Acting on a court order, San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey shut down
Dennis Peron's Cannabis Cultivators' Club Monday afternoon. But the
landlord of the Market Street building promptly turned the keys over to
Hazel Rodgers, who celebrated her 79th birthday by taking the reins of the
new club, which will be known as the Cannabis Healing Center.
"I'm happy that we could stay open," said Rodgers, who was a longtime
volunteer at Peron's club. "It has been such a wonderful thing for San
Francisco. It's a haven for sick and dying people."
On April 15, Superior Court Judge David Garcia ordered Peron, an associate
named Beth Moore and the Cannabis Cultivators' Club to cease operations at
1444 Market Street, after the club was found to be selling marijuana not
just to sick people but to their "primary caregivers," which is not allowed
under Proposition 215, the 1996 Medical Marijuana Initiative.
Peron is betting that by stepping down and letting a nominally different
club and management take over, he can satisfy the judge, though he
might not satisfy state Attorney General Dan Lungren, who requested the
injunction and who has made Peron a primary target in his campaign against
cannabis clubs.
"It's the end of an era for me but the beginning of a new era for the new
club," Peron said Monday evening. "I won't have a role -- I can't by court
order -- but now I'm free to run for governor."
Peron is challenging Lungren in the Republican gubernatorial primary.
Hennessey, who has made it clear he opposes the court order, said he and a
group of sheriff's deputies had ordered the building vacated at about 1
p.m. Monday, then gone through the building and seized anything related to
the marijuana trade: about two dozen pot plants, some pot pipes and a large
scale. They then changed the locks and gave the keys to the landlord.
"Mr. Peron and everyone there was extremely cooperative," said Hennessey.
"They couldn't have been nicer. I wish all my evictions went so well."
He said his deputies had not read or seized any medical records or other
documents.
Hennessey said the judge's order did not require him to move against the
club's successor agency, the Cannabis Healing Center.
Rodgers said she would be at the new center every day, but she said she
expected to let the dozens of volunteers do most of the work, as her health
has been fragile. Still, she acknowledged that she had already become a
spokeswoman.
"I've been on TV a lot over the last few years," she said. "The reason I'm
so well known is that most people my age don't use marijuana. My only claim
to fame is being an old lady."
Rodgers added that her children and grandchildren were supportive of her
new endeavor. "I think they worry about me, because that's the way kids
are," she reflected. "But I don't think I'm going to get arrested, because
I'm not going to do anything illegal."
1998 San Francisco Examiner
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Club Dies, New One Sprouts In Its Place ('San Jose Mercury News' Version)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:55:46 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US CA: Club Dies; New One Sprouts in its Place
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Marcus-Mermelstein Family
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
Pubdate: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
CLUB DIES; NEW ONE SPROUTS IN ITS PLACE
Admission: Peron said he erred in giving pot to caregivers.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A reluctant sheriff shut down San Francisco's largest
medical marijuana club Monday, as organizers waited in the wings to reopen
under another name.
San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey served Cannabis Cultivators Club
founder Dennis Peron with an order closing down the operation shortly after
1 p.m. and ordered the building vacated. Peron and his followers cooperated
peacefully.
Hennessey made it clear he personally opposed the court order initiated by
state Attorney General Dan Lungren, whom Peron is opposing in a David vs.
Goliath campaign in the Republican gubernatorial primary.
``I support the medicinal marijuana law in the state of California, and it
does seem this is an attempt to thwart that law,'' Hennessey said.
The sheriff also said he would not move against the club's successor
agency, the Cannabis Healing Center, which was opening under a new director
at the same site.
``That has nothing to do with this court order,'' Hennessey said.
Peron started the club four years ago and was a prime mover behind the
successful 1996 drive for the state's medicinal marijuana initiative.
Monday, he emerged from the club with his belongings -- including a pot
plant -- packed in a cardboard box.
To shouts of ``Peron! Peron!'' from 75 supporters, the sometimes emotional
activist said it was time for him to move on.
``It's been an honor to lead you into a more loving and compassionate
society, and it's very sad for me to have this moment in my life,'' Peron
said.
Customers of the club were relieved that the new cannabis center was
opening apparently unmolested, but bitter about the attempt to shut it
down.
``Dennis Peron helped me keep 17 people alive this year,'' said an angry
Houston Broglin. ``Pot makes AIDS patients eat. If you take this away, then
you actually put a lot of people in the ground.''
A client who identified himself as Billy emphasized the positive, noting
that the new center was opening.
``All praise to God. It's still here,'' Billy said. ``This is history in
the making.''
The court order to close down the club was based on pot sales to providers,
rather than directly to patients. Peron called the issue a technicality
that Lungren had seized on, but took responsibility for the error.
``When I started this, there was no roadmap. Maybe I made some mistakes
along the way. Who knew you couldn't sell to caregivers?'' he said.
The new Cannabis Healing Center is run by Hazel Rodgers and is posted with
notices that pot can be sold only to patients, and not caregivers.
It's also covered with ``Peron for Governor'' posters, pins and bumper stickers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lode Going To Pot ('Modesto Bee' Notes Developments Monday
In Two Proposition 215 Legal Cases - First, A Judge Ignores The Law
And Gives A Blind Diabetes Patient In Sonora Five Years' Probation
For Growing Pot, And Then Attorney Tony Serra Leads A Rally
In San Andreas For A Cultivation Defendant Who Says
He Was Growing For Cannabis Clubs)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 09:36:52 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US CA: Lode Going to Pot
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Source: Modestoto Bee
Contact: http://www.modbee.com/man/help/contact.html
Website: http://www.modbee.com/frontpage/index/0,1112,,00.html
Pubdate: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
Author: Ron DeLacy Bee staff writer
LODE GOING TO POT
SONORA -- It was like medical marijuana law day Monday in the Mother Lode.
First, a blind diabetes patient in Sonora got five years' probation for
growing pot, and then celebrity attorney Tony Serra led a rally in San
Andreas for a cultivation defendant who says he was growing for cannabis
clubs.
"Law enforcement agencies should be seeking to actualize the law," Serra
told about 100 people in front of the Calaveras County Courthouse.
"Instead, they seek to subvert the democratic process."
The law he referred to is Proposition 215, the "compassionate use"
initiative California voters passed in November. It legalizes marijuana for
people with doctors' prescriptions or recommendations.
Several Bay Area cannabis clubs distribute pot to such patients. And Robert
Galambos of Paloma claims he was growing for several of those clubs when
his patch of 380 plants was raided last summer.
Galambos is scheduled for trial starting April 29 on a felony cultivation
charge. Serra is on the defense team, joined by Sonora defense attorney
Michael Weisberg.
"There's something the matter," Weisberg told Monday's rally, "when the
voters say marijuana is legal for medical use and the prosecution still
wants to stamp it out."
Other speakers included Calaveras County Supervisor Tom Tryon, a
Libertarian who considers the war on drugs an abuse of the government's
power and a waste of its time and money.
Galambos attended the rally, but did not speak, and he declined to talk to
reporters about his case. The district attorney's office wouldn't talk
about it, either.
According to sheriff's Lt. Mike Walker, though, the cannabis-club defense
wasn't raised during the raid last year. Walker said he learned of it just
last week, through posters promoting Monday's rally.
But Serra said it's a "bona fide case" of a person who was growing for
those clubs, and also a significant case in the evolution of Proposition
215 law. This is the first trial, he said, where a cannabis club's contract
grower is charged.
And the contract growers are essential, Serra said, because "you can't in
essence legalize milk and outlaw the cow."
Earlier Monday in Sonora, Tuolumne County Superior Court Judge Eric
DuTemple fined Myron Mower $1,000 and put him on probation for another five
years.
Mower only recently completed an earlier probation for the same charge --
cultivation of pot. He suffers from a variety of diseases and disabilities,
including blindness, diabetes, digestive dysfunctions and "wasting
syndrome" that his doctor, Joy Boggess, said is similar to what happens to
AIDS patients.
In Mower's case, the county drug agency knew he had his doctor's permission
to use pot. He was allowed to grow it, but agents could raid his garden
without warrants while he was on that earlier probation.
When they found 31 plants there last summer, they said that was too many.
After Monday's sentencing, Mower said the bust not only had put him back on
probation, but also cost him his plants. Raiders confiscated all but three,
of which one died, one turned into a worthless male and one was later
stolen.
"This is all a lot of bulls--- for nothing," Mower said. "They could be
spending their time taking care of real criminals."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pot Club Law Might Require Novel Approach (Letter To Editor
Of 'San Jose Mercury News' By Scott Imler Of The Los Angeles
Cannabis Buyers Club Suggests For The Sake Of Innocent Sick People,
Police And Prosecutors In San Jose, California, Should Hold Discussions
With Peter Baez And Others From The Local Medical Marijuana Community -
Outside A Courtroom)
From: "ralph sherrow" (ralphkat@hotmail.com)
To: pdxnorml@pdxnorml.org
Subject: pot club
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:06:51 PDT
Published Tuesday, April 21, 1998, in the San Jose Mercury News
Pot Club Law Might Require Novel Approach
IF YOU'VE been following the medicinal marijuana wars since the
passage of Proposition 215, you're probably under the impression the Bay
Area has a ``good'' pot club and a ``bad'' pot club.
The one in San Francisco, which was shut down Monday, has a reputation
even among some of its former clients as having the
tokin'-up-on-the-premises atmosphere of an opium den. While the one in
San Jose has earned a national reputation for being so geeky-squeaky clean
that Santa Clara County Assistant District Attorney Karyn Sinunu often
referred to the two guys who run it as ``the Eagle Scouts'' of California pot
club directors.
So, you may wonder, why is the San Jose club also in danger of closing and
why is one of its founders, Peter Baez, facing six felony charges of selling pot
to people without a doctor's recommendation? And why have police had
the center's bank accounts frozen in connection with allegations of
financial malfeasance?
ISN'T this the pot club that has had such a cuddly relationship with the
DA's office that it has actually turned in fraudulent clients? (Yes.) And
haven't the county prosecutors been so sympathetic to the mission of the
pot club that Sinunu once had police-confiscated pot plants returned to an
AIDS patient? (Yes.)
In her office last Christmas Eve, Sinunu told me about her close friend, ``a
June Cleaver-style mom'' who smoked marijuana during her final, painful
months of terminal cancer. Sinunu said seeing how the marijuana helped
her friend had convinced her to support Proposition 215.
But now Baez is outraged that police are treating him ``like a street drug
pusher,'' Sinunu is lamenting Baez's ``sloppy'' record keeping and cops are
accusing him of ``conning'' the community. Meanwhile, the San Jose pot
club's regular clients are furious at the DA's office for seizing their medical
records as part of the investigation.
A cancer patient named Cherie who depends on the San Jose pot club
almost as much as she does on her chemotherapy treatments told me, ``I'd
like to sprinkle clumps of my hair on Karyn Sinunu's desk. What are we
supposed to do if this center closes?''
What's especially frustrating is that the San Jose pot club founders, Baez
and Jesse Garcia, and Sinunu say they want the club to stay open. But the
law is so difficult to navigate -- an island of immunity in a drug
distribution trade that is otherwise completely illegal -- that it seems even
the best intentions have left allies feeling betrayed by one another.
For example, one of the pitfalls of enforcing Proposition 215 - beside the
fact that Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Dan Lungren is dead
set against it -- is doctors' fear of being caught in the middle. Federal
guidelines say doctors may lose their licenses if they recommend marijuana
for their patients. So Baez says it's not surprising some doctors wouldn't
want to tell cops they suggested their patients smoke pot -- even though he
pointed to phone records showing the center had made several calls to one
of the doctors in question.
But Sinunu said the majority of doctors whose patients have come to the
center don't hesitate to confirm they recommended marijuana as a
treatment. So why would some deny it? She said even a few bogus clients is
all it takes to put the San Jose pot club in the same vulnerable position as so
many others.
Has the ``model'' relationship between the DA's office and the San Jose pot
club been so damaged that they can't continue to set the standard for how
the law will be enforced?
Sinunu told me her commitment to the pot club's mission has not changed
since she spoke with me on Christmas Eve. Maybe that means county
prosecutors and cops are going to have to sit down with the pot club
directors, and perhaps even a member of the California Medical
Association, to hammer out a better set of guidelines.
