-------------------------------------------------------------------
How To Apply For A Federal License For Cannabis
And Other Controlled Substances (John Birrenbach Reposts
His 'Best Of High Times' Article About Loopholes
In The Controlled Substances Act, How To Exploit Them,
And Why People Should Try To Do So)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 20:19:05 EDT
Errors-To: manager@drcnet.org
Reply-To: coffee@visi.com
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: John Birrenbach (coffee@visi.com)
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: OPEN and Comment please
Forgive a newbee to the list if this has already been discussed here or you
have seen it elsewhere:
A concept to ponder.
In the early nineties I looked at the Controlled Substances Act and came
across a section of the act that I think has been overlooked. I prepared a
report on how to legally grow hemp if you would like a copy send me a
message and I would be happy to email it to you. I also wrote an article
which outlined the process for an article which was published in the best
of High Times No. 10.
The section (21 USC 822 and 823, and 21 CFR 1301) deals with the licensing
of persons (organization, or companies etc..) who would like to possess,
import, export, distribute, research, and manufacture (etc..) controlled
substances.
I pondered as I read the sections of law (21 CFR 1301) and wondered why
would you put in place a procedure to license the legal possession etc.. of
substances which, according to the DEA, have "no medical value and a high
potential for abuse." ? I can offer no reasonable reason why there is
such a procedure other than to allow persons to use these substances, so
long as their use is "controlled".
Upon further pondering I came to the conclusion that there were no laws in
the United States that, in the strictest sense of the word, "prohibits" the
use of any of these substances, merely the possession of the substances.
I pondered further and came to the conclusion that we have a process that
allows a person (etc.. ) to possess (etc..) substances on the controlled
substances tables, and, there is no prohibition on the consumption of these
substances.
I wondered, are there any persons (etc..) who are able to legally possess
(etc..) marijuana in the United States. I found, through the Freedom of
Information Act, that there are indeed on an annual basis some 6-800
persons (etc..) who are given these licenses. The vast majority of them
are government agencies, but there are a number of permits held in the
private sector. The legal marijuana patients all have licenses under the
Act.
Eventually the light shown through and I came to the following conclusions:
First all persons arrested for violations of the CSA are arrested because
they do not have a license to conduct that activity. This is similar to a
Doctor practicing Medicine without a License or someone driving a car
without a license.
Second I figured that if we are able to force the agency in charge of these
permits to issue them according to their procedures we had legalization and
regulation all ready in place. This I figured was a great benefit that we
didn't need any new laws or to overturn any existing laws, just use what is
in place.
So.... Basically, I have come to the conclusion that the controlled
substances act is a set of regulations that if used could "Control" the
substances.
Here is how.
Under the Act you must keep you substance secure from diversion to someone
who doesn't have a license. This could be as simple as a locked dresser
drawer to a bank vault.
Under the Act you must keep track of your purchases, and disbursements
along with the License Number of the person who received some of the
substance from you. You do not have to keep track of your personal
consumption.
Under the Act the agency in charge is allowed to do backround checks to see
if it is likely that you are going to divert your substance to a
non-license holder.
These all seemed to me to be reasonable requirements and similar to those I
myself would want to see in place should "illegal drugs" be "legalized".
Now I realize that the agency we are dealing with is the DEA and that they
are not likely to roll over without a fight but, if we were to get a bunch
of people to file for these permits we could be a couple of benefits.
No. 1. Support from members of congress. Members of congress love to come to
the aid of citizens who are having problems with a government agency. This
brings political pressure on the agency.
No. 2 Support from the courts. When it is revealed to the courts that the
DEA does in fact issue these permits to some and not to others they are
likely to decide against the DEA and force them to issue permits to the
general pubic as the act intends.
No. 3 Support from the Media. The Media is likely to enjoy this article for
it's obvious appeal.
No. 4 DEA continues to go after those without licenses, and issue permits to
those who request them.
In general I see no downside other than the hassel of having to deal with
the DEA.
SO, I have spent the last 5 years trying to get this subject out into the
open and debated in the community and eventually tried. Most have simply
dismissed my assumptions as a "Nahh It can't be so simple", inspite of
which the Kentucky Task Force noted it (the license requirement) in its
"reasons" why hemp was not feasable.
Any debate on the issue?
Anyone who wants to try?
Thanks
john birrenbach
formerly of the institute for hemp
PS: The following, which I have condensed from the report I wrote in the
early 90's, I have been posting to the Usenet newsgroups in the last couple
of days.
***
CANNABIS IS LEGAL IF YOU HAVE A LICENSE
What do the Federally Legal Medical Marijuana patients, the Smithsonian,
and the University of Mississippi have in common?
ANSWER: They all have a license to possess cannabis from the DEA and their
state agencies.
WOULD YOU pay $500 a year to Possess Cannabis Legally? Would you pay $250?
Would you pay $100? How about $50 to possess or $1,000 to grow?
WOULD YOU agree to not give or sell your cannabis to someone who is not
registered?
WOULD YOU agree to keep track of your purchases and sales or gifts of cannabis?
If you answer YES, to these then read on.
If you answered NO, then you are TARGET in the WOD.
If we can get a few people to do what is outlined below we will legalize
Marijuana and end the WAR ON DRUGS.
***
HOW TO APPLY FOR A FEDERAL LICENSE
FOR CANNABIS & OTHER CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
***
These are the basic Steps you need to take so that you can obtain a license
to possess, distribute, import, export or grow Marijuana. Under current
federal law it is not illegal to consume controlled substances like
marijuana, it is however illegal to possess these substances without a
license from the DEA. People all over the US are arrested and charged with
possession, import, export, distribution etc.., without a permit.
So how does a person obtain a permit to Possess, Distribute, Import,
Manufacture, or Export Marijuana?
First is to obtain a Controlled Substances permit application, DEA form
No. 225. These forms can be obtained from your local DEA office, the
Diversion Control Officer will have them, or from the DEA in Washington DC.
Once you have received your application complete it in its entirety. There
will be several boxes that indicate what sort of activity you wish to
participate in. It should be noted that for purposes of simple possession
your permit is considered a researcher. Should you desire to do any other
activity you are also considered to be allowed to possess as well as the
activity for which you are applying. So that a person who imports or
exports is also licensed to possess as well. When you have completed you
application return it to the address indicated on the form along with your
payment. Be sure to include on your payment a note that indicates your
payment is for a permit application to "whatever you checked in the box."
With your application enclose a letter that explains that you are new to
the DEA permit process and to please have a Diversion Control officer
contact you as soon as possible and include a phone number where you can be
reached during the day.
It must be understood that the DEA is concerned with Diversion Control.
That is, they do not want the substance that you are applying to possess to
get into the hands of someone who is not likewise registered with them. In
order to do this you will be required to show that you have adequate
security for your substance. This could be as simple as a floor or wall
safe to as complex as a bank vault, it is entirely dependent on the
substance, and the activity. For simple possession it is likely that a
floor safe would be sufficient as that is what is required of the Legal
Marijuana Patients. For growers, rooms that are deadboltable should be
sufficient as it is more than is required of some of the researchers at a
couple of Universities or the Botanical Gardens that have Cannabis growing
on exhibits. For Importers, Exporters, and Distributors, a warehouse with
a controlled area fenced off with alarms would be sufficient as it is with
other controlled drug distributors.
The DEA will also be concerned that you not distribute or allow to possess,
from your supply, anyone who is not likewise licensed with the DEA. In
order to comply with this requirement you must simply maintain a log book.
Into it you will log your purchase entries and if you are a distributor
sales entries and the DEA registration number of the purchaser.
It must be understood that the DEA is likely to visit and examine the
premises where the activity is to be conducted. They will do this for the
purpose of examining if you have in place the proper security to prevent
diversion and proper accounting means to account for your substance.
It is my suggestion that before you purchase anything in the way of
security or log books you first let DEA examine what you already have in
place. The purpose of this is two fold. First, and least likely, is that
they may think the dresser drawer is sufficient for your possession permit
and all the locks you have in your house are ample enough to prevent
diversion. Second is that you need to force DEA to tell you what they want
in the way of security and logs etc.. Why? so that you can comply of
course.
After the initial investigation by the diversion control officer he will
probably send you a letter that explains that you need such and such in
order to be in-complaince. Follow the instructions to the letter. If he
gives you some sort of vague "inadequate security" write him back and ask
him to give you a detailed list of what is lacking in the way of security.
Once you get your response comply to the letter.
Once you have completed the requirements that the Officer requests ask them
to come back for a reinspection. If you are in complete compliance at this
point they are forced to send your application up the chain to Washington
for approval.
It is however more likely that he will "discover" something he missed last
time and give you more things to do to come into compliance. If it seems
to be reasonable request and a simple thing to fix do it and ask for
another inspection. If however you think he is just adding hoops to jump
through then it is time you contact your congressman and your lawyer.
Explain in a letter to your congressional reps that you are attempting to
get a permit under the controlled substances act and are having problems
with the DEA. Explain that you have tried to comply and they continually
are giving you more things to comply with. Be sure to include copies of
all letters to and from the DEA regarding your application.
It is also likely that you will need the service of an attorney. The
attorney should be ready to file a case on your behalf in Federal Court
demanding that the DEA comply with its own regulations under the Controlled
Substances Act, 21 USC 822 and 823, and 21 CFR 1301. If you have any
questions about what I purpose I suggest you get copies of these sections
of law. They are available at most libraries, and via the WWW. Read them,
read them again, read them a third and fourth time. They are very lengthy
and difficult to understand, but if you read it enough you begin to
understand there is a process to obtain a permit for your substance of
choice.
In order to understand how this works you need to understand the laws and
treaties to which we must abide.
First in all of the UN Treaties on Narcotics they all say that these
substances are to be Controlled, no where does it say that they are to be
Prohibited.
Second the US Controlled Substances Act is as the name implies a means to
Control these substances, in no place does it say these substances are
prohibited.
How do you control these substances? With regulations that require those
involved with these substances obtain a registration and record their
activity. This is exactly what the controlled substances act does. It
puts in place a registration, and permit process so that the United States
can Control these substances and who has access.
Who is likely to be legitimately denied a permit under this process?
Children without parental permission, People with histories of mental
illness, people with a history of felonies.
If enough people applied for these permits we would have legalization.
Once you have your ok from the DEA you will need to obtain a license from
the agency in your state who licenses pharmacies. The agency is extremely
likely to issue your permit once the DEA has issued its ok, if they fail to
do so you sue them in court and force them to do so also.
Finally, under the Freedom of Information Act, it has been revealed that
between 600-800 people, companies, and or organizations have permits to
possess, distribute, import, export, and grow Marijuana in the United
States in any Given Year. The fact is the DEA does issue these permits,
albeit in limited numbers at the present time. WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS. We
need to have millions of these permits issued annually.
***
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 00:16:56 EDT
Errors-To: manager@drcnet.org
Reply-To: cpconrad@twow.com
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: "Charles P. Conrad" (cpconrad@twow.com)
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: John Birrenbach (coffee@visi.com)
I don't like to add my support to hare-brained schemes, so it is in all
seriousness that I am forwarding this. Other than Elvy et al, I can't
imagine who the other 6-800 people/organizations are who hold these permits
because officers of the law don't need them.
I wish John had given the fee amounts and whether he has attempted this.
>Forgive a newbee to the list if this has already been discussed here or you
>have seen it elsewhere:
***
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 00:41:17 EDT
Errors-To: manager@drcnet.org
Reply-To: coffee@visi.com
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: John Birrenbach
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: Permits
>I don't like to add my support to hare-brained schemes, so it is in all
>seriousness that I am forwarding this. Other than Elvy et al, I can't
>imagine who the other 6-800 people/organizations are who hold these permits
>because officers of the law don't need them.
Most on the list surprisingly are Police agencies, military institutions.
There is also a couple of researchers who are growing (or were the last I
checked) a number of hospitals and universities, a few dog training
schools, and a few I could never figure out. I sent out letters to a bunch
and never got much of a response from the permit holders. Some denied that
they had such a thing.
>I wish John had given the fee amounts and whether he has attempted this.
I have not attempted it but John Stahl in California has and last I heard
the local office had approved him and I think he was trying to get the
state permit.
Last I checked the fees ran from $25-1,000 researcher was the cheapest and
manufacturer the most expensive.
I would like to keep this debate in the public so please respond to the
list. I think if we hash this around we may find the flaws in my idea that
I suspect are there.
Thanks
john birrenbach
***
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 01:02:47 EDT
Errors-To: manager@drcnet.org
Reply-To: coffee@visi.com
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: John Birrenbach (coffee@visi.com)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: Permits, sorry for wasting bandwidth
Please excuse me for wasting internet bandwidth with an issue that appears
to have been settled, on a federal level anyway.
Despite what appears to be a deviation from the Single Convention Treaty
the US DEA is issuing permits/licenses to new applicants provided they can
come into compliance.
As evident by my discovery Saturday that, on a federal level, John Stahl,
Church of the Living Tree, has been approved by the DEA to cultivate
cannabis. The only hitch is that apparently he has yet to find the right
state agency to apply to.
So, again sorry for wasting your bandwidth, please resume your normal
activities.
thanks
john birrenbach
PS: If you want to see it for yourself go to http://www.tree.org/ and
click the LATEST NEWS link about a page down you will find a short blip
that reads:
The Permit to Cultivate Fiber Hemp for the Paper Mill:
Our permit process has been going on for over five years now, and, while
the DEA has said we are in full compliance with all federal regulations
(and that we were the first and only ones to do so), they could not give
us a permit since there was no provision for cultivating hemp in the State
of California. Recent events in California have altered this picture,
however. Since it is now the will of the people of the State of California
that patients who use marijuana for medical use should no longer be
prosecuted as criminals, and since laws in the United States must have the
consent of the governed, federal laws proscribing all use of marijuana have
no legal authority in the State of California, at least insofar as they interfere
with the rights guaranteed directly by the people in Proposition 215. In any
case, we expect no opposition to our suggestion that we allow medical
marijuana patients to cultivate cannabis within our federally approved
enclosure as long as they leave us their stalks for our paper mill, since
there must be some legal way to comply with the terms of Proposition 215,
and our proposal would provide a more closely regulated cultivation than
any other proposed solution.
Click the Cultivate Fiber Hemp link and you find the following:
At the direction of the DEA, we obtained a safe for storing viable seed. We
installed an eight foot high chain link fence around our site, complete with
eighteen inches of barbed wire angled our at 45 degrees. We installed a
locked gate. We installed floodlights, alarms, and a telephone connection
to emergency services. Finally, we fixed up a little cabin for the use of a
24 hour guard.
You don't want to hear about all the run-arounds with Research Protocols
and site inspections. Suffice it to say that at long last, the DEA was
satisfied of our compliance with all of their regulations, and that we were
the first an only ones to do so, and so now we "only" await the cooperation
of the State of California to be able to receive our permit at long last.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Is Clear - If You Know The Risks, Too Bad ('Boston Globe' Columnist
Jeff Jacoby Notes Six Jurors In Jacksonville, Florida, Awarded The Family
Of A Dead Smoker Nearly $1 Million Last Week, The Third Successful Lawsuit
Against Tobacco Companies Among More Than A Thousand Attempts,
And One Which Flatly Contradicts The Essence Of Tort Law)
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: "MN"
Subject: MN: US: CA OPED: Law Is Clear: If You Know The Risks, Too Bad
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 01:03:08 -0500
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Marcus-Mermelstein Family
Pubdate: Fri, 19 Jun 1998
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
Author: Jeff Jacoby
LAW IS CLEAR: IF YOU KNOW THE RISKS, TOO BAD
Stripped to its basics, this was Roland Maddox's legal claim against Brown &
Williamson, the manufacturer of Lucky Strikes:
I liked to smoke, I enjoyed cigarettes, I knew they were bad for me, I
refused to quit, I laughed off the health risks, I got cancer. What an
outrage! The tobacco industry ought to pay me $100 million.