It may be unusual for the DA's office to have a round-table discussion with
someone it has just slapped with felony charges, but this is an unusual
situation. And some very sick people in a lot of pain are counting on
them.
Scott Imler
SCCU/LACBC
-------------------------------------------------------------------
More From Scott Imler On The Santa Clara County Medical Cannabis Center
(He Suggests San Jose Law Enforcement Is More At Fault Than Peter Baez
For The Crisis)
From: "ralph sherrow" (ralphkat@hotmail.com)
To: pdxnorml@pdxnorml.org
Subject: I hope you get this one.
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:13:36 PDT
Peter Baez and Jesse Garcia founded and established the Santa Clara
County Medical Cannabis Center right after the '96 election. As many on
this list may recall, the City of San Jose was the first municipality
after Prop. 215 to adopt an ordinance regulating an zoning their
cannabis club.
The ordinance was very rigid and was widely acclaimed by
the media as a model although the guts of the regulations were left up
to the Police Chief. One of the rules was that the police could come in
at anytime and look at anything they wanted.
While Peter and Jesse protested this and other conditions of their special
use permit, which was never ultimately issued, the police, upon the recent
retirement of the friendly chief, decided they would hold them to the written
regulations.
Last October, Peter granted a membership upon the oral
recommendation of the patients doctors. None of them were willing to
commit in writing. Peter sold marijuana to the man six or seven times.
The man got ticketed for simple possession and claimed medical use and
membership in the club. Police called the guy's doctors and none of
them admitted to approving the marijuana use. Peter's word against the
doctor's. The police leaned on the guy to cop a plea on simple
"non-medical" possession. Guess who is automatically guilty of
"non-medical" sale? Yep. Peter.
Police exercise their written regulation rights to enter, search, and seize.
Bye Bye medical files, sales records, everything. BUT--they leave a
pound of marijuana, several hundred in cash, and the doors open, later
saying they are not trying to interfere with the club's operations.
Peter gets charged with several felonies on March 23--all related to the
one guy's purchases. Police seize the center's bank account ($29,000)
since part of it is "illegal drug profits" from the one guy's purchases.
After the police comb the files and the bank records more felonies are
filed. Police say there is evidence of sales to 70 clients who are
undocumented. Jesse reports that attorneys are planning to file charges
against one of the police officers for withholding exculpatory evidence.
Peter is very ill with colon cancer and Jesse said he's headed back into
surgery. I hope this is helpful.
scott
Scott Imler
SCCU/LACBC
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Three San Francisco Men Sentenced For Crack Trade ('San Francisco Chronicle'
Notes Prosecutions Based On Court-Ordered Telephone Wiretaps
Yield Two 10-Year Sentences, One Five-Year Sentence)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:41:38 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US CA: 3 S.F. Men Sentenced for Crack Trade
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Contact: chronletters@sfgate.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Pubdate: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
Author: Bill Wallace, Chronicle Staff Writer
3 S.F. MEN SENTENCED FOR CRACK TRADE
Three San Francisco men have been sentenced to long federal prison terms
for their roles in a crack cocaine ring that terrorized residents of three
San Francisco neighborhoods.
Gregory ``Smurf'' Jones and Clifton ``Donnie'' Robinson, two of the group's
members, received 10- year sentences for their roles in the gang. Kaheen
Alhark, a third member, will serve a five-year sentence for his
involvement.
All three were indicted in March 1996 as members of a Bay Area-wide drug
ring that obtained large amounts of cocaine from suppliers and ``cooked''
it into easily sellable crack. The crack was then repackaged and sold in a
number of San Francisco housing projects.
According to federal court papers, Jones helped organize the sales and
distribution of some of the drug, Robinson peddled the crack to residents
in Hunters Point, and Alhark ordered kilo-sized amounts of the drug for
redistribution.
Most of the members of the organization have pleaded guilty to drug
charges. Some have already received prison terms while others are still
awaiting sentencing.
Last month, Carlos Guzman, who delivered at least a kilo of cocaine for the
ring, was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison, and Edward A. Wilson, who
participated in selling the drug, received a five-year sentence.
According to investigators, much of the cocaine case was based on
court-ordered telephone wiretaps that yielded extensive recordings of the
gang's members haggling over prices, ordering drugs and setting up deals.
Police said the organization was a major drug source in the Bayview-Hunters
Point District and the Sunnydale Housing Project. Its members used housing
project facilities as a sort of headquarters for their operations.
Investigators also say members of the group engaged in violent struggles
with other drug rings for control of the crack trade in the projects.
One member who has already pleaded guilty to drug charges, Owen C. Bowdry,
was an alleged ringleader of an interstate auto theft ring that was broken
up by local police, California Highway Patrol officers and prosecutors from
the state Department of Justice two years ago.
1998 San Francisco Chronicle
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Police As Judge And Jury ('Oakland Tribune' Columnist
Faults Oakland's Distinction As The First City In California
To Seize Cars From Drug And Prostitution Offenders
Without Due Process)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:15:04 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US CA: OPED: Police as Judge and Jury
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Jerry Sutliff
Source: Oakland Tribune
Contact: triblet@angnewspapers.com
Pubdate: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
Author: Brenda Payton's column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays
POLICE AS JUDGE AND JURY
ARE police officers always right? Can they make a mistake when they arrest
someone?
Under Oakland's Operation Beat Feet - the vehicle seizure and forfeiture
ordinance - police officers can seize the vehicle of a person arrested for
buying drugs or soliciting a prostitute. Before the person is tried. Before
the individual is convicted.
In essence, the officers are put in the position of being judge and jury.
What about the criminal justice system's guarantees of due process or that
archaic idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty? The new law
substitutes arrested for proven guilty.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of a similar law in
Michigan. However, the state legislative counsel ruled the ordinance
violates state laws that require a conviction before a vehicle is seized.
The city attorney and district attorney argue the ordinance is in
compliance with state law.
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union warn that lawsuits brought
against the city will probably sort out the legality of the ordinance.
But I wonder about the city's rationale in "forging ahead" (in the words of
a deputy city attorney) with a law that undermines basic protections of
individual rights.
I try to avoid criticism or praise of elected officials during campaign
season, but once again, Councilmember Nate Miley is behind a law that
compromises civil liberties. Miley also supported a plan to put
surveillance cameras on public streets; thankfully, the City Council backed
away from it.
Miley has made public safety his No.1 issue and he defends the vehicle
seizure ordinance with rhetoric that the city will not condone prostitution
and drug dealing. He points out that a majority of the people arrested
under the law are outsiders who come to Oakland to engage in criminal
behavior.
All law-abiding Oaklanders are outraged that outsiders come to our city and
perpetuate crime. We're the ones who have to live with the aftermath - the
violence, broken lives, devastated neighbor-hoods. But we have numerous
laws and a police force that have been highly effective in fighting crime.
In fact, one of the curiosities about the law is that it was passed when
crime was down. The nationwide trend has experts puzzled. Most theorize a
number of factors and a range of strategies are responsible for the drop.
What-ever the reasons, ifs strange for the city to become more despotic
when crime is on the decrease.
The ordinance presents a similar dilemma as privacy laws. If a person is
arrested while soliciting a prostitute or purchasing drugs, it might seem
they are clearly guilty. What's the need for a trial? However, our system
is built on a process that requires the prosecutor to prove the defendant's
guilt, no matter how obvious the crime.
After seizure of the vehicle, the ordinance allows the defendant to file a
claim and have a hearing in which the city has to prove the individual's
guilt. But that's the equivalent of a person being arrested and sent to
prison and then having the right to a trial to establish his or her guilt.
And what about the cases in which the person driving the car and allegedly
engaging in criminal activity is not the owner of the car? More than one of
the 32 seized vehicles has fallen in that category. Is the owner
responsible for the activities of the person who is driving the car? Should
the owner have to prove his or her innocence at a hearing before being able
to retrieve the car?
Oakland is the first city in California to delve into the murky area of
vehicle seizure. Is that a distinction we really want?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Smith, Congress Person (List Subscriber Shares Letter
Opposing Medical Marijuana From Conservative Republican US Representative
From Southwest Washington State - Plus Commentary From Others)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:41:04 -0700 (PDT)
To: hemp-talk@hemp.net
From: Kelley (showquality@seanet.com)
Subject: HT: Linda Smith-congress person
Sender: owner-hemp-talk@hemp.net
Hi! I received this letter from Linda Smith in response to a letter asking
her position on medicinal marijuana. I think she needs to be de-programmed.
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Third District WA
Resources Committee
Small Business Committee
Vice Chairman
Subcommittee on tax, finance and exports
1317 Longworth House
Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
email:asklinda@mail.house.gov
March 30. 1998
Dear Kelley,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the legalization of marijuana for
medicinal purposes. I appreciate knowing your thoughtful views on this issue.
While I can appreciate your views, I am hesitant to legalize marijuana for
any purpose. Having grown up in the 1960's, I saw many people who destroyed
their lives by using marijuana. The high potency of marijuana today,
compared to the marijuana available thirty years ago, has resulted in more
young people trapped in a downward spiral of addiction and despair.
Moreover, marijuana is often the gateway to harder drugs such as LSD or
cocaine. Furthermore, studies have questioned the efficacy of marijuana for
those suffering from cancer, AIDS, or other diseases. For these reasons I
oppose the legalization of marijuana.
Again, thank you for contacting me regarding this important matter. Please
do not hesitate to let me know if I can ever be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Linda Smith
Member of Congress
***
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 15:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Randy Chase (randy@speakeasy.org)
To: hemp-talk@hemp.net
Subject: Re: HT: Linda Smith-congress person
Sender: owner-hemp-talk@hemp.net
US Rep. Linda Smith R-Hazel Dell is giving up her seat in the US house
while she campaigns for the US Senate. Her opponent is US Sen Patty Murray
D-Shoreline. Sen. Murray is not very enlightened on drug policy and would
most likely respond with as strong language or stronger against medical
marijuana.
Rumor has it that Sen Murray's campaign and staff have been talking down
I-692 to Democratic party folks.
There is one other possibility in the race that I am not familiar with.
There is another Republican running against Smith in the primary and he
may be more supportive than either of the women.
If Medical Marijuana is a topic of discussion between candidates this year
there may be possibilities of movement from the politicians once the
campaign gets rolling.
This reinforces my belief that we should be concentrating early efforts on
contacting and educating candidates about the issue of Medical Marijuana.
Early education is necessary as if we wait until the fall they will
most likely have been reached by opponents of medical marijuana and filled
with their spin on I-692.
This would appear to have been a flaw in I-685 campaign in as much as no
politicians endorsed the initiative.
We as a group can help overcome this year. There are over 200 candidates
for State and National office this year and if each of us worked on
several we could cover much more ground that would not be possible for a
staffed campaign alone.
Randy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Draws Clients For Doctor But Concerns Impotence Pill Maker
('Milwaukee Journal Sentinel' Says A Physician In Wauwatosa, Wisconsin,
Has Provoked Controversy By Setting Up A Web Site To Solicit Patients
And Issuing More Than 600 Prescriptions For Viagra,
The New Pill For Impotence Manufactured By Pfizer)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:14:56 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US: Web Draws Clients for Doctor but Concerns Impotence Pill Maker
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI)
Contact: jsedit@onwis.com
Fax: (414) 224-8280
Website: http://www.jsonline.com/
Pubdate: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
Author: Neil D. Rosenberg of the Journal Sentinel staff
WEB DRAWS CLIENTS FOR DOCTOR BUT CONCERNS IMPOTENCE PILL MAKER
Public demand for Viagra overwhelms Tosa center that advertises on Internet
A Wauwatosa physician has issued more than 600 prescriptions for Viagra,
the new pill for impotence -- more than 300 Monday alone -- after setting
up a Web site to solicit patients.
Michael Thomas, director of the Vascular Center for Men, at 9900 W. Blue
Mound Road, had so many calls on Monday for the drug, he had to delegate to
his office staff the job of medically screening the callers and deciding
whether they should get prescriptions.
"We have three lines and some people said they had been trying to get in
for two hours," Thomas said. At times, the calls came so fast -- 500 per
hour -- that his staff could not answer them. The calls were forwarded to
an answering service, which became so overwhelmed, callers merely got a
message to call back.
But officials at Pfizer Inc., which manufactures Viagra, were aghast at
Thomas' actions.