Since 1954, more than 1,000 lawsuits proceeding on roughly that theory have
been brought against cigarette makers. For only the third time last week, a
jury bought it. Six jurors in Jacksonville, Fla., awarded the Maddox family
$500,000 in compensatory damages for Roland's cancer (he died last year).
They awarded another $450,000 in punitive damanges to teach Brown &
Williamson a lesson. It wasn't $100 million, but it was nearly a cool
million.
``I don't think (the tobacco companies) will have a leg to stand on much
longer,'' one juror told reporters. ``We feel tobacco products . . . are
dangerous.''
Of the two previous cases in which a jury returned a verdict against a
cigarette maker, one was later overturned and the second is on appeal now.
Brown & Williamson's lawyer says this verdict, too, will be appealed.
Three verdicts in 10 years don't add up to a trend. But they do suggest that
some judges and juries will ignore settled law in order to strike out at Big
Bad Tobacco. That should alarm all of us, smokers and non-smokers alike.
The reason the tobacco companies prevailed in so many lawsuits over the
years is that the law was crystal clear: One who voluntarily assumes a risk
has no legal claim if harm occurs. This assumption-of-risk doctrine is tort
law at its most basic; law students learn it in their first semester. The
1965 ``Restatement of Torts,'' the definitive reference work on the subject,
puts it this way: ``If the user or consumer . . . is aware of the danger,
and nevertheless proceeds unreasonably to make use of the product and is
injured by it, he is barred from recovery.''
Warnings have appeared on cigarette packs since 1966, and the danger of
smoking was common knowledge long before that. Gallup polls in the 1950s
found that the public, by majorities of 90 percent or so, had heard that
cigarettes could cause cancer. Maddox himself referred to his cigarettes as
``coffin nails'' and ``cancer sticks.''
Plaintiffs suing tobacco companies have variously accused them of marketing
a defective product, of conspiring to cover up tobacco's hazards, or of
failing to warn consumers that nicotine is addictive. Whatever the charge,
the claims are fatuous. The smokers knew their habit was bad for them; now
they want someone else to pay for their bad judgment. The law is clear that
such suits have no merit.
Nevertheless, smokers have kept bringing them, and lawyers have kept urging
juries to disregard the law. Sooner or later, a jury was bound to do it.
But disregarding the law is dangerous. Much more dangerous than smoking.
Cigarettes threaten only those who use them. Tear up the legal rules that
codify ethics and common sense, and we are all at risk. It is easy to
pervert tort law in order to take a poke at Big Tobacco. It will prove less
easy to get the law back, unperverted, when a more sympathetic defendant
needs protection.
Law and good sense were corrupted in a second courtroom last week. A Boston
judge ruled that tenants living above a busy bar can refuse to pay rent if
they object to the smell of cigarette smoke from below. In an opinion that
thrilled no-smoking activists, Judge George Daher ruled, ``The tenants'
right to quiet enjoyment was interfered with because of the second-hand
smoke that was emanating from the nightclub.''
Rubbish. Those who don't want to experience the smells and sounds of a bar
shouldn't rent an apartment above one. The law does not permit tenants to
stiff their landlords on the rent -- in this case, $1,450 a month -- just
because they can sniff tobacco smoke. No judge would award free rent to
tenants who complained that they were kept awake by the sound of beer steins
clinking late at night. Or by the odor of liquor wafting up from
downstairs. But cast yourself as an unwilling victim of -- hiss! -- tobacco,
and basic landlord-tenant law goes out the window.
Now, a lawyer at the Tobacco Control Resource Center exults, anti-smoking
lawyers have the precedent they need to open a new line of attack.
Law that can be shredded for a ``good'' cause is no law at all. Due process
either protects all -- even the unpopular -- or it protects none.
In a much-quoted scene in Richard Bolt's ``A Man for All Seasons,'' William
Roper urges that the law be set aside so that Thomas Cromwell can be
defeated. No, replies Thomas More, the law must not be tampered with -- not
even to defeat the Devil.
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after
the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on
you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? ... D'you
really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes,
I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tobacco Foes See Future In Court ('The San Francisco Examiner'
Interviews Several Bay Area Tobacco Prohibitionists Who Say They Are Pleased
The McCain Bill Died, Since It Was Loaded With Counterproductive Amendments
And They Believe They Will Reach Their Goal Of Bankrupting
The Tobacco Industry More Quickly By Filing Lawsuit After Lawsuit
In Local And State Courts)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 02:39:22 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US CA: Tobacco Foes See Future In Court
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com
Pubdate: Fri, 19 Jun 1998
Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Contact: letters@examiner.com
Website: http://www.examiner.com/
Author: Keay Davidson, Examiner Staff
TOBACCO FOES SEE FUTURE IN COURT
Bay activists angry, but also relieved, at smoking bill's loss
Bay Area anti-smoking activists reacted with a mixture of rage and relief to
the death of the congressional tobacco bill.
The nation is better off without the bill, because Senate Majority Leader
Trent Lott's congressional henchmen thoroughly sabotaged it, adding
amendments than would have weakened the war on cigarettes, many activists say.
Hence, many prefer to sidestep Washington and return to their older
strategy: to slowly attack the tobacco industry by repeatedly suing it in
local and state courthouses from coast to coast.
"I don't see this (legislative defeat) as the end of the world because the
fact is, we're now back to where we were - litigation on a state-by-state
basis, which I actually think is a better way to do it," said the Bay Area's
best-known cigarette-hater, Dr. Stanton Glantz, a UC-San Francisco professor
of medicine. "The real (anti-smoking) progress has always been made at the
local and state level."
On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate dumped the bill,
intended to discourage teenagers from smoking. Sixty votes were needed to
overcome procedural hurdles, but the bill's supporters garnered only 57.
Ironically, the bill's chief sponsor was a Republican, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Asked to comment on the view that court fights are preferable to passage of
the Republican bill, San Francisco City Attorney Louise Renne said, "I
cannot disagree with it." As written, the Republican bill "would have wiped
out all local government lawsuits against the tobacco companies."
"And that is most unfair, given the fact that our (local) lawsuits were
filed before 30 of the state attorneys general's lawsuits were filed," Renne
said.
Bill loaded with provisions
As written, the McCain bill worried Walt Bilofsky, co-chair of the
Smoke-Free Marin Coalition, based in Novato. It was a decent bill, until it
was sabotaged with the provision for a $500-an-hour limit on fees for
attorneys in future lawsuits, Bilofsky says.
"The only way the tobacco industry is going to get out of the business of
killing people is if they have to pay the price in dollars. The only
institution in our system of government that is likely to (make them) do
that is the courts," Bilofsky said. "Any bill that impedes what the courts
have been doing in the last couple of years, and are doing right now, is a
bad bill."
Still, some activists hope to resurrect the bill in a more acceptable form.
"If I could have gotten the McCain bill as it was last week without many
additions, I could have accepted it," Glantz said. At that time, "the bill
had emerged as a reasonably good piece of legislation from a public health
point of view, and it would have passed if Lott had allowed it to pass."
"Hypocrite of the year'
Glantz said that Republicans "started screwing with it," adding provisions
that would have weakened the anti-smoking cause - for example, limiting to
$500 an hour the fees of lawyers who file future anti-tobacco suits. A
$4,000 cap would have been set on the fees of lawyers whose suits are
already in court.
"Lott deserves the "Hypocrite of the Year' award," Glantz exclaimed. "He
said, "We can't pass this bill - it's a Christmas tree!' Well, he's the guy
who hung all the ornaments on it!"
Julia Carol, co-director of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights in Berkeley,
said Lott "is lower than pond scum." Alluding to Lott's recent public
statements on gays, she said: "Maybe instead of bashing gays, he should
start bashing tobacco companies - they deserve it."
Despite media talk about the bill's death, Carol added, "I don't believe
it's over yet. I think the vote shows how much tobacco industry campaigns
can buy, but I don't think it's over yet. . . . It could come back to life,
you just never know."
Republicans charged that the bill would have constituted a tax increase by
boosting the price of a pack of cigarettes by $1.10.
"Dangerous to go to Washington'
"The Republicans delivered for the cigarette companies," Glantz charged. "I
started out saying it was stupid to waste your time to go to Washington. And
in fact, it's dangerous to go to Washington because the tobacco interests
are so powerful there."
Dr. Neil Benowitz, a nicotine researcher at San Francisco General Hospital,
acknowledged that as "more and more irrelevant (provisions) got tacked on to
the bill, the focus on really getting people to stop smoking was getting lost."
Still, Benowitz would have welcomed passage of the bill's provision
increasing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ability to regulate tobacco.
The bill's defeat sends the wrong signal to foreign countries considering
tobacco controls, Benowitz said: "They were all looking to the U.S. to see
what's going to happen."
Anti-smoking activists should pressure their congressional representatives
to revive an acceptable bill, one that enhances the FDA's muscle in
regulating the tobacco industry, said emeritus Professor Dorothy Rice of
UC-San Francisco.
They "have got to keep this issue really on the forefront," said Rice, an
expert on the impact of smoking on health costs. "It's terribly important to
keep it alive so it doesn't die completely."
1998 San Francisco Examiner
-------------------------------------------------------------------
News Analysis - Tobacco Bill's Future Depends On Voter Interest
('The San Francisco Chronicle' Quotes An Anonymous GOP Senate Aide
On The Death Of The McCain Tobacco Bill - 'The Sense Now Is A General Shrug -
People Never Understood It Or Believed In It Much To Begin With -
Most Members Are Not Worried')
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 10:38:39 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US CA: News Analysis: Tobacco Bill's
Future Depends On Voter Interest
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Pubdate: Fri, 19 Jun 1998
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Contact: chronletters@sfgate.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Author: Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
NEWS ANALYSIS: TOBACCO BILL'S FUTURE DEPENDS ON VOTER INTEREST
Lawmakers Consider Possible Effect On November Elections
The Senate may have killed its big tobacco bill, but whether the measure
still might rise from the proverbial ashes is anyone's guess.
Washington's day-after obituaries opened with scathing sound bites from
Democrats and promises to pummel Republicans on tobacco in November.
``It became entirely clear that in this merger era that we're in, (tobacco
company) RJR merged with the GOP,'' said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle.
Daschle promised nonstop parliamentary warfare to revive a bill before
November. ``Piece by piece, drip by drip, we're going to make this
happen,'' he said. ``We're going to force action on this legislation over
and over again.
But Republicans are betting that while tobacco has replaced Monica Lewinsky
as the hottest Beltway topic this summer, it's no burning issue in the
hinterlands. By the time November rolls around, they calculate, voters will
have forgotten the big tobacco bill, which even legislators didn't fully
understand.
``The sense now is a general shrug,'' said a top Senate GOP aide. ``People
never understood it or believed in it much to begin with. Most members are
not worried.''
Conservative pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick said it was an easy call for
the GOP, whose mantra is tax cuts.
``If you have an R after your name and a Cong. in front of your name, this
one was not even close,'' she said. ``The greater risk for Republicans than
being tarred as being in the pockets of the tobacco industry was going on
record voting in favor of taxes.''
Still -- just in case -- backdoor negotiations are continuing to see if any
kind of legislation might be revived. House Speaker Newt Gingrich suggested
a much scaled-back version yesterday, but he offered few details.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, D- Calif., is teaming with Orrin Hatch, R-Utah,
to fashion a new bill that would keep the key regulatory and tax penalties
intended to discourage smoking, but without the extra baggage from both
parties that ultimately brought down the original bill sponsored by John
McCain, R-Ariz.
Said Feinstein: ``As the McCain bill got bigger and bigger, went from the
$516 billion to the $800 billion figure and they added the marriage penalty
(tax cut) and the drug program and the voucher program, what happened is
that the money left for public health went way down to a fraction. . . .
That is not a good bill.''
Republicans would like to immunize themselves from the tobacco issue by
passing a narrow bill to encourage education and other efforts to reduce
teenage smoking. The House leadership's version would contain no tax
increase.
Without revenue, such a bill would allow Republicans to say they are doing
something to cut teen smoking but avoid the charge that they are raising
taxes and expanding government with the big new federal programs.
But Democrats and anti-smoking lobbyists are dead-set against that
approach. White House spokesman Mike McCurry said yesterday that ``there is
no such thing as a slimmed-down bill that protects kids from smoking. . . .
A fundamental premise of the way in which you curb youth smoking is to
raise the price per pack of cigarettes.''
Linda Crawford, a top lobbyist for the American Cancer Society, said all
parties from public health groups to the tobacco companies (which at first
sought legislation as a way to limit their potentially staggering legal
liability) are ``going to take a step back'' to see what might be rescued.
But Crawford said any bill ``can't be `tobacco-light'; it can't be just
something to get them through, saying they've done something for kids. It
has to be comprehensive and effective.''
The tobacco legislation has taken so many surprising turns -- dead one day
and alive the next -- and has developed so many shifting political
crosscurrents that even seasoned lobbyists won't hazard a guess as to what
will happen next.
Conservative publisher Bill Kristol said Republicans will probably go home
for the July 4 recess to see how voters react. If there's a big yawn, as
Kristol suspects, nothing more will happen.
``But it's possible it will turn out there really is grassroots interest in
this bill,'' Kristol said, ``in which case Republicans will come back here
and revive it.''
Anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist insists Republicans just saved
themselves. ``No Republican ever lost an election by voting against a tax
increase in the history of the world,'' Norquist said. ``There is only one
thing voters will not forgive a conservative party for, and that's raising
taxes.''
But Democrats clearly smell an issue. Tobacco companies are now the Great
Satan of American society, polls show. And while polls consistently show
that most people hold smokers, not tobacco companies, responsible for their
smoking, sentiments reverse when it comes to teenagers.
``If I were a Republican, I would be very nervous about being identified
with the tobacco companies,'' said a leading Democratic strategist. Come
November, he said, ``it won't be about all this nuanced reasoning over the
nature of the bill and taxes and where the money would go, but rather, `Are
you pro-tobacco or are you against tobacco?' And on that one the Democrats
win.''
Republicans counter that while nearly everyone thinks teens shouldn't
smoke, smoking is not a top parental concern.
``If you ask the question, `Do you support legislation to help curb teen
smoking,' of course you're going to get upwards of 80 percent saying yes,''
said Fitzpatrick. ``But that's like the questions, `Do you support
protecting the environment or improving education or even cutting taxes?'
You get 80 percent saying yes, and I often wonder, who is the other 20
percent?''
Yet when asked what teens do that most concerns them, Fitzpatrick's polls
show 39 percent say drugs; 17 percent say gangs, crime and random violence;
9 percent say reckless driving and another 9 percent alcohol; 7 percent say
sex; and 2 percent answer smoking.
Nonetheless, public fallout from the Senate defeat of the tobacco bill
remains unclear, and no one knows where the issue is headed. ``It's very
hard to tell at this stage,'' Feinstein said.
WHAT'S NEXT
With the tobacco deal dead, the next big battles will come in the courts,
beginning with the nation's first class-action lawsuit brought by smokers,
which goes to trial in Florida on July 6.
The next trial of a state's lawsuit seeking to recover costs of treating
smoking-related illnesses is Washington's, set for mid-September.
Other states with trial dates set for suits against the tobacco industry
are Arizona, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New
York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
Trial dates have not been set for pending suits by California, Iowa,
Michigan and Utah.
About 800 lawsuits of all kinds are pending against tobacco companies,
although legal experts believe many will disappear or fail because they
were filed simply to be in a position to cash in on a potential
congressional settlement.