"Viagra is indicated for the treatment of male erectile dysfunction and it
needs to be diagnosed by a physician in person," said Mariann Caprino, of
Pfizer. "We are opposed to Internet prescribing of any medication."
A spokeswoman for the state Medical Examining Board said it is not illegal,
or considered unprofessional, for a licensed physician to delegate
authority to assistants, as long as they are under the physician's
supervision. The physician ultimately is responsible for any problems that
may occur.
"A physician can delegate to anybody any responsibility for which they are
licensed," she said.
It also is legal for pharmacists to fill prescriptions written by a
physician licensed in another state, although they are not required to do
so, she said.
The surge in calls Monday came after a Wall Street Journal article
mentioned Thomas and his Web site, which he established in April, even
before Viagra went on sale.
Doctors and drug industry analysts expect Viagra to eclipse competing
impotence treatments within months.
According to IMS America, a research firm, Viagra grabbed 5% of the market
during its first week of sales. The Wall Street Journal reported that
prescription sales may be as high as 40,000 a day.
Thomas, a doctor of osteopathy, has run the center -- which specializes in
impotence -- since 1995, he said. He might hire more staff to meet the
demand for Viagra.
"We were actually prescribing it before it was in the pharmacy," Thomas
said. "They just had to wait for it to arrive . . . They wanted to be the
first to get it filled."
The Web site also describes Viagra as leading to "better sexual performance
. . and more enjoyment!" According to the Web site, the center, once it
issues a prescription, will refer clients to a pharmacy that has the drug
"and can ship today!"
Thomas said he asks only that the caller be age 18 or older, male and not
be taking any nitroglycerine-type drugs. A phone screening takes about five
minutes. He charges $50 for consultation and the written prescription of 10
to 30 pills in the 100-milligram dose. A request for a refill prescription
costs $25. The cost does not include pills.
In Milwaukee, Viagra costs $8 to $12 for a 50-milligram pill -- a typical
dose. The pill comes in 25- and 100-milligram sizes as well. In other
cities, pills are selling for $13 or $15.
Thomas advises clients to spend a few dollars for a pill cutter to cut the
pills in half. If they get the desired response with a 50-milligram pill,
they essentially have twice the pills for the same money.
Ironically, Thomas said he hasn't found time yet to get a physician to
prescribe the medication for him. During an interview, he disclosed that he
has been impotent at times.
Asked whether the ease with which he is offering prescriptions might
contribute to a black market for the drug -- pill holders selling pills to
others at inflated prices -- Thomas said the contrary.
"By making it so easy to get, I am actually working to decrease" the
potential for a black market, he said. "It is always possible that people
will resell medications, but I am slowing down that process."
Pfizer recommends that the pill be taken an hour before anticipated
intimate sexual activity. It has emphasized that Viagra is not an
aphrodisiac -- it does not produce sexual arousal.
As for Thomas' claims on his Web site -- www.penispill.com -- of increasing
sexual performance and making sex more enjoyable, "we are absolutely not
making those claims," Caprino said.
The Web site includes a graphic photo and description of the drug's effects.
Before Viagra became available, impotence treatment involved an injection
or devices. Viagra works by increasing nerve signals, which change
biological factors and help maintain an erection. Its side effects include
flushing, dizziness, headaches; and at higher doses, a temporary form of
color blindness.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Powell's Youth Corps On The March ('Boston Globe' Says A Year
After The Launch Of 'America's Promise - The Alliance For Youth,'
Retired General Colin Powell's Effort To Marshal A National Corps
Of Volunteers To Quell Drug Wars In Central Cities, The Campaign
Is Far From Done But Is Showing Progress)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:36:12 -0400
From: Mike Gogulski
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US MA: Powell's youth corps on the march
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: emr@javanet.com (Dick Evans)
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Contact: letters@globe.com
Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/
Pubdate: 21 Apr 1998
Author: Zachary R. Dowdy, Globe Staff
POWELL'S YOUTH CORPS ON THE MARCH
Retired General Colin Powell's latest mission, to marshal a national corps
of volunteers to quell drug wars in central cities, check the advance of
teenage pregnancy, and rout out despair among youth, is far from done, he
says, but is showing progress.
A year after the launch of ''America's Promise - The Alliance for Youth,''
Powell, the program's chairman, visited Fenway Park to help area youngsters
from the Boys and Girls Club throw the first pitch at the Red Sox game
against the Cleveland Indians, and to pitch an ''evangelical'' effort to
save America's troubled kids. ''The ultimate measure of success will be
seen 10 years from now,'' Powell said. ''If there are fewer young girls
getting pregnant, fewer kids in gangs, that's how we measure success. I
believe we can do this.''
Powell's visit was one of several stops the retired general is making to
note the progress of the massive volunteer effort that urges adults to get
involved in the lives of youths. His multicity tour includes stops in
Nevada, California, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Utah, and New
York.
Acting Governor Paul Cellucci, who touted the steps Massachusetts has taken
in the six months that the state's program has been operating, said the
program - Massachusetts Promise - is gaining in popularity: The number of
mentors has increased, internships have multiplied, and after-school
programs have spread. And crime is dipping.
Powell said 48 of the nation's 50 states to date have established the
infrastructure to implement America's Promise. The five-pronged program
seeks to improve the lives of children by providing them with mentors, safe
places, a healthy start to life, marketable skills, and community-service
opportunities to give something back. America's Promise, which was set into
motion in Philadelphia last April at the President's Summit for America's
Future, targets the issues plaguing the country's 15 million at-risk
children with hopes of bettering them by the year 2000. The program
harnesses the resources of the public and private sectors, such as
individuals and corporations, and funnels them into programs such as the
Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, and the Boy
Scouts and Girl Scouts.
Massachusetts Promise reports the following developments in the past six
months: Matches with mentors are up 95 percent; new after-school programs
were born; nearly 22,000 children received health insurance; internships
have increased by 122 percent; and 172,000 young people are now serving 120
communities across the state - 86 percent of the state program's goal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Nahas-Led Medical Marijuana Conference (List Subscriber
Shares First-Person Account By A Scientist Who Attended The Recent Conference
In New York Sponsored By Notorious Anti-Marijuana Zealot Gabriel Nahas)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:10:16 +1200 (NZST)
To: drctalk@drcnet.org, mattalk@islandnet.com
From: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn)
Subject: Recent Nahas-led mmj conference
As many of you will remember, NY University, disgraced home of the notorious
Gabriel Nahas, sponsored a conference on medical marijuana a few weeks ago,
organized by the Great Liar himself. I asked one of the attendees, Paul
Consroe, what it was like. Paul was one of the few "legitimate" researchers
in this area to be invited. He gave his permission for me to share his
thoughts with the lists.
DH
>Return-Path: (consroe@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU)
>From: "Dr. Paul Consroe" (consroe@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU)
>To: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn)
>Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:36:53 MST7
>Subject: Re: How did the MMJ conference go?
>
>Hello David,
>
>As you probably suspected, the conference overall was TERRIBLE!
>It was very badly organized (Nahas didn't even have the times
>listed on the program for us speakers --- and of course he handed
>out the program only at the last minute (everyone was upset ---
>including his old buddies!!!). There were some good talks ('neutral'
>talks on chemistry, receptors, pharmacology etc), but my major gripe
>was that he had some of his buddies from France and other points
>unknown give old and outdated talks that purposely put the negative
>slant on cannabis (as Nahas wanted). Then the little jerk had the
>nerve to tell me before my talk to speed it up because everything I was
>supposed to cover would be covered by 2 speakers who followed me (and
>were his hand-picked people!). When, I told him that I would not go
>over my allotted time limit and that I was going to present an
>overview of the clinical and preclinical data on neurological effects
>of cannabis and cannabinoids , he winced at me and said
>"what do you mean preclinical effects? There aren't any!" --- At
>that point I just walked away ---- I ended up very upset but i gave
>basically the talk I prepared ---I also turned in my manuscript (but
>I haven't heard anything on that yet. If HE edits it , i will
>withdraw it period!
>
>Well, I have calmed down after my return to Tucson, and I have
>written off the NYC conference in my mind ----
>Now to other things in my life--
>
>Best wishes always, and please keep in touch.
>
>paul
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration Backs Off Support For Needle Exchange ('Associated Press'
Article In Massachusetts' 'Standard-Times' Says The Clinton Administration
Refused Monday To Use Federal Tax Dollars To Buy Clean Needles
For Drug Addicts In Order To Reduce The Incidence Of AIDS)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:36:12 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Olafur Brentmar
Subject: MN: US: Administration Backs Off Support For Needle Exchange
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: John Smith
Pubdate: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
Source 1: Standard-Times (MA)
Contact: YourView@S-T.com
Website: http://www.s-t.com/
Author: Lauran Neergaard, Associated Press writer
Note: The same article appeared in the The Herald, Everett (WA) entitled:
"White House Rejects Financing Needle Exchanges" their email is:
letters@heraldnet.com
ADMINISTRATION BACKS OFF SUPPORT FOR NEEDLE EXCHANGE
WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration refused yesterday to use federal
tax dollars to buy clean needles for drug addicts, even though it said
needle exchanges fight AIDS without encouraging illegal drug use.
Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala said her scientific
endorsement should encourage more communities to start their own needle
exchanges.
But Shalala, under orders from the White House, sidestepped a political
fight with conservatives and stopped short of providing communities with
federal money to let addicts swap dirty needles for clean ones.
Half of all people who catch HIV are infected by needles or by sex with
intravenous-drug users, or are children of infected addicts. The decision
bitterly disappointed AIDS activists, who said they couldn't recall another
medical program the government had declared lifesaving but refused to try
to pay for.
"They've now said we know how to save lives and we don't want to do what's
necessary to save the lives," said an angry Dr. Scott Hitt, chairman of
President Clinton's AIDS advisory council. "This administration is now
publicly stating how to slow it (the AIDS epidemic) down and is saying they
lack the courage to do it."
"It's like saying the world is not flat but not funding Columbus' voyage,"
added Daniel Zingale of AIDS Action.
Republicans continued to argue that needle exchanges were bad policy, and
Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y., said he would push for Congress to ban federal
funding altogether in case Shalala changed her mind.
"Why not simply provide heroin itself, free of charge, courtesy of the
American taxpayer?" asked Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo. President Clinton's own
drug policy chief, Barry McCaffrey, spent the weekend arguing that needle
exchanges jeopardize the administration's war on drugs and send the wrong
message to children. Officials familiar with the heated debate said
McCaffrey's objections were central to killing a proposed compromise, a
pilot project paying for needle exchanges in 10 cities.
Asked about the criticisms, National Institutes of Health Director Harold
Varmus said that they were being made only by politicians, not scientists.
Every major public health organization has supported needle exchanges.
The Clinton administration is counting on Shalala's endorsement to persuade
communities to expand the 110 needle exchanges now operating in 22 states.
And Surgeon General David Satcher suggested communities could avoid the
political impasse: Seek federal dollars for all other HIV prevention
activities, from youth education to drug treatment, so that local money
could be directed to buy needles.
When asked if more funding would help, Satcher responded: "Yes, we think we
would save more lives."
The nation's top science organizations have long said needle exchanges
would cut the AIDS toll. Activists say federal funding is key to expanding
the programs.
But Congress banned federally funded needle exchanges unless Shalala
certified that such programs fight the spread of HIV without encouraging
drug use.
Monday, Shalala did that, saying a review of studies concluded that
programs that provide drug counseling and push addicts into treatment work
best.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
US Decision Against Funding Needle Plan Draws Fire
('Los Angeles Times' Version)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:34:48 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Olafur Brentmar
Subject: MN: US: LAT: U.S. Decision Against Funding Needle Plan Draws Fire
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield
Pubdate: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Fax: 213-237-4712
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Author: Marlene Cimons, Elizabeth Shogren, Times Staff Writers
U.S. DECISION AGAINST FUNDING NEEDLE PLAN DRAWS FIRE
Health: Administration agrees exchange program cuts AIDS spread, doesn't
foster illicit drug use, but will leave financing to state, local groups.
WASHINGTON--The Clinton administration declared Monday that needle exchange
programs reduce the spread of AIDS and do not encourage illegal drug
use--but it will continue to oppose federal funding for this approach, a
decision that provoked anger on both sides of the long-raging debate.
Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala said that, although the
administration has concluded that it is best to leave the funding of such
programs to state and local sources, she encouraged communities to include
needle exchanges as part of their AIDS prevention strategies.
But many AIDS service organizations were stunned by the administration's
announcement, given that half of all new HIV infections are linked to
needle-injected drug use, according to federal health officials.
* * *
"This is like acknowledging the world is not flat, then refusing to
fund Columbus' voyage," said Daniel Zingale, executive director of AIDS
Action Council, a Washington-based lobbying group. Congressional
conservatives, meanwhile, expressed chagrin over the administration's
ringing endorsement of needle exchange programs. Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.)
said that the administration's expression of support "accepts and
encourages drug use as a way of life." He also expressed concern that "it
opens the door" to future federal funding of needle exchange programs.
Numerous studies have shown the efficacy of such programs but the subject
of government-backed needle exchanges has remained a politically volatile
one. Not only have conservatives adamantly opposed such programs but
President Clinton's own advisors have argued heatedly over whether to
support them. Barry R. McCaffrey, director of the White House office of
drug control policy, for example, has insisted that such programs send the
wrong message about drug use.
The administration's announcement Monday was reminiscent of Clinton's past
approaches to some hot-button issues--gays in the military, for
example--where he has attempted to strike a middle ground that pleased few.
Federal funding of needle exchange programs was banned by Congress in 1988
but the secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to remove
the ban. Many public health officials, AIDS activists and others--including
Clinton's own AIDS advisory panel--have called on her repeatedly to do so.
Armed with new scientific findings by high-ranking administration health
officials showing that the programs help reduce HIV transmission, Shalala
was willing to defend funding the programs before lawmakers on Capitol
Hill, sources said.
But White House officials said they doubted they could win such a fight
with the GOP-controlled Congress and were afraid that the battle would
dampen state and local efforts to establish or sustain the programs.
Funding efforts "would have been voted down immediately and you would have
scared off the local people," White House advisor Rahm Emanuel said.
Ultimately, Clinton decided that it was not worth the fight with Congress,
sources said.
Referring to the politics surrounding the issue, Emanuel said: "You've got
to see three, four or five moves down the checkerboard." And Clinton, by
endorsing the concept that needle exchanges help reduce HIV transmission,
hopes to boost local efforts to fund needle exchanges, he said.
But AIDS activists predicted that it would have the opposite effect, saying
they feared local programs now will founder without federal help.
Monday's decision "has the potential to do damage to the funding that
exists today," said James Loyce Jr., chief executive officer of AIDS
Project/Los Angeles. "The funding is barely there now. The local
governments, such as [the city of] Los Angeles . . . that have taken
[needle exchanges] on have already taken a big risk--this will only
undermine the advocacy that's already been done on the local level."
Shalala noted that the use of needle exchange programs has increased
throughout the AIDS epidemic. Citing figures from the federal Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, she said communities in 28 states and one
U.S. territory operate needle exchange programs supported by state, local
or private funds. In Los Angeles, three organizations run needle exchange
programs at multiple sites throughout the region. They are funded in part
by a $180,000 grant from the city, according to AIDS Project/Los Angeles.
Shalala said the administration decided "that the best course at this time"
is to leave the creation and funding of needle exchange programs to
communities and "to communicate what has been learned from the science so
that communities can construct the most successful programs possible to
reduce the transmission of HIV." She said the programs should be part of a
comprehensive HIV prevention strategy that includes referring participants
to drug treatment and counseling and that needles must be made available
only on a replacement basis.
* * *
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), a longtime advocate of needle
exchange programs, said the administration's stance "shows a lack of
political will in the midst of a public health emergency." And Rep. Henry
A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) said: "It is unfortunate that fear of
congressional backlash sustains the funding freeze." But Rep. Gerald B. H.
Solomon (R-N.Y.), in a letter sent Monday to Clinton, condemned the
administration's "seemingly continued support for such programs" and urged
administration support "in pursuing a permanent ban on the use of federal
tax dollars for needle exchange programs."
Times staff writer Alissa J. Rubin contributed to this story.
* * *
Needle Swaps Los Angeles and San Francisco are among major cities that
offer legally sanctioned needle exchange programs. But many cities still
don't. Half of all new HIV infections are associated with needle injections.
MAJOR CITIES LACKING NEEDLE PROGRAMS: San Diego, Dallas, Houston, Fort
Worth, Miami, St. Louis, Newark, N.J. New Orleans.
Copyright Los Angeles Times
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shalala Backs Needle Swaps But Not Federal Funding
('Milwaukee Journal Sentinel' Version)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:16:49 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US: Shalala Backs Needle Swaps but not Federal Funding
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI)
Contact: jsedit@onwis.com
Fax: (414) 224-8280
Website: http://www.jsonline.com/
Pubdate: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
Author: John Fauber of the Journal Sentinel staff
SHALALA BACKS NEEDLE SWAPS BUT NOT FEDERAL FUNDING
The Clinton administration Monday decided not to provide federal funds for
needle exchange programs, despite evidence that they reduce the risk of HIV
infection and do not encourage drug use.
Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, who made the decision,
said it would be up to local communities to decide whether to fund their
own needle exchange programs.
"A meticulous scientific review has now proven that needle exchange
programs can reduce the transmission of HIV and save lives without losing
ground in the battle against illegal drugs," Shalala said in a statement.
The administration hopes Shalala's strong endorsement will lead to new
needle exchanges. But AIDS activists have said that federal money is key,
and Shalala's decision angered area AIDS advocates.
"Shalala has established a policy that is killing people," said Doug
Nelson, executive director of the AIDS Resource Center of Wisconsin. "It is
a complete abrogation of leadership. If Donna Shalala can't lead as the
chief of public health policy in this country, then she should resign."
According to Health and Human Services data:
40% of the 652,000 AIDS cases in the United States have been linked to
injection drug use.
More than 70% of infections among women of childbearing age are related
either directly or indirectly to injection drug use.
More than 75% of babies diagnosed with HIV/AIDS were infected as a direct
or indirect result of injection drug use by a parent.
A 4-year-old needle exchange program operating in the Milwaukee area, which
is funded by private sources, reaches about 2,000 of the 5,000 to 6,000
intravenous drug users here, Nelson said.
Nationwide, 88 needle exchanges are operating with private, state or local
funding, and numerous scientific studies and public health groups have
determined that such programs reduce the risk of HIV infection.
Congress banned the use of federal tax dollars to pay for needle exchanges
until Shalala certified that scientific studies proved the programs both
reduced spread of HIV and did not encourage drug use. After a months-long
review by her scientific advisers, Shalala decided that needle exchanges
were scientifically backed.
But whether to allow federal funding was debated heavily by administration
officials during the weekend. The decision came after Republicans in
Congress threatened to ban federal funding of needle exchanges altogether
if Shalala did decide to attempt it.
Most Milwaukeeans support needle exchange programs to fight AIDS and think
that tax revenue should help pay for them, according to a poll released
last month. The poll showed 57% approved, 36% disapproved and 7% were
undecided. The poll, conducted in December by the University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee's Institute for Survey and Policy Research and funded
by the AIDS Resource Center of Wisconsin, was of 409 randomly selected
adults and had a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Needle Exchange Endorsed, But No Federal Funding
('Chicago Tribune' Version In 'Seattle Times')
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:37:15 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Olafur Brentmar
Subject: MN: US: Needle Exchange Endorsed, But No Federal Funding
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: John Smith
Pubdate: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
Source: Seattle-Times (WA)
Contact: opinion@seatimes.com
Website: http://seattletimes.com/
Author: Adam C. Holland, Chicago Tribune
NEEDLE EXCHANGE ENDORSED, BUT NO FEDERAL FUNDING
WASHINGTON - The Clinton administration yesterday endorsed needle-exchange
programs as an effective step to fight AIDS but withheld the support that
AIDS activists wanted most: federal funds.
In a long-awaited statement, Health and Human Services Secretary Donna
Shalala said programs that let drug addicts exchange used needles for clean
ones can reduce the spread of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which
causes AIDS, and do not encourage illegal drug use, based on extensive
scientific research.
But she said the decision to implement and fund the programs rests with
local communities. Avoiding a fight with conservatives, the administration
kept in place the ban on federal funding for needle-exchange programs. AIDS
activists, who had hoped recent research and their active lobbying would
lift the barriers to obtaining federal money, denounced the
administration's decision.
"The Earth is not flat, the moon is not made of cheese, and needle exchange
does not create drug addiction," said Daniel Zingale of AIDS Action,
referring to findings of a 1997 National Institutes of Health study. "But
tragically, it's like saying, `We acknowledge the Earth is not flat, but we
won't fund Columbus' voyage.' "
More than half of all new HIV cases, averaging 33 people a day, can be
attributed to direct or indirect contact with an injecting drug user.
Public-health groups have long argued that needle-exchange programs can
help to reduce the risk, and 88 such programs operate with local, state or
private funding.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ban On Federal Funds For Needle Exchange To Continue
('New York Times' Version)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:55:08 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US NYT: Ban on Federal Funds for Needle Exchange to Continue
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: emr@javanet.com (Dick Evans)
Source: New York Times (NY)
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Pubdate: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
Author: Cheryl Gay Stolberg
BAN ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR NEEDLE EXCHANGE TO CONTINUE
WASHINGTON -- After a bitter internal debate, the Clinton administration on
Monday declined to lift a 9-year-old ban on federal funding for programs to
distribute clean needles to drug addicts, even as the government's top
scientists certified that such programs do not encourage drug abuse and can
save lives by reducing the spread of AIDS.
The decision, announced by Donna Shalala, the secretary of health and human
services, was immediately denounced by public-health experts and advocates
for people with AIDS, who had been told in recent days that the ban was
about to be lifted.
"At best this is hypocrisy," said Dr. Scott Hitt, chairman of the
President's Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS. "At worst, it's a lie. And no
matter what, its immoral."
The decision came after a week of negotiations between Shalala's staff and
the White House, according to two administration officials familiar with
the talks. Shalala had been pressing to rescind the ban, with some
restrictions, and was prepared to defend that decision on Capitol Hill,
knowing it was bound to be controversial.
But the president's policy advisers feared that Republicans might push
through legislation that would strip federal money from organizations that
provide free needles, even though the money was used for other purposes.
Late Sunday night, as Clinton returned from Chile, he decided to instruct
Shalala to announce that federal funds would not be released, despite the
scientific evidence that needle-exchange programs help prevent the spread
of HIV. "Any Republican could have offered a resolution, and we almost
certainly would have lost," said one of the officials, both of whom spoke
on condition they not be identified. "We don't have the votes for this in
an election year." To further complicate matters, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the
retired Army officer who is the administration's director of national drug
policy, has been been fighting to retain the ban.
Sandra Thurman, the White House director of national AIDS policy, has
argued strenuously that it should be lifted. But McCaffrey argued that such
a move would send the wrong message to children -- a position that another
official said was "an important consideration" for Clinton.
The ban dates back to 1989, when Congress declared that no federal money
could be spent to support clean-needle programs until the government could
provide scientific evidence that such programs both reduced the spread of
HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, and did not encourage drug use. The
administration offered that scientific evidence Monday for the first time.
With the evidence in hand, the administration was free to begin drafting
guidelines for how federal money could be spent for needle-exchange
programs. Although Shalala's staff had come up with such guidelines, the
president declined to endorse them, officials said.
In effect, the decision means that state and local governments, which
receive block grants from Washington for AIDS prevention efforts, are still
barred from using that money for needle exchange.
As the debate has continued, needle-exchange programs have cropped up
across the United States. Today there are about 100 programs in 20 states,
many operating on a shoestring budget, with private or local funds. In many
states, needle exchange remains illegal, but law-enforcement officers look
the other way and allow the programs to continue. Public-health experts had
been hoping a release of federal funds would have legitimized these
programs. (In New York, officials can grant permission for certain
needle-exchange programs to operate.) "There are states that for years have
hidden behind federal opposition to needle exchange to justify their own
inaction," said Dr. Peter Lurie, who in 1993, while teaching at the
University of California at San Francisco, published the first
government-financed survey of the effectiveness of needle-exchange
programs. Monday's decision, he said, means state and local officials will
have to "push forward for needle exchange even in the face of the federal
government's cowardice."