1998 San Francisco Chronicle Page A3
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Won't Cover Cost of Viagra ('The San Francisco Chronicle'
Says Kaiser Permanente, The United States' Largest Health Maintenance
Organization, Will Announce Today It Will No Longer Cover Patients' Use
Of Viagra, Claiming The Impotency Pill Costs Too Much Money - In Addition,
The New National Policy Will Apply To Other Treatments
For Erectile Dysfunction, Including Suppositories And Pills
Not Yet On The Market)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 09:13:59 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US CA: Kaiser Won't Cover Cost of Viagra
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Contact: chronletters@sfgate.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Pubdate: Fri, 19 Jun 1998
Author: Carl T. Hall, Chronicle Staff Writer
KAISER WON'T COVER COST OF VIAGRA
It cites huge price tag -- over $100 million a year
After anguishing for weeks over how to cope with Viagra mania, Kaiser
Permanente, the nation's biggest HMO, will announce plans today to exclude
coverage of the popular blue pill for male impotence.
In addition, the HMO's new national policy will apply to other prescription
treatments for erectile dysfunction, including suppositories and pills not
yet on the market.
The decision was reached after an unprecedented national policy review that
had a team of physicians, ethicists and pharmacists delving into such
issues as the medical necessity for erections and the dangers of
recreational use of pills like Viagra.
A stunning 2 million prescriptions have been written for Pfizer Inc.'s
Viagra since it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in April
-- making Viagra the most successful new pharmaceutical on record.
It's become a staple of late-night talk-show banter, so easy to purchase
that one can order it over the Internet. But it's expensive -- selling
wholesale for $7 a pill, retail for about $9 or $10.
In the last analysis, though, economic factors, as opposed to medical
issues, decided the question for Kaiser. Even if users were limited to 10
pills a month, the HMO estimated that the cost would exceed $100 million a
year.
By comparison, Kaiser dispensed only $59 million worth of anti-virals last
year, a category that includes all the protease inhibitors and other
expensive drugs used to fight AIDS.
``We could, of course, build the cost of Viagra into everyone's premium,
but is that the right thing to do?'' said Dr. Francis Crosson, executive
director of the Permanente Federation, Kaiser's national physician
organization.
Kaiser's decision overrules some regional decisionmakers who had hoped the
HMO would provide at least limited coverage to help certain patients.
Several other HMOs have adopted rules limiting Viagra coverage to six pills
or so each month. About half of state-run Medicaid programs provide Viagra
benefits. Standard Medicare coverage doesn't include any self-administered
drugs, although some HMO plans have been extending Viagra benefits that
generally match what's being offered through commercial plans.
Viagra is the only FDA-approved pill affected by the new Kaiser policy. But
at least two other potential impotence treatments, considered to be a year
or two away from the FDA-approval stage, also will be excluded, along with
the so-called Muse suppository, Kaiser officials said.
SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN NEEDED
The policy will take full effect when standard HMO contracts come up for
renewal, generally the first of the year. Employers and other health-plan
purchasers would have to buy an optional supplemental benefit plan if they
want Kaiser to provide the coverage anyway.
Kaiser doctors may continue to write prescriptions for Viagra, and the drug
will be available in the HMO's pharmacies. But the standard $5 co-payment
will not cover the cost.
In Northern California, where Kaiser provides HMO coverage to roughly 2.7
million people, or 1 of every 3 insured residents, Viagra has never made
its way onto the list of reimbursed medications.
Summing up the impact of the new policy, a spokeswoman said, ``Viagra
wasn't covered yesterday, and it won't be covered tomorrow.''
Pfizer, not surprisingly, was looking for a different answer than what
Kaiser came up with.
``Obviously, we're disappointed,'' said spokeswoman Mariann Caprino. ``This
is a serious medical condition we're talking about here.''
She said excluding Viagra is inconsistent with policies that pay for such
things as seasonal allergy medications that also improve quality of life,
even if they don't treat life-threatening conditions.
Patients and advocates specializing in erectile dysfunction roundly
condemned Kaiser's decision, calling it a misguided slap against those who
want erection problems treated as a disease rather than a joke.
``Viagra has been terrific for me,'' said Santa Rosa writer Eugene Shapiro,
63, who is co-writing a book about the erection pill with a urologist.
Shapiro said taking the pill helped him regain not only full sexual
function but also helped him fight bouts of depression.
Tom Bruckman, executive director of the American Foundation for Urologic
Disease in Baltimore, Md., said he was ``shocked.''
``If there has been any experimental or recreational use of this drug, it's
been limited and will not be ongoing,'' he said. ``Viagra is a serious drug
for a serious medical condition.''
`STRANGE INCONSISTENCY'
Betsy Imholz, senior attorney for Consumers Union in San Francisco, noted
that Kaiser will pay for office treatments and surgery for erection
problems.
The policy banning payments for the drug ``seems to me a strange
inconsistency,'' she said.
``I understand the impetus is cost-cutting, but they're going to still pay
for very invasive and costly procedures, and not cover a safer and less
costly medication.''
But some top medical experts took Kaiser's side, maintaining that all HMO
members should not have to bear the cost of the sexual activities of a few
men.
``In today's world of limited resources, you have to draw the line
somewhere,'' said Dr. Arnold Relman, a former editor of the prestigious New
England Journal of Medicine.
1998 San Francisco Chronicle Page A1
-------------------------------------------------------------------
'Don Juan' Author Castaneda Has Died ('Los Angeles Times' Obituary
In 'The Seattle Times' For Carlos Castaneda, 72, Of Westwood, California,
Who Wrote 10 Books Chronicling His Drug-Induced Mental Adventures
With A Yaqui Indian Shaman Named Don Juan)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 09:21:57 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US: 'Don Juan' Author Castaneda Has Died
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John Smith
Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Contact: opinion@seatimes.com
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/
Pubdate: Fri, 19 Jun 1998
Author: J.R. Moehringer, Los Angeles Times
'DON JUAN' AUTHOR CASTANEDA HAS DIED
LOS ANGELES - Carlos Castaneda, the self-proclaimed "sorcerer" and
best-selling author, apparently died two months ago in the same way he
lived: quietly, secretly, mysteriously.
His tales of drug-induced mental adventures with a Yaqui Indian shaman
named Don Juan once fascinated the world. And though his 10 books continue
to sell in 17 languages, he died without public notice on April 27 at his
home in Westwood.
The cause was liver cancer; he was believed to have been 72.
As befitting his mystical image, he seemingly vanished into thin air.
"He didn't like attention," said lawyer Deborah Drooz, a friend of
Castaneda's and the executor of his estate. "He always made sure people did
not take his picture or record his voice. He didn't like the spotlight.
Knowing that, I didn't take it upon myself to issue a press release."
No funeral was held; no public service of any kind took place. The author
was cremated at once and his ashes were spirited away to Mexico, according
to the Culver City mortuary that handled his remains.
He left behind a will, to be probated in Los Angeles next month, and a
death certificate fraught with dubious information. The few people who may
benefit from his rich copyrights were told of the death, Drooz said, but
none chose to alert the media.
Even those who counted Castaneda a good friend were unaware of his death
and wouldn't comment when told, choosing to honor his disdain for
publicity, no matter what realm of reality he now inhabits.
Details of birth in dispute
Carlos Cesar Arana Castaneda immigrated to the United States in 1951. He
was born Christmas Day 1925 in Sao Paulo, Brazil, or Cajamarca, Peru,
depending on which version of his autobiographical accounts can be
believed. He was an inveterate and unrepentant liar about the statistical
details of his life, from his birthplace to his birth date, and even his
given name is in some doubt.
"Much of the Castaneda mystique is based on the fact that even his closest
friends aren't sure who he is," wrote his ex-wife, Margaret Runyan
Castaneda, in a 1997 memoir that Castaneda tried to suppress.
Whoever he was, whatever his background, Castaneda galvanized the world 30
years ago. As an anthropology graduate student at UCLA, he wrote his
master's thesis about a remarkable journey he made to the Arizona-Mexico
desert. Hoping to study the effects of certain medicinal plants, Castaneda
said he stopped in an Arizona border town and there, in a Greyhound bus
depot, met an old Yaqui Indian from Sonora, Mexico, named Juan Matus, a
"brujo" - a sorcerer or shaman - who used powerful hallucinogens to
initiate the student into an world with origins dating back more than 2,000
years.
Under Don Juan's strenuous tutelage, which lasted several years, Castaneda
experimented with peyote, jimson weed and dried mushrooms, undergoing
moments of supreme ecstasy and stark panic, all in an effort to achieve
varying "states of nonordinary reality." Wandering through the desert, with
Don Juan as his psychological and pharmacological guide, Castaneda said he
saw giant insects, learned to fly, grew a beak, became a crow and
ultimately reached a plateau of higher consciousness, a hard-won wisdom
that made him a "man of knowledge" like Don Juan.
The thesis, published in 1968 by the University of California Press, became
an international bestseller, striking just the right note at the peak of
the psychedelic 1960s. A strange alchemy of anthropology, allegory,
parapsychology, ethnography, Buddhism and perhaps fiction, "The Teachings
of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge" made Don Juan a household name.
After his stunning debut, Castaneda followed with a string of best sellers,
including "A Separate Reality" and "Journey to Ixtlan." Soon, readers were
flocking to Mexico, hoping to become apprentices at Don Juan's feet.
Was there a Don Juan?
The old Indian could not be found, which set off widespread speculation
that Castaneda was the author of an elaborate, if ingenious, hoax.
Such concerns have all but discredited Castaneda in academia.
"At the moment, (his books) have no presence in anthropology," said
Clifford Geertz, an influential anthropologist. But Castaneda's penchant
for lying and the disputed existence of Don Juan never dampened the
enthusiasm of his admirers.
"It isn't necessary to believe to get swept up in Castaneda's otherworldly
narrative," wrote Joshua Gilder in the Saturday Review. "Like myth, it
works a strange and beautiful magic beyond the realm of belief. . . .
Sometimes, admittedly, one gets the impression of a con artist simply
glorifying in the game. Even so, it is a con touched by genius."
To the end, Castaneda stubbornly insisted that the events he described in
his books were not only real but meticulously documented.
Even his death certificate is not free of misinformation. His occupation is
listed as teacher, his employer the Beverly Hills School District. But
school district records don't show Castaneda teaching there.
Also, although he was said to have no family, the death certificate lists a
niece, Talia Bey, who is president of Cleargreen, a company that organizes
Castaneda seminars on "Tensegrity," a modern version of ancient shaman
practices, part yoga, part ergonomic exercises. Bey was unavailable for
comment.
Further, the death certificate lists Castaneda as "Nev. Married," though he
was married from 1960 to 1973 to Margaret Runyan Castaneda, of Charleston,
W.Va., who said Castaneda once lied in court, swearing he was the father of
her infant son by another man, then helped her raise the boy.
The son, now 36 and living in suburban Atlanta, also claims to have a birth
certificate listing Castaneda as his father.
"I haven't been notified" of Castaneda's death, said Margaret Runyan
Castaneda, 76. "I had no idea."
When he wasn't writing about how to better experience this life, Castaneda
was preoccupied by death. In 1995, he told a seminar:
"We are all going to face infinity, whether we like it or not. Why do we do
it when we are weakest, when we are broken, at the moment of dying? Why not
when we are strong? Why not now?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Do You Know Everything You Think You Know About Puffing Pot?
('The West Kootenay Weekender' In Canada's 'Nelson Daily News'
Is So Scientifically Illiterate That It Thinks 'The Studies On Marijuana
Seem To Be As Clouded As The Smoke Exhaled From A Token Joint,'
But Otherwise Gets A Good Interview From Paul Defilice, Co-Owner
Of The Holy Smoke Culture Shop In Nelson)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 20:19:16 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: Canada: SMOKE AND MIRRORS -
Do you know everything you think
you know about puffing pot?
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Herb
Source: West Kootenay Weekender (Nelson Daily News) (Canada)
Contact: ndnews@netidea.com
Website: http://www.sterlingnews.com/nelson
Pubdate: 19 Jun 1998
Author: Karl Hardt
SMOKE AND MIRRORS - DO YOU KNOW EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT PUFFING POT?
Marijuana: A harmless gateway to mind-opening experiences and relaxation,
or the first step into a criminal world of psychosis and darker drugs?
According to countless studies, marijuana is...
Actually, the studies on marijuana seem to be as clouded as the smoke
exhaled from a token joint.
Proponents and opponents of the drug both have studies to rely on, and both
sides claim their studies are sound, refuting information provided by the
other's.
Paul Defilice, co-owner of the Holy Smoke Culture Shop in Nelson says
Cannabis, the plant from which marijuana comes is relatively harmless when
used responsibly. While he concedes there are people addicted to
marijuana, Defilice said some people are also addicted to other pastimes
which are beneficial in moderation, but harmful when done excessively.
"Basically any pleasurable behavior has the potential to be addictive,"
said Defilice, using a runner who jogs 50 miles a day as an example.
Although jogging has numerous health benefits. Defilice said a runner who
overdoes it may do his muscles and joints more harm than good. When used
conservatively Defilice said marijuana has various benefits and few harmful
side affects.
"I look at it more spiritually than anything else. It's important for
self-knowledge and creativity. It releases the tedium of monotonous work
and increases enjoyment of music, art and conversation," Defilice said. "It
also clears my sinuses," he added with a chuckle.
An RCMP fact sheet published in the Nelson Daily News states a marijuana
cigarette's tar content is 50 to 100 per cent greater than one filled with
tobacco, and its smoke is typically inhaled 33 per cent deeper and held
four times as long. The sheet says, because marijuana contains two
powerful carcinogens, smoking three to five joints a week is the same as
consuming 16 cigarettes a day.
Defilice, however, said the two habits are actually opposite in effect.
"It's not a real comparison to compare cigarette smoke to cannabis smoke
because one is harmful and the other is healing."
Cannabis is a vasodilator, said Defilice, meaning it expands blood vessels,
rather than vasoconstrictor like cigarette smoke which constricts vessels
and that when cannabis is smoked through water pipes, bongs or hookahs,
most harmful gassess and 90 per cent of tar are filtered out. Defilice said
longterm use by residents in Puerto Rico and India actually show a decrease
in incidents of emphysema and lung disease.
He also said recent events which received wide-stream media coverage such
as Canadian Olympic snowboarder Ross Rebagliatti's gold medal, legalization
of industrial hemp, and recent court victories providing for use of
cannabis in certain medical situations brought cannabis into the open like
never before.
"We're riding the crest of a cannabis wave. Public awareness is at an
all-time high. We've found from these events that the public does have an
acceptance.
Defilice claims that cannabis opens up the mind, unlike other drugs, which
he says rob users of their self-control.
"It's definitely a barrier-dissolving experience, but not an
inhibition-dissolving experience," he said.
In many cases, said Defilice, marijuana oppontent theories don't have
anything to back them up, and that all the reports he has seen do not lend
credence to the negative studies, and in some cases show the opposite. The
police fact sheet also said that, of teens who use pot before they are 18,
43 percent also experiment with cocaine, as opposed to less than one per
cent of non-smokers.
Defilice said he hasn't personally seen marijuana lead to harder drug
abuse, but said if it does happen, it's because cannabis is only sold
behind closed doors.
"That same dealer is going to have cocaine or heroin or harder drugs." In
fact, Defilice said that from his experience, people addicted to heavier
drugs can actually use cannabis to beat their addictions. "Ive seen it used
as a gateway away from harder drugs. It either creates a consciousness or
substitutes for other drugs."
He said erroneous information about cannabis can be damaging becauses when
people see it isn't as bad as it's portrayed, they may not believe true
caveats about more dangerous drugs.
"It's these kinds of lies that totally undermine drug education by causing
children to question the tuth about all drugs.