Federal officials have estimated that every day 33 people become infected
with the AIDS virus as a result of intravenous drug use, a figure that
includes drug abusers themselves, as well as their partners and children.
Intravenous drug use is also responsible for most of the increase in AIDS,
particularly among the poor and minorities.
Dr. David Satcher, the surgeon general, said Monday that 40 percent of all
new AIDS infections in the United States are either directly or indirectly
attributed to infection by contaminated needles; among women and children,
the figure is 75 percent.
Lurie, who now works as a research associate at Public Citizen, a
Washington advocacy group specializing in public-health issues, estimated
Monday that had the government paid for needle-exchange programs, 17,000
lives could have been saved during Clinton's eight years in office. "It is
frustrating in the extreme," he said, "to see political considerations take
precedence over public-health ones, particularly when a huge cost in human
life is predictable."
The decision clearly made the government's top scientists uncomfortable. At
the press conference announcing it, Shalala was accompanied by a phalanx of
them, including Satcher and Dr. Harold Varmus, director of the National
Institutes of Health, as well as two institute directors and two officials
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. Most
shifted uncomfortably in their seats as reporters peppered Shalala with
questions about the administration's decision, although none publicly
disagreed with it.
Shalala declined to discuss the internal debate between her office and the
White House -- or even her own recommendations to the president -but said
the administration hoped that its pronouncement would spur state and local
governments to pay for the programs on their own. In defending the decision
not to release federal funds, she said studies show that needle-exchange
programs work best when they are carefully designed within local
communities.
"We are sending the message that the senior scientists of this government,
in conjunction with a number of scientists around the world," have
concluded that "these needle-exchange programs do in fact work in reducing
HIV transmission and do not encourage drug use," she said. Indeed, while
critics have complained that the programs promote drug abuse, Varmus said
Monday that is clearly not the case. An extensive review of the scientific
literature, Varmus said, provided "increasingly strong evidence" that
needle-exchange programs can be an effective means of bringing addicts in
for treatment.
He cited a Baltimore study of nearly 3,000 addicts, which found that the
needle-exchange program dramatically reduced the sharing of tainted
needles, and that half the participants in the program entered treatment.
As expected, Monday's decision prompted a flurry of announcements from
Congress. Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo., called the administration's position
"an intolerable message that it's time to accept drug use as a way of
life." But Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., complained that the administration
had missed an opportunity to save lives. "It defies logic," she said, "to
determine a program's efficacy and then not fund the program, especially in
the middle of an epidemic. The administration's decision shows a lack of
political will in the midst of a public-health emergency."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
US Likes, Won't Pay For Needle Exchanges ('San Mateo Times' Version)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:25:40 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: U.S.Likes, Won't Pay for Needle Exchanges
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: tjeffoc@sirius.com (Tom O'Connell)
Source: San Mateo Times (California)
Contact: feedback@smctimes.com
Website: http://www.smctimes.com/
Pubdate: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
U.S. LIKES, WON'T PAY FOR NEEDLE EXCHANGES
WASHINGTON - Programs that let drug addicts exchange used needles for clean
ones fight AIDS and do not encourage illegal drug use the Clinton
administration declared today - but it will not allow federal tax dollars
to fund the prograins.
The administration hopes that Health and Human Services Secretary Donna
Shalala's strong endorsement will encourage communities to start their own
needle exchanges. But AIDS activists have said that federal money - so far
banned - is key, and they are sure to see Shalala's decision as a defeat.
"The scientific evidence does show needle exchange programs reduce the risk
of infection with HIV and do not encourage the use of illegal drugs," said
an administration official today, speaking on condition of anonymity. But
"the administration has decided that the best course at this time is to
have local communities use their own dollars to fund needle exchange
programs."
Shalala will tell state and local officials that to start a needle
exchange, the programs must be part of a comprehensive HIV prevention
strategy that includes referring participants to drug treatment and
counseling. Also, needles must be made available only on a replacement
basis, the administration official said.
Needle exchange programs are one of the hottest topics in the AIDS crisis.
Half of all people who catch HIV are infected by dirty needles, sex with
injecting drug users or are children of infected addicts - totaling 33
people every day, AIDS experts say.
Needle exchange is not a new concept in San Mateo County, which was among
the first communities in the nation - after San Francisco and Tacoma, Wash.
- to establish such a program, said Joey Tranchina, an outreach worker and
executive director of the AIDS Prevention Action Network in Redwood City.
Tranchina has been overseeing needle distribution in The County since 1989,
and said last year 329,000 needles were exchanged here with funding from
the United Way, Peninula Community Foundation and other local charitable
organizations.
While Tranchina said "a lot of people are going to be crestfallen" by the
government's refusal to allocate federal funds to needle exchange programs,
he said he doesn't see it as a disaster.
Rather, "The last thing we need is the federal government to turn (needle
exchange) into an overregulated beauracracy," Tranchina said.
He added that government involvement could actually make it harder to raise
important private funds for such programs by creating the impression that
the government is taking care of the matter, he said.
The important thing about Shalala's announcement today, he said, is that it
acknowledges that needle exchange programs save lives by curbing the spread
of diseases like AIDS and Hepatitis C, and raises public awareness about
the need for such programs.
He called the announcement a "baby-step" in the right direction, but warned
"We have to stop looking to the politician for leadership on health issues.
Numerous scientific studies and public health groups have declared that
needle exchanges reduce the risk of getting the HIV virus, and 88 needle
exchanges operate around the country with private, state or local funding.
But Congress had banned letting communities use federal tax dollars to pay
for needle exchanges until Shalala certified that scientific studies proved
they both reduced spread of the HIV virus and did not encourage drug use.
After a months-long review by her top scientific advisers, ShaIala this
morning decided that needle exchanges are scientifically backed.
The scientific review found that the needle exchanges that work best are
part of a larger and-HIV program that pushes addicts toward drug treatment.
Indeed, one study of a needle exchange in the Bronx, New York, found that
providing clean needles to heroin addicts in addition to offering them
methadone treatment both lowered the risk of HIV infection and lowered
their overall drug use.
But whether to allow federal funding was a politically charged question
that administration officials debated heavily over the weekend. Ultimately,
Shalaia decided that whether to fund a needle exchange was up to each
community.
The decision came after Republicans in Congress had threatened to ban
federal funding of needle exchanges altogether if Shalala did decide to
attempt it. And President Clinton's own drug policy chief. Barry McCaffery,
has vigorously fought that attempt, saying it would send the wrong message
to children.
"Such a program would in reality use tax dollars and the authority c of the
federal government to push drug paraphernalia into already drugravaged
inner cities. This is reckless and irresponsible," Sen. Chuck Grassley,
R-Iowa, said in a weekend statement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton Supports Needle Exchanges But Not Funding ('Washington Post' Version)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 07:30:29 -0400
To: DrugSense News Service
From: Richard Lake
Subject: MN: US: WP: Clinton Supports Needle Exchanges But Not Funding
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: rlake@mapinc.org
Source: Washington Post
Page: A01 - FRONT PAGE
Note: Staff Writer John F. Harris contributed to this report
Author: Amy Goldstein, Washington Post Staff Writer
Contact: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Pubdate: Saturday, April 21, 1998
CLINTON SUPPORTS NEEDLE EXCHANGES BUT NOT FUNDING
The Clinton administration declared yesterday that needle exchange programs
can help curb the AIDS epidemic without fostering the use of illegal drugs,
but refused to allow federal money to be spent on the controversial approach.
The continued ban on federal funds stunned leading AIDS researchers and
many activists, who had long believed that government money would begin
flowing as soon as the administration determined there is enough scientific
evidence to show that needle exchange programs work.
But by divorcing the science from the matter of subsidies, the
administration found a way to surmount lingering disagreements among
President Clinton's top advisers over one of the most contentious public
health questions they have confronted.
Needle exchanges have become a lightning rod in the debate over how the
nation will combat the AIDS epidemic, now that it is well into its second
decade. The programs, which have sprung up in more than 100 cities across
the country, including Washington and Baltimore, attempt to slow the spread
of HIV by giving clean syringes to intravenous drug users, thus lessening
the sharing of needles that contain residue of tainted blood.
Advocates of the programs say such a strategy is increasingly important as
the epidemic has veered more heavily into populations of drug users and
their sex partners and children. Such drug-related cases account for nearly
one-third of the more than 600,000 AIDS cases reported in the United States
since the epidemic began. The proportion is substantially higher among
people who have been infected in recent years and particularly in the
nation's large cities.
But the strategy also has a large army of critics, including many
conservatives and President Clinton's drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, who
contend that it tacitly condones the use of illegal drugs since it puts the
government in the business of handing out free needles.
Administration sources said yesterday that Secretary of Health and Human
Services Donna E. Shalala preferred to begin allowing certain needle
exchange programs to qualify for federal aid, even though such a decision
would have touched off a fight with Congress that even some Democratic
leaders had warned would be foolhardy. "She knew this would be tough, but
she was willing to defend it on the Hill," said one administration official
close to the discussions.
But Sunday night, while flying back to Washington from a South American
trip, Clinton decided in favor of a second alternative Shalala had
proposed: leaving the ban in place while announcing that needle exchanges
were scientifically sound. His decision ended an agonizing debate among his
senior aides.
Yesterday, Shalala said that, even without the subsidies, the
administration's decision that needle exchanges have scientific merit will
galvanize syringe programs at the state and local level by sending a signal
that the federal government endorses the efforts. "This is another
life-saving intervention, which requires a careful local design," she said
at a news briefing, surrounding the director of the National Institutes of
Health, the acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the surgeon general, and other top federal health officials.
In the Washington area, the District and Baltimore operate needle exchange
programs with local funds. The Maryland General Assembly this year decided
to allow a similar program to begin in Prince George's County, but defeated
a measure that would have allowed exchanges statewide. There are no needle
exchanges in Virginia.
Shalala's announcement, in effect, answered the second of a pair of
questions Congress posed several years ago. Congress said that federal
money could be spent on needle exchanges only if research conclusively
established that they met two criteria.
Last year, Shalala told Congress the administration was satisfied that the
programs met one of those criteria -- determining that the programs do
indeed diminish the spread of HIV. Until yesterday, the administration had
said it remained uncertain on the question of whether exchanges
inadvertently contribute to increased drug use, despite six major reviews
of the research literature, including one by NIH last year, that found they
do not.
Shalala's announcement was derided immediately by major AIDS organizations.
"It is like saying, 'We acknowledge the world is not flat, but we are not
going to give Columbus the money for the ships,' " said Daniel Zingale,
executive director of AIDS Action.
"It's helpful to get the scientific obstacles out of the way once and for
all," said Peter Lurie, a University of Michigan AIDS researcher, "but
absent the federal funding, it's unlikely the programs will expand to meet
the tremendous need."
But the political dangers of expressing support for the programs, much less
allowing federal money to be used for them, were quickly evident.
Determining that the programs work "is an intolerable message that it's
time to accept drug use as a way of life," said Sen. John D. Ashcroft
(Mo.), one of several congressional Republicans who denounced the
administration's decision. Sen. Paul Coverdell (R-Ga.), introduced a bill
yesterday that would prevent the HHS secretary from ever lifting the ban.
(c) Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company
-------------------------------------------------------------------
White House Needle Swap Surprise ('San Francisco Chronicle' Version)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:31:53 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US: White House Needle Swap Surprise
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World) and
tjeffoc@sirius.com (Tom O'Connell)
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Contact: chronletters@sfgate.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Pubdate: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
Author: Louis Freedberg, Chronicle Washington Bureau
WHITE HOUSE NEEDLE SWAP SURPRISE
A refusal to lift ban on program funding
Ending weeks of speculation, the Clinton administration yesterday refused
to lift a 10-year ban on using federal funds for needle exchange programs,
despite concluding for the first time that such exchanges prevent the
spread of HIV and do not encourage drug use.
Leaders in the fight against AIDS condemned the unexpected decision, which
was announced by Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala. ``It is
a purely political decision, and an abdication of her public health
responsibilities,'' said Pat Christen, executive director of the San
Francisco AIDS Foundation, which runs the nation's largest needle exchange
program, which uses private and city funds. ``She has chosen to protect
herself politically, and people will die as a result of that decision.''
Pounding his fist at an AIDS prevention meeting in San Francisco, Thomas
Coates, director of the University of California at San Francisco's AIDS
Research Institutes, accused Shalala of ``public health malpractice.''
In recent weeks, the administration had led AIDS activists to believe it
was finally moving to lift the ban. However, the plan was derailed when
word of the administration's intentions leaked out late last week, and a
slew of conservative organizations issued a flurry of press releases
warning the administration not to do so.
Several influential GOP lawmakers said they would introduce legislation
reinstating the ban should the administration move to lift it. That brought
a weekend of intense discussions between the White House and Health and
Human Services officials, who were apparently ready to lift the ban. In a
political calculation, sources close to the discussions said, the White
House concluded that it would not have the votes to block legislation
reimposing the ban.
Also key was the the opposition of President Clinton's ``drug czar,''
retired General Barry McCaffrey, who continued to lobby vigorously against
allowing federal funds for needle exchange programs, arguing that it would
send the wrong message to the nation's young people and undermine the
administration's anti-drug message. McCaffrey also vehemently opposed a
compromise proposal that would have funded pilot programs in 10 cities.
Shalala had the authority to lift the ban if she could point to solid
scientific evidence demonstrating that needle exchange programs both reduce
the spread of AIDS and do not encourage drug use. Until now, Shalala had
said the evidence satisfied the first requirement but not the second. AIDS
experts assumed that once she had satisfied herself that needle exchange
programs do not encourage drug use, she would take action.
However, no one expected the administration to both declare that the
conditions for lifting the ban had been met -- and then refuse to lift it.
To help her make the decision, Shalala commissioned the nation's leading
scientists and public health officials to review all the available evidence
on needle exchange programs. They included Dr. Harold Varmus, director of
the National Institutes of Health; Dr. David Satcher, the newly appointed
surgeon general; Dr. Claire Broome, acting head of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention; and Alan Leshner, director of the National
Institute on Drug Abuse.
Yesterday morning, those officials met with Shalala, armed with a 300-page
report, which concluded that the conditions for lifting the ban have been
met.
But by that time, the White House had already decided against such a move.
After meeting with the scientists for an hour, Shalala issued a detailed
press release in which she extolled the value of needle exchange programs
-- and in the same breath said the administration would not authorize using
federal funds to support them.
``A meticulous scientific review has now proven that needle exchange
programs can reduce the transmission of HIV and save lives without losing
ground in their fight against AIDS,'' she said. She noted that injection
drug use accounts for 60 percent of new AIDS cases in certain areas, and
that 40 percent of all 652,000 cases of AIDS reported in the United States
have been linked to injection drug use.
She also quoted NIH director Varmus, a Nobel laureate in biochemistry, as
saying: ``An exhaustive review of the science indicates that needle
exchange programs can be an effective component of the global effort to end
the AIDS epidemic. Recent findings have strengthened the scientific
evidence that needle exchange programs do not encourage the use of illegal
drugs.''
But without explanation, she said the administration has ``decided that the
best course at this time is to have local communities use their own dollars
to fund needle exchange programs.''
Representative Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, who had lobbied vigorously
for lifting the ban, said ``it defies logic to determine a program's
efficacy, and then not fund the program, especially in the middle of an
epidemic.'' She said the decision reveals a ``a lack of political will in
the midst of a public health emergency.''
About 130 communities across the nation have set up their own needle
exchange programs without federal funds, but AIDS experts say that these
programs are often underfinanced, and that many communities and regions are
completely underserved.
Administration officials tried to put the best spin on their decision
yesterday, saying they hope the federal endorsement will encourage local
communities to set up their own programs.
``Hopefully local communities and states will see this as encouragement to
open their own needle exchange programs even as the federal government
ducks for cover,'' said Peter Lurie of the UCSF Center for AIDS Prevention
and the principal investigator of the first national survey showing the
effectiveness of needle exchange in 1993.
At the same time, Lurie said the decision ``made a mockery of the
administration's purported commitment to HIV prevention.''
He noted that President Clinton endorsed lifting the ban in his 1992
presidential campaign. That commitment, he said, dissipated in the face of
stiff Republican opposition. ``Republicans showed they were willing to play
hardball, and the administration has never been able to take a principled
stand on this issue when faced with a possible political fallout.''
1998 San Francisco Chronicle
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Needle Exchange Cowardice (Staff Editorial In 'San Francisco Chronicle'
Accuses US Health And Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala
Of Craven Political Double-Talk, When Her Mission Is To Protect The Health
Of The Nation)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:47:47 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US: Editorial: Needle Exchange Cowardice
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Contact: chronletters@sfgate.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Pubdate: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
EDITORIAL -- NEEDLE EXCHANGE COWARDICE
IN A DISPLAY of political timidity the Clinton administration yesterday
refused federal funding for needle exchange programs, while conceding
exchanges reduce AIDS transmission and don't encourage illegal drug use.
``A meticulous scientific review has now proven that needle exchange
programs can reduce the transmission of HIV and save lives without losing
ground in the battle against illegal drugs,'' said Health and Human
Services Secretary Donna Shalala.
But even with that unequivocal endorsement, she said the federal government
will not pay to let drug addicts exchange used needles for clean ones. She
advised local communities to pay for their own needle exchange programs.
That was a craven bit of political double-talk from Shalala whose mission
is to protect the health of the nation, when she knows that nearly 40
percent of all AIDS cases reported in the United States have been linked to
illegal intravenous drug use.
And, according to her own department's statistics, 70 percent of HIV/AIDS
infections among women of childbearing age are directly or indirectly
related to intravenous drug use and more than 75 percent of infected babies
had a parent who used needles. A Clinton administration official said the
decision not to fund the programs ias made by Shalala after consultation
with the White House.
Stunned AIDS activists asked how federal public health officials could say
needle exchanges work, but refuse to fund them.
``This is obviously immoral to say we know how to save lives but we are not
going to let federal funds be used for that purpose,'' said Dr. R. Scott
Hitt, chairman of the Presidential Advisory Commission on AIDS. ``Americans
should ask why,'' said Hitt, the administration's top AIDS advisor,
appointed by President Clinton.
By refusing to fund needle exchange programs that have proven to work in
nearly a hundred cities -- including San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose --
the Clinton administration has shamefully chosen political expedience over
human welfare.
1998 San Francisco Chronicle
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision Against Funding Needle Plan Draws Fire
('Los Angeles Times' Follow-Up)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:20:06 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: U.S. Decision Against Funding Needle Plan Draws Fire
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Fax: 213-237-4712
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Pubdate: April 21, 1998
Author: Marlene Cimons, Elizabeth Shogren, Times Staff Writers
U.S. DECISION AGAINST FUNDING NEEDLE PLAN DRAWS FIRE
Administration agrees exchange program cuts AIDS spread, doesn't foster
illicit drug use, but will leave financing to state, local groups.
WASHINGTON--The Clinton administration declared Monday that needle exchange
programs reduce the spread of AIDS and do not encourage illegal drug
use--but it will continue to oppose federal funding for this approach, a
decision that provoked anger on both sides of the long-raging debate.
Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala said that, although the
administration has concluded that it is best to leave the funding of such
programs to state and local sources, she encouraged communities to include
needle exchanges as part of their AIDS prevention strategies.
But many AIDS service organizations were stunned by the administration's
announcement, given that half of all new HIV infections are linked to
needle-injected drug use, according to federal health officials.
"This is like acknowledging the world is not flat, then refusing to fund
Columbus' voyage," said Daniel Zingale, executive director of AIDS Action
Council, a Washington-based lobbying group. Congressional conservatives,
meanwhile, expressed chagrin over the administration's ringing endorsement
of needle exchange programs. Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) said that the
administration's expression of support "accepts and encourages drug use as
a way of life." He also expressed concern that "it opens the door" to
future federal funding of needle exchange programs.
Numerous studies have shown the efficacy of such programs but the subject
of government-backed needle exchanges has remained a politically volatile
one. Not only have conservatives adamantly opposed such programs but
President Clinton's own advisors have argued heatedly over whether to
support them. Barry R. McCaffrey, director of the White House office of
drug control policy, for example, has insisted that such programs send the
wrong message about drug use.
The administration's announcement Monday was reminiscent of Clinton's past
approaches to some hot-button issues--gays in the military, for
example--where he has attempted to strike a middle ground that pleased few.
Federal funding of needle exchange programs was banned by Congress in 1988
but the secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to remove
the ban. Many public health officials, AIDS activists and others--including
Clinton's own AIDS advisory panel--have called on her repeatedly to do so.
Armed with new scientific findings by high-ranking administration health
officials showing that the programs help reduce HIV transmission, Shalala
was willing to defend funding the programs before lawmakers on Capitol
Hill, sources said.
But White House officials said they doubted they could win such a fight
with the GOP-controlled Congress and were afraid that the battle would
dampen state and local efforts to establish or sustain the programs.
Funding efforts "would have been voted down immediately and you would have
scared off the local people," White House advisor Rahm Emanuel said.
Ultimately, Clinton decided that it was not worth the fight with Congress,
sources said.
Referring to the politics surrounding the issue, Emanuel said: "You've got
to see three, four or five moves down the checkerboard." And Clinton, by
endorsing the concept that needle exchanges help reduce HIV transmission,
hopes to boost local efforts to fund needle exchanges, he said.
But AIDS activists predicted that it would have the opposite effect, saying
they feared local programs now will founder without federal help.
Monday's decision "has the potential to do damage to the funding that
exists today," said James Loyce Jr., chief executive officer of AIDS
Project/Los Angeles. "The funding is barely there now. The local
governments, such as [the city of] Los Angeles . . . that have taken
[needle exchanges] on have already taken a big risk--this will only
undermine the advocacy that's already been done on the local level."
Shalala noted that the use of needle exchange programs has increased
throughout the AIDS epidemic. Citing figures from the federal Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, she said communities in 28 states and one
U.S. territory operate needle exchange programs supported by state, local
or private funds. In Los Angeles, three organizations run needle exchange
programs at multiple sites throughout the region. They are funded in part
by a $180,000 grant from the city, according to AIDS Project/Los Angeles.
Shalala said the administration decided "that the best course at this time"
is to leave the creation and funding of needle exchange programs to
communities and "to communicate what has been learned from the science so
that communities can construct the most successful programs possible to
reduce the transmission of HIV." She said the programs should be part of a
comprehensive HIV prevention strategy that includes referring participants
to drug treatment and counseling and that needles must be made available
only on a replacement basis.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), a longtime advocate of needle exchange
programs, said the administration's stance "shows a lack of political will
in the midst of a public health emergency." And Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los
Angeles) said: "It is unfortunate that fear of congressional backlash
sustains the funding freeze." But Rep. Gerald B. H. Solomon (R-N.Y.), in a
letter sent Monday to Clinton, condemned the administration's "seemingly
continued support for such programs" and urged administration support "in
pursuing a permanent ban on the use of federal tax dollars for needle
exchange programs."
Times staff writer Alissa J. Rubin contributed to this story.
* * *
Needle Swaps Los Angeles and San Francisco are among major cities that
offer legally sanctioned needle exchange programs. But many cities still
don't. Half of all new HIV infections are associated with needle
injections.
MAJOR CITIES LACKING NEEDLE PROGRAMS: San Diego Dallas Houston Fort Worth
Miami St. Louis Newark, N.J. New Orleans
Copyright Los Angeles Times
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alert - Needle Exchange Poll In 'USA Today' - Protest In Washington, DC,
April 21-22 (Drug Reform Coordination Network Asks You To Respond
To An Online Poll)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 16:03:53 EDT
Originator: drc-natl@drcnet.org
Sender: drc-natl@drcnet.org
From: DRCNet (manager@drcnet.org)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drc-natl@drcnet.org)
Subject: ALERT: Needle Exchange Poll in USA Today TODAY/Protest in
ALERT: Needle Exchange Poll/Protest in Washington (4/21-22)
-- PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE --
(To sign off this list, mailto:listproc@drcnet.org with the
line "signoff drc-natl" in the body of the message, or
mailto:drcnet@drcnet.org for assistance. To subscribe to
this list, visit http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html.)