"When asked about studies which say marijuana can have long-lasting effects
after smoked. Defilice said that while trace metabolites which don't
effect a person stay in his or her system for weeks or months because they
are fat soluble, the effects of cannabis actually disappear within six
hours - more quickly than alcohol.
Castlegar RCMP Cst. Don Woodhouse said his detachment doesn't distribute a
marijuana fact sheet that he is aware of, and marijuana is not a huge
problem in this city.
"We probably have a higher cocaine problem here than we do with
marijuana,"said Woodhouse.
In 1997, Castlegar RCMP laid 60 charges for marijuana possession and 10 for
trafficking. All the charges varied in scope from miniscule amounts to a
top bust last fall of a plot containing at least 400 plants valued at about
$1,500 each or some $600,000 in total.
"There's a lot of pot grown around here. I don't think that's a big secret
to too many people," said Woodhouse.
As law enforcers, Woodhous said Castlegar RCMP have a duty to follow the
laws set in the books by the government.
He said the biggest concern for this detachment is individuals pushing
illegal drugs on younger teens and children, because kids might not have
the ability to make the right decisions or be aware of the repercussions.
He said adults know the risks when they do something illegal, while
children might not.
"You take your chances, (but) the decision should be made as an adult not a
kid. I think it's a matter of education, then choices," said Woodhouse.
Woodhouse frowns on the term "war against drugs" because it promotes an
attitude or confrontation not cooperation.
"I don't believe in us against them. We're all part of the same community
and we need to work together. A continual combative attitude is not a
healthy thing in any community. If we had proper communication then maybe
something would get solved."
Jim Gouk, West Kootenay-Okanagan Reform MP, said he never smoked marijuana,
has no desire to smoke it and does not advocate smoking it. However Gouk
said he realizes there are lots of people in the Kootenays who are using it
and that current laws aren't working.
"If you create a law that nobody's going to obey...then you've got to
re-examine that law. We're trying to enforce an unenforceable law," he said.
The system we've got now isn't working well. We should be taking a hard
look at it."
Gouk said ramming changes down the public's throat is the wrong way to
improve the situation. He wants to put some genuine facts to the public
and hold forums so the public can ask questions, get answers, and provide
their input.
"First you've got to allow people input. We can't make the decision for
people. People should be able to make the decision for themselves, but the
decision should be based on information and facts, not rumors, rhetoric and
fear."
Gouk said meangful dialogue may help eliminate overreaction from groups for
and against marijuana use and legalization - groups which tend to be polar
opposites when it comes to the issue. While he isn't sure legalization is
the right path to follow, Gouk said legalizing marijuana and taxing it
could help boost the education and health systems, or provide funds for
drug counselling and education.
"If we can't stop it maybe we should be getting some money from it."
Legalizing it would also allow for greater control of how cannabis is
produced and sold. Gouk said many of the harmful effects of marijuana might
come from chemicals used in growing it or from lacing it with substances
which enhance the drug's effects for those who use it. Gouk said a possible
first step could be decriminalization, which would keep marijuana illegal,
but would remove the criminal aspect of it. If decriminalized, punishment
for simple possession could range from a fine to community work service.
The "offender" would serve no jail time, nor would he or she retain a
criminal record for simple possession. Gouk said decriminalization would
greatly decrease the overwhelming economic and social costs associated with
prosecuting such cases. Several years ago, said Gouk, a crown prosecutor
told him a simple charge of possession can cost the system $10,000 -
#30,000 and quite often only results in a minor fine or slap on the wrist
of the accused.
Decriminalization would also remove the criminal stigma associated with a
drug conviction. As well, those convicted are often of simple marijuana
possession are often denied entry to the U.S. and disqualified from
applying for or obtaining many jobs. That could change with
decriminalization.
"It would remove some of the stigma of a criminal record for taking a puff
from one joint," he said.
Before any changes are made, however, Gouk said the public has to have its
say.
"We have to look at something that most people can buy into before we make
any changes."
While the number of people who smoke marijuana in Castlegar might be high,
the number addicted to it or at least seeking help for addiction is small.
Jan Rebus, Castlegar and District Community Services Centre alcohol and
drug counselor helped three people last year who said they were addicted to
marijuana. That's half the number Rebus counselled for cocaine in the same
time frame.
Rebus said the difference between people addicted to marijuana as opposed
to alcohol comes from how she deals with the situation and not the way
addiction affects individuals.
"There's lots of different reasons people use. When someone comes for
counselling they're experiencing problems."
Because it's illegal, Rebus can't recommend people simply cut back on their
marijuana use.
"You can't counsel someone to use an illegal drug responsibly," she said.
Like Defilice and Gouk, Rebus said the public needs clear, factual
information about marijuana.
"I think a lot of the information out there is outdated. I think factual
information is really helpful," she said.
As far as legalizing marijuana goes, Rebus said it wouldn't change her job.
Alcohol is legal, and Rebus treated 37 people for alcohol abuses in the
last 12 months.
"I don't think legalizing it (marijuana) would make more problems or less
problems."
Defilice said he definitely thinks marihuana should be legalized with
minimal controls, including being taxed similar to alcohol, no advertising,
allowance for home growers like that for home wine and beer brewers, and
restrictions on use by minors.
"It's less harmful and addictive than coffee, and we should treat it that
way."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Week Online With DRCNet, Issue Number 46 (The Drug Reform Coordination
Network's Original News Summary For Activists, Including - McCaffrey
Calls Legalization Movement 'A Devious Fraud,' Senator Biden Proposes Hearings;
District Of Columbia Medical Marijuana Initiative Seeking Volunteers,
Petition Deadline Coming Up; And An Excellent Editorial, A Marker On The Path
To Sanity, By Adam J. Smith)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 17:12:48 EDT
Errors-To: manager@drcnet.org
Reply-To: manager@drcnet.org
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: The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue No. 46
THE WEEK ONLINE WITH DRCNet, ISSUE No. 46 -- JUNE 19, 1998
-- 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.)
(This issue can be also be read on our web site at
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/46.html.)
(Please accept our apology if this bulletin gets to you twice.
We sent it originally at 2:45 EST, and it hasn't come back
yet two hours later. We haven't been able to determine
whether it is still on the way, or if it didn't make it all, so we
are resending it to make sure it goes out.)
NOTES TO OUR READERS:
Due to the UN activities, as well as other business that the
DRCNet staff attended to in New York, we regret that we were
unable to publish The Week Online last week. But we're back
this week with issue #46. Thanks to everyone who
participated in the many events held across the globe who
helped to raise awareness of the growing opposition to the
Drug War. To everyone who collected email addresses for
DRCNet, please send them in (we'll pick up the postage
costs) so that we can get those new subscribers onto the
network.
Rather than provide a piecemeal account of the various
events, we will endeavor, in the coming weeks, to post
accounts of each event on the Global Days web page at
http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/globalcoalition/. If you
attended (or helped organize) an event and you would like to
share your experience with others, please email us with your
observations. This has been an important two weeks for
reformers, and we at DRCNet are proud to be working with all
of you in our efforts to bring this war, and its attendant
human misery, to a speedy end.
Please also note that our local Internet service provider
lost about a week's worth of e-mail sent to the DRCNet list
manager account, manager@drcnet.org. (This is the account
to which your mail would go if you replied directly to one
of our bulletins.) If you wrote to that address with an
address change or removal, or because your copy of Marijuana
Myths, Marijuana Facts hadn't shown up, or for any other
reason, please write us again at mailto:drcnet@drcnet.org
and we will process your request this week.
Speaking of Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts, we've mailed
out all but the last five copies ordered (we're waiting for
the copies to show up here). If you think you have a copy
coming to you, but haven't received it yet, please let us
know, and we will check the database and resend it if
necessary.
We are please to announce that Mike Gray's book, "Drug
Crazy", has been officially released, and we have seen them
prominently displayed on many bookstore shelves in the area.
We urge you to go to your nearby store and purchase or
order, or at least inquire about, this exciting new chapter
in the anti-prohibition effort. (And when you do, check out
page 203!) If you're not going to go the bookstore route,
but might consider ordering it online, visit our site at
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/5-22.html#drugcrazy and
follow the link to amazon.com, and DRCNet will earn 15
percent from your purchase.
Dave and Adam
***
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. McCaffrey Calls Legalization Movement "a devious fraud"
-- Senator Biden Proposes Hearings
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/46.html#reaction
2. Republican Drug War Amendment to Tobacco Bill Passes
Senate, but Legislation Will Likely Fizzle
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/46.html#fizzle
3. Pain Patients Protest at Capitol, Blast DEA and Medical
Boards
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/46.html#painmarch
4. Report on the Heroin Maintenance Conference in New York
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/46.html#heroinconf
5. Money Laundering Sting Sparks International Incident
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/46.html#incident
6. Royal Canadian Mounted Police Aided in Money Laundering
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/46.html#mounties
7. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Recommends
Decriminalization
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/46.html#ccsa
8. French Government Report: Marijuana Poses Less Danger
Than Alcohol
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/46.html#frenchreport
9. District of Columbia Medical Marijuana Initiative
Seeking Volunteers, Petition Deadline Coming Up
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/46.html#dc59
10. EDITORIAL: A Marker on the Path to Sanity
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/46.html#editorial
***
1. McCaffrey Calls Legalization Movement "a devious fraud"
-- Senator Biden Proposes Hearings
On Wednesday, 6/17, Drug Czar and retired general Barry
McCaffrey, in written testimony before the Senate Foreign
Relations' Committee, warned that "There is a carefully
camouflaged, exorbitantly funded, well-heeled elitist group
whose ultimate goal is to legalize drug use in the United
States."
McCaffrey didn't name names, but in the wake of an open
letter to United Nations' Secretary General Koffi Annan,
published in a two-page ad in the New York Times last week
and signed by over 500 prominent individuals worldwide, he
didn't really have to. Signatories to the letter included
Ronald Reagan's former secretary of State George Schultz,
former UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar, former
US Senators Alan Cranston and Claiborne Pell, Journalist
Walter Cronkite, Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman and
Baltimore's mayor Kurt Schmoke. Earlier in the week, in
response to the UN letter, McCaffrey scoffed that the
reform movement was "the mouse that roared".
Also during the UN summit, a 30-second ad on CNN, paid for
by Common Sense for Drug Policy, ran repeatedly in several
major cities for the duration. The ad featured footage of
President Clinton speaking at the UN, with an actor
impersonating his voice, proclaiming the war on drugs a
failure. The ad explained that Clinton wasn't really saying
this, but that he should. (View the ad or read the text
online at http://www.drugsense.org/unad.htm.)
McCaffrey also echoed a recurring theme of drug warriors in
their assessment of the growing movement as somehow capable
of misleading even the most astute of their supporters.
"Through a slick misinformation campaign, these individuals
perpetuate a fraud on the American people, a fraud so
devious that even some of the nation's most respected
newspapers and sophisticated media are capable of echoing
their falsehoods."
Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, responded to the controversy
surrounding the United Nations' Special Session by calling
for hearings on legalization.
"I believe that drug legalization would be a disaster," he
said. "But today, many powerful voices in our society are
supporting a variety of legalization policies. They say,
'Let's save money and trouble and just legalize drugs.' So
I am suggesting that we on the Senate Judiciary Committee
take a hard, unblinking look at drug legalization. I think
it unfortunate that we must, but I believe it necessary."
Mark Rooney, a spokesman for Senator Biden, told The Week
Online, "I'm not sure, at this moment what the senator's
strategy on this will be, whether he'll push forward with it
or not. Obviously, the chairman, Senator Hatch of Utah,
will ultimately determine the committee's agenda. I do know
that there's a lot already planned for the committee and so
scheduling will have an impact as well."
Ethan Nadelmann, Director of The Lindesmith Center, a drug
policy think tank which coordinated the open letter and
placed it in the Times, told The Week Online, "When people
look back at the UN Session on Narcotics of 1998, if they
look back at all, it won't be for the platitudes uttered by
president Clinton and the other heads of state, or because
the new UN Drug Control chief issued an absurd plan to
eradicate opium and coca from the face of the earth in the
next ten years. It will be because it marked the moment at
which a truly international movement for the reform of drug
policy began, and the point at which serious, substantive
criticism of the failures of drug prohibition became both
credible and legitimate."
Meanwhile, on Wednesday (6/17), the Judiciary Committee held
hearings on Teens and Drugs. Speakers included Barry
McCaffrey, a teen who recently completed drug rehab, and an
undercover narcotics officer who has posed as a high school
student at two different schools and whose work led to
numerous arrests in both cases. Among the insights that the
officer provided to the committee was his assessment that
drugs are "rampant" even in middle class and upper middle
class high schools. In comparing undercover work at a
school with undercover operations in the workplace, he made
the point that while it might take 8 months to a year to net
a dozen busts among workers, it takes just weeks to find
large numbers of kids who are using and dealing drugs. He
characterized drugs as far more prevalent in schools. No
one on the committee asked whether Prohibition, and the
black market which it creates, might have anything to do
with such access.
(Senator Biden is featured in the Schaffer Library's
"Chicken Page", for those who make noise but don't really
want to come out and debate the issue, online at
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/chicken.htm.)
***
2. Republican Drug War Amendment to Tobacco Bill Passes
Senate, But Legislation Will Likely Fizzle
Two weeks ago it was learned that a large chunk of the
Republican-led "World War II-style" Drug War legislative
package would be introduced as an amendment to the rapidly
expanding tobacco bill in the senate. (See our alert at
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/6-4.html. Last week
(6/9) that amendment passed along party lines (52-46).
According to Trent Lott (R-MS), the amendment was essential
to the tobacco bill's prospects in the senate. While news
reports this week seem to indicate that the on-again off-
again tobacco bill was finally dead, drug policy advocates
see the passage of the amendment as an important indicator.
Alexander Robinson, director of legislative affairs for the
Drug Policy Foundation in Washington DC, told The Week
Online, "I think that whether or not the tobacco bill makes
it out of the senate, the amendment is significant in that
it is the first time that the republican proposal was voted
on by either house. Its passage is a further indication
that the hard-line Republican plan, as draconian as it is,
will not go away. We can be sure that we will see this
legislative package rear its head again in the near future."
***
3. Pain Patients Protest at Capitol, Blast DEA and Medical
Boards
On Saturday, June 13, an afternoon that began in searing
heat but ended in a drenching thundershower, patients and
physicians gathered at the steps of the Capitol Building in
Washington, DC to protest the undertreatment of chronic
pain, the maltreatment of chronic pain patients and the
persecution of doctors who prescribe narcotics for pain as
needed. Signs and t-shirts read "stop pain now" and "get
the DEA out of my doctor's office". Awards were presented
to several physicians who have courageously stood up for the
rights of patients.
One piece of good news that was reported was that the DEA,
after two long years, has finally restored Dr. William
Hurwitz's license to prescribe narcotics (see
http://www.drcnet.org/guide10-96/pain.html). The Virginia
Board of Medicine restored his state licenses several months
ago, and in a dramatic about face, praised his method of
pain treatment and encouraged him to continue.
Photos from the March Against Pain are online at
http://www.widomaker.com/~skipb/Wash.html. Visit the
American Society for Action on Pain (ASAP) at
http://www.actiononpain.org for ongoing information on the
subject.
***
4. Report on the Heroin Maintenance Conference in New York
- Alex Morgan
On Saturday, June 8, the New York Academy of Medicine hosted
the First International Conference on Heroin Maintenance,
sponsored by Beth Israel Medical Center, Columbia University
School of Public Health, The Lindesmith Center of the Open
Society Institute, Montefiore Medical Center, the New York
Academy of Medicine and the Yale Center for Inter-
Disciplinary Research on Aids.
The conference was the first major presentation in the
United States of the results the Swiss research project that
has maintained over 1000 addicts on heroin.
In the introduction to the research summary, Ethan
Nadelmann, Director of The Lindesmith Center, said, "Oral