In issue #37 of The Week Online, DRCNet reported (before the
major media) that a decision on whether to lift the federal
needle exchange funding ban was expected within two weeks
(http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/4-10.html#dhhs). Yesterday,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala,
announced that the criteria for lifting the ban -- scientific
evidence that needle exchange reduce the spread of AIDS and
don't increase the use of drugs -- have been met -- but the
ban will stay in place nevertheless.
USA Today is conducting an online poll today (4/21), asking
"Do you believe federal money should be used to help pay for
needle exchange programs?" EVEN THOUGH A MAJORITY OF
AMERICANS SUPPORT NEEDLE EXCHANGE, WE ARE CURRENTLY LOSING
THIS POLL. It may be because the question, as well as other
reporting on the issue, have not been perfectly clear on the
policy issue in question. Lifting the ban will not create
new federal spending to pay for needle exchange programs,
but will simply allow state governments the option to use
existing federal AIDS grant money on needle exchange, putting
needle exchange on equal footing with other AIDS prevention
measures and letting the states decide. Currently, federal
AIDS grants may not be spent on needle exchange. Please take
a moment right now to vote yes for needle exchange, at
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nfront.htm, "quick question"
section -- and hurry.
The drug warriors believe that people who inject drugs should
get AIDS and die, in order to discourage others from using
drugs. Now, Donna Shalala has decided, in effect, that
injectors should get AIDS and die, even if it doesn't
discourage drug use. AIDS activists will protest Shalala's
decision in Washington, DC, tomorrow (4/22), NOON at the Dept.
of Health and Human Services, Independence Ave. and 3rd St.,
SW. (PRESS: For information, contact Chris Lanier, of the
National Coalition to Save Lives Now, at (410) 728-6550, room
311, or Rachel Swain or Lisa Chen, (415) 255-1946.
Shalala's decision is seen as both a defeat and a victory by
advocates -- recognition of the value of needle exchange by
the highest ranking health official in the nation could
increase the pressure on states with prescription and
paraphernalia laws to repeal the statutes that make needle
exchange illegal, and could increase the willingness of
localities and private foundations to fund needle exchange
programs. If you live in a state where needle exchange is
illegal but is a current issue -- New Jersey, New Hampshire
Colorado and California, forexample -- this would be a good
time to contact your state legislators and ask them to make
needle exchange legal.
Last but not least: call or write the President, tell him he
should lift the ban -- (202) 456-1111, president@whitehouse.gov.
(The 8th North American Syringe Exchange Convention is taking
place in Baltimore this Thursday through Sunday, 4/23-26.
Chck NASEN out at http://www.nasen.org.)
***
Drug Reform Coordination Network, 2000 P St. NW Suite 615
Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8340 (voice), (202)
293-8344 (fax), drcnet@drcnet.org, http://www.drcnet.org
***
JOIN/MAKE A DONATION http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html
DRUG POLICY LIBRARY http://www.druglibrary.org/
REFORMER'S CALENDAR http://www.drcnet.org/calendar.html
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html
DRCNet HOME PAGE http://www.drcnet.org/
STOP THE DRUG WAR SITE http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Reason Goes Up In Smoke (Op-Ed By MIT Economist Lester Thurow
In 'Boston Globe' Says The Hypocrisy And Bad Economics Of Controlling Smoking
Have Gotten Completely Out Of Hand - We Are Radically Raising The Taxes
On One Class Of Low-Income Individuals - Doing So Simply Isn't Fair -
It Also Does Not Work - Sweden Just Reduced Its High Tobacco Taxes
By Almost One Third Since The Taxes Just Caused A Crime Wave Of Smuggling
Without Doing Much To Control Smoking)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:25:07 -0400
From: Mike Gogulski
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US MA: OPED: Reason goes up in smoke
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: emr@javanet.com (Dick Evans)
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Contact: letters@globe.com
Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/
Pubdate: April 21, 1998
Author: Lester Thurow
REASON GOES UP IN SMOKE
No sense shielding tobacco farmers in war on cigarettes
I don't smoke.
My children don't smoke and I would not want them to smoke. I think tobacco
is dangerous to one's health and, in fact, more dangerous than lots of other
substances that are kept as prescription drugs.
I have no problem with limits on cigarette advertising. Let me also say that
I have never earned a penny from the tobacco industry, and when I was a dean
and raised funds for MIT, I never raised any money from the tobacco
industry. At the same time, the hypocrisy and bad economics of controlling
smoking have gotten completely out of hand. President Clinton is quoted in
the papers as telling the tobacco farmers, ''I think that every American
recognizes that tobacco farmers have not done anything wrong.
You grow a legal crop; you're not doing the marketing of tobacco to
children; and you're doing your part as citizens.'' The president went on to
say he would protect their interests with generous buyouts. Wrong on every
count. If anyone is morally guilty, everyone who participated in this
industry after they knew tobacco was a dangerous substance has done
something wrong.
This includes the farmers who grew it; the retailers who sold it; and the
state and federal governments that collected taxes on it. There is no reason
to pick out any one link in the chain that brings tobacco to our children
and say it is morally guilty while every other link in that chain - and in
its flow of money - is innocent. No farmer was forced to grow tobacco.
Every farmer could have grown other crops instead.
Each grew tobacco because it was their most profitable crop. Each was just
as greedy and heedless of children's health as those who run the tobacco
companies. More to the point, if an industry sells products that are legal,
no one, including the companies and their executives, has done anything
morally wrong.
It is the job of government to determine whether products are too dangerous
to sell and to say which products should not be sold to minors.
If one wants to find a party with the most moral blame, one would point to
the retailers who did not enforce the existing laws limiting cigarette sales
to minors.
They were guilty of a crime, but so were the state attorneys general who
were busy suing the tobacco companies but too busy to prosecute retailers
for illegally selling tobacco to minors.
Perhaps the president should be bringing charges of dereliction of duty
against those state attorneys general. But the economics is as bad as the
moral hypocrisy.
Clinton talks about taking money away from the companies as if he isn't
taking money away from any real human beings - other than perhaps the chief
executives of the companies. Whatever the government does to the tobacco
companies, let me assure you tobacco CEOs' salaries are not going to go
down. When tobacco companies write checks to the federal government, that
money has to come from one of two sources - either their customers the
smokers, or their shareholders. Perhaps we want to make smokers pay a lot
more taxes.
But it is not obvious to me that we do. They are, on average, a
below-average income group.
Essentially we are radically raising the taxes on one class of low-income
individuals for doing something that is completely legal.
Doing so simply isn't fair. It also does not work. Sweden just reduced its
high tobacco taxes by almost one-third since the taxes just caused a crime
wave of smuggling without doing much to control smoking - much as the
prohibition of alcohol created a crime wave in the United States in the
1920s and '30s without doing much to control the use of alcohol. By now,
those who own shares in the tobacco companies are sophisticated investors
well aware of their risks if tobacco is further restricted and taxed and
equally well aware of the upside potential if the companies can strike a
good deal to limit cancer suits.
It is hard to make a case as to why the public should be sympathetic or
antagonistic to them. They are simply financial gamblers. If Congress gives
tobacco farmers billions to compensate them for not growing tobacco, as
President Clinton says he wants to do, then our congressional members in the
North and West are much dumber than I think they are. Employment has fallen
in a lot of industries in these regions, and I have not noticed southern
lawmakers offering to compensate those that lost their jobs. Some of those
jobs have also been lost because of changes in government rules and
regulations. One might think of the decline in the New England fishing
industry as a result of conservation limits imposed on commercial fishing.
There is no economic case for compensating tobacco farmers. It may be good
politics, but it is bad economics. Millions of Americans lose their jobs
every year. They have just as much right as any tobacco farmer to
compensation. But in the American system, capitalism, we don't pay
compensation to those who have lost their jobs. There should be no special
exceptions for tobacco farmers.
They are not morally better than the rest of us. Their economic plight is
not different than that of millions of other Americans.
Lester C. Thurow is professor of management and economics at the MIT Sloan
School of Management.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Defends Use Of Pot ('Vancouver Sun' Notes Randy Caine
Lost His Constitutional Challenge To Canadian Cannabis Prohibition -
But British Columbian Provincial Court Judge Frances Howard Ruled
There Is No Evidence Marijuana Use Causes Health Problems,
And That The Laws Prohibiting It Cause Harm To Society -
However, Parliament Still Has The Legal Right To Outlaw Marijuana)
From: creator@islandnet.com (Matt Elrod)
To: mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com
Subject: Canada: Judge defends use of pot
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 08:31:42 -0700
Newshawk: creator@mapinc.org
Source: Vancouver Sun
Contact: sunletters@pacpress.southam.ca
Pubdate: Tue 21 Apr 1998
Section: A1 / Front
Author: Rick Ouston
Judge defends use of pot
A lengthy case over the butt of a marijuana joint ends with an absolute
discharge.
There is no evidence marijuana use causes health problems, and the
laws prohibiting the substance cause harm to society, a B.C.
provincial court judge ruled Monday.
But Judge Frances Howard said she could not overturn the nation's pot
laws on a constitutional challenge because Parliament still has the
legal right to outlaw marijuana.
``The occasional to moderate use of marijuana by a healthy adult is
not ordinarily harmful to health, even if used over a long period of
time,'' the judge said Monday in a decision handed down after a
five-year court battle.
``Countless Canadians, mostly adolescents and young adults, are being
prosecuted in the `criminal' courts, subjected to the threat of -- if
not actual -- imprisonment, and branded with criminal records for
engaging in an activity that is remarkably benign ... [while] others
are free to consume society's drugs of choice, alcohol and tobacco,
even though these drugs are known killers,'' the judge said.
She said the social harm associated with the pot laws include
disrespect for all laws by up to a million people prepared to use pot
and a lack of communication between young persons and their elders
about the drug.
She said there is no evidence that marijuana induces psychosis in
healthy adults, or that it is addictive, is associated with
criminality, or that is is a gateway drug to other, harder drugs. The
``vast majority'' of pot users do not go on to try hard drugs, she
said.
``There have been no deaths from marijuana,'' she said, adding
``assuming current rates of consumption remain stable, the
health-related costs of marijuana use are very, very small in
comparison with those costs associated with tobacco and alcohol
consumption.''
She was ruling in judgment of Randy Caine, a 44-year-old Langley man
arrested in Surrey in 1993 for possession of a butt of a marijuana
cigarette weighing one gram, or 0.01765 ounces.
Caine admitted his possession of an illegal drug, but his lawyer John
Conroy called a number of expert witnesses to argue that the country's
pot laws contravene Canadians' rights to liberty if they are doing
nothing to harm others.
After Howard ruled Monday that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms did
not protect him, Caine entered a plea of guilty and was given an
absolute discharge, meaning he pays no penalty and does not have a
criminal record.
Both Conroy and Caine said they would study the decision to determine
if there are grounds to appeal.
Conroy and other lawyers across Canada are eager to challenge the
marijuana-possession laws in the Supreme Court of Canada, hoping the
high court will overturn the laws.
Howard said she could not throw out the country's drug laws because it
is up to Parliament and legislators to enact laws and the federal
government fears the number of chronic users -- those using one or
more marijuana cigarettes a day -- might escalate if the drug is
legalized.
Of the one million Canadians estimated to use marijuana, about five
per cent are considered chronic users, the judge said. They can suffer
the same respiratory ill-effects as tobacco users, although ``these
costs are negligible compared to the costs associated with alcohol and
drugs,'' Howard said.
``It is for Parliament to determine what level of risk is acceptable
and what level of risk requires action.''
Caine also argued he had a fundamental right under the charter to have
marijuana as long as he wasn't harming anyone else, but Howard said
she was bound by earlier court rulings that the charter does not
guarantee a right to possess pot.
Howard noted the federal government added marijuana to the list of
outlawed drugs in 1923 after a series of ``sensationalist articles''
were published in Maclean's Magazine on the supposed effects of
marijuana use, including claims the drug caused mental illness and
death.
``They consisted of reckless allegations of fact which were, quite
simply, untrue,'' the judge said.
``All the witnesses from whom I have heard. . . appear to agree that
there is no evidence to suggest that low/occasional/moderate users
assume any significant health risks from smoking marijuana, as long as
they are healthy adults and do not fall into one of the vulnerable
groups, namely immature youths, pregnant women and the mentally ill.''
gaging in an activity that is remarkably benign ... [while] others are
free to consume society's drugs of choice, alcohol and tobacco, even
though these drugs are known killers,'' the judge said.
She said the social harm associated with the pot laws include
disrespect for all laws by up to a million people prepared to use pot
and a lack of communication between young persons and their elders
about the drug.
She said there is no evidence that marijuana induces psychosis in
healthy adults, or that it is addictive, is associated with
criminality, or that is is a gateway drug to other, harder drugs. The
``vast majority'' of pot users do not go on to try hard drugs, she
said.
``There have been no deaths from marijuana,'' she said, adding
``assuming current rates of consumption remain stable, the
health-related costs of marijuana use are very, very small in
comparison with those costs associated with tobacco and alcohol
consumption.''
She was ruling in judgment of Randy Caine, a 44-year-old Langley man
arrested in Surrey in 1993 for possession of a butt of a marijuana
cigarette weighing one gram, or 0.01765 ounces.
Caine admitted his possession of an illegal drug, but his lawyer John
Conroy called a number of expert witnesses to argue that the country's
pot laws contravene Canadians' rights to liberty if they are doing
nothing to harm others.
After Howard ruled Monday that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms did
not protect him, Caine entered a plea of guilty and was given an
absolute discharge, meaning he pays no penalty and does not have a
criminal record.
Both Conroy and Caine said they would study the decision to determine
if there are grounds to appeal.
Conroy and other lawyers across Canada are eager to challenge the
marijuana-possession laws in the Supreme Court of Canada, hoping the
high court will overturn the laws.
Howard said she could not throw out the country's drug laws because it
is up to Parliament and legislators to enact laws and the federal
government fears the number of chronic users -- those using one or
more marijuana cigarettes a day -- might escalate if the drug is
legalized.
Of the one million Canadians estimated to use marijuana, about five
per cent are considered chronic users, the judge said. They can suffer
the same respiratory ill-effects as tobacco users, although ``these
costs are negligible compared to the costs associated with alcohol and
drugs,'' Howard said.
``It is for Parliament to determine what level of risk is acceptable
and what level of risk requires action.''
Caine also argued he had a fundamental right under the charter to have
marijuana as long as he wasn't harming anyone else, but Howard said
she was bound by earlier court rulings that the charter does not
guarantee a right to possess pot.
Howard noted the federal government added marijuana to the list of
outlawed drugs in 1923 after a series of ``sensationalist articles''
were published in Maclean's Magazine on the supposed effects of
marijuana use, including claims the drug caused mental illness and
death.
``They consisted of reckless allegations of fact which were, quite
simply, untrue,'' the judge said.
``All the witnesses from whom I have heard. . . appear to agree that
there is no evidence to suggest that low/occasional/moderate users
assume any significant health risks from smoking marijuana, as long as
they are healthy adults and do not fall into one of the vulnerable
groups, namely immature youths, pregnant women and the mentally ill.''
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Caine Judgement (Randy Caine Himself Summarizes His Near-Victorious Challenge
To Canadian Cannabis Prohibition)
From: "Randy Caine" (vcaine@uniserve.com)
To: "Mattalk"
Subject: Caine Judgement
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 21:03:19 -0700
Hi,
I'll start by saying we lost the constitutional challenge....but I believe
much was gained.
While Judge Howard noted in her judgement how and why she is bound by higher
court decisions and political will she was able to deliniate the criminal
and social aspects of existing drug policies.
In sec. IV (6) : "Does The Law Prohibiting The Possession of Marijuana Cause
Harm", Judge Howard presented 9 statements of fact...it reads:
There is a consensus that there are, indeed, social and economic costs
attached to the prohibition against marijuana. In summary, they are as
follows:
1) countless Canadians, mostly adolescents and young adults, are being
prosecuted in the "criminal" courts, subjected to the threat of (if not
actual) imprisonment, and branded with criminal records for engaging an
activity that is remarkably benign (estimates suggest that over 600,000
Canadians now have criminal records for cannabis related offences);
meanwhile others are free to consume society's drugs of choice, alcohol and
tobacco, even though these drugs are known killers.
2) disrespect for the law by upwards of one million persons who are engaged
in this activity, notwithstanding the legal prohibition;
3) distrust, by users, of health and educational authorities who, in the
past, have promoted false and exxagerated allegations about marijuana; the
risk is that marijuana users, especially the young, will no longer listen,
even to the truth;
4) lack of open communication between young persons and their elders about
their use of the drug or any problems they are experiencing with it, given
that it is illegal;
5) the risk that our young people will be associating with actual criminals
and hard drug users who are the primary suppliers of the drug;
6) the lack of government control over the quality of the drug on the market,
given that it is available only on the black market;
7) the creation of a lawless sub-culture whose only reason for being is to
grow, import and distribute a drug which is not available through lawful
means;
8) the enormous financial costs associated with enforcement of the law; and
9) the inability to engage in meaningful research into the properties,
effects and dangers of the drug, because possession of the drug is unlawful.
I was found guilty as charged but in accordance with these 9 points of fact,
was given an absolute discharge. The judge further commended John and myself
for our integrity and commitment to this case.
All and all gang....not bad. As a "harm-reductionist" I saw this case as a
very clear victory in principle.
I hope to have the full judgement online over the next few days.
In Unity,
Randy Caine
vcaine@uniserve.com
P.S. Had a great turn out from the media ;~)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter From Allan Rock (London, Ontario, MS Patient Lynn Harichy
Says The Canadian Health Minister Has Reneged On A Promise
To Make Medical Marijuana Available Through Pharmacies And Doctors
'Within Months')
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 20:54:05 -0400
To: mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com
From: lharichy@worlddrive.com
Subject: Letter from Allan Rock
The following is a letter I received today from Allan Rock. I have copied
it word for word. In my meeting with him on March 13 in Tillsonburg he
said to me that he was taking my pleas seriously and that it will be
available for medicinal use through the pharmaceutical companies and doctors
within months. They were working something out between the two. However
that is totally different from what he says here. Now I know why they
wouldn't allow another medical patient in to the meeting or any of the many
reporters. He was lying and knew it and didn't want any witnesses. Next
time I'll know better and tape the conversation, if there is ever a next
time. I'm sure that's against the law though.
Dear Ms. Harichy:
Thank you for your letters, addressed to
members of Parliament and others, regarding the use of
marijuana for medicinal purposes. Ms. Sue Barnes,
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National
Revenue, has also provided me with copies of your
correspondence. I understand the difficulties facing
you, and appreciate having this opportunity to clarify
my Department's position.
Marijuana is not approved for general
marketing as a therapeutic drug in Canada, largely
because of the lack of scientific evidence to support
its alleged medical benefits. In order for a drug to
be approved for marketing in Canada, a sponsor must
first provide scientific evidence to Health Canada to
prove that the drug is safe and effective for the
claimed use. In this manner, cocaine and morphine have
received approval for use under specific conditions.
Health Canada would welcome the submission of evidence
to support the medical benefits of marijuana, and would
evaluate this evidence using the same criteria as for
any other new drug.
Drugs which are not approved for general
marketing may be legally obtained in two ways, one of
which is by participating as a patient in a scientific
study (clinical trial). The purpose of a clinical
trial is to gather evidence demonstrating a new drug's
safety, effectiveness and quality. To date, no sponsor
has requested Health Canada's authorization to conduct
clinical trials of marijuana.
Another avenue is Health Canada's Special
Access Programme (SAP), whereby physicians may request
authorization to obtain unapproved drugs, on a patient-
by-patient basis, if the physician believes that
conventional therapies have failed or are
inappropriate.
For marijuana, there exists a practical
problem of finding a secure supply of medicinal quality
product. Generally, acceptable sources of drugs not
approved in Canada may be found in countries where they
have received approval. Health Canada has not been
able to locate an acceptable international source of
marijuana, and is examining this issue further.
As well, marijuana is a substance controlled
under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Access
would therefore also have to conform to the requirements
of that Act, and be in compliance with Canada's
international commitments under the United Nations
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961.
Once again, thank you for having taken the
Time to write on this important matter. I hope that
The information I have provided is helpful to you.
Yours very truly,
Allan Rock
***
My reply to him is that if there is no evidence to support its alleged
medical benefits then why has the pharmaceutical companies been spending tax
dollars trying to duplicate this herb. Oh I see, in its natural form it
is taboo but if synthetic there are possibilities.
If the news stories are right then some of the best and highest quality of
pot is grown right here in our own country. Why would we need to go
elsewhere looking?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Syndicate Bribed Detective, Court Told ('The Age' In Australia
Says The Melbourne Magistrates Court Was Told Yesterday
That A Detective Senior Constable In Victoria Took Thousands Of Dollars
In Bribes To Supply An Illegal Amphetamine Maker With Chemicals
By Turning Over Keys To The Drug Squad's Storage Compound)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:29:28 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: Olafur Brentmar
Subject: MN: Australia: Syndicate Bribed Detective, Court Told
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Ken Russell
Pubdate: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
Source: The Age
Contact: letters@theage.fairfax.com.au
Website: http://www.theage.com.au/
Author: Manika Naidoo
SYNDICATE BRIBED DETECTIVE, COURT TOLD
A detective gave criminal associates keys to the Victorian drug squad
storage compound as part of a conspiracy to make and sell amphetamines, the
Melbourne Magistrates Court was told yesterday.
It was alleged that Detective Senior Constable Kevin Hicks accepted
thousands of dollars in bribes to supply the sophisticated drug syndicate
with chemicals seized in police raids.
Mr Jeremy Rapke, prosecuting, said Mr Peter Pilarinos used the keys to
steal chemicals from the drug storage area in Attwood between mid-1991 and
1996 and had talked about "the millions of dollars that could be made".
Mr Rapke said to avoid detection, the chemicals - used to make high-quality
amphetamines - were replaced with Coca-Cola, water and tile grout.
He said the syndicate's inner workings were exposed after confessions from
two key associates - James Sweetin and Grantley Connell - who were arrested
as part of Operation Guardsman in August 1996.
"The picture which emerges . . . is one of the existence of a long-standing
corrupt relationship between Pilarinos and Hicks," Mr Rapke said. "It is
clear that the object of the relationship was the illegal manufacture of,
and trafficking in, amphetamines."
Mr Pilarinos and Mr Hicks - two of nine people charged in connection with
the conspiracy - are contesting numerous charges at a committal hearing
expected to proceed for 20 days.
Mr Rapke said police had been concerned that someone was stealing or
tampering with chemicals stored at the compound for some time.
In June 1992, a new analysis of drug exhibits seized as part of a
prosecution's case against Laurence Sumner and stored at Attwood found the
chemicals were no longer the same concentration or content as previously
reported.
An internal investigation later concluded that if a theft occurred at
Attwood, it was an inside job.
Mr Rapke also told the magistrate, Mr David McLennan, that Mr Hicks allegedly:
Staged a false police raid on a drug supplier and gave the confiscated
chemical to Mr Pilarinos.
Was the officer responsible for auditing chemicals stored at the Attwood
storage compound.
Tipped off Mr Pilarinos that the drug squad had Connell under surveillance.
Was given white envelopes containing sums of money ranging from $500 to
$2500 on 10 occassions at the Aegean Restaurant in Brunswick Street.
Mr Rapke also told the court that Mr Pilarinos headed the drug syndicate.
Connell and Mr Hicks were major players and Sweetin was "the cook".
Backyard laboratories were set up at Mr Pilarinos's Dandenong home and
later in Connell's garage.
Chemistry reference books were stolen from the compound and one of the
co-accused, Mr Albertus Van Donkelaar, a senior CSIRO technical engineer,
sought advice from work colleagues about how to make the drugs, he said.
Mr Pilarinos, 43, and his wife, Valerie, 52, both of Doncaster; Mr Hicks,
43, of Lima East; Mr Jurgen Hadler, 41, of Greensborough; Mr Ronald
Andrews, 65, of Reservoir; and Mr Gary Sellman, 45, of Perigian,
Queensland, are contesting various charges at the committal, which is
continuing.
Lawyers for Warwick Harbour, 29, of Ferntree Gully, and Albertus Van
Donkelarr, 48, of Eltham, yesterday said their clients would plead guilty
to charges on 25 May in the Melbourne Magistrates Court.
Allan Colson, 48, of Eltham, yesterday pleaded guilty to two charges, and
will appear in the County Court on 3 August.
to 1998 Daily News index for April 16-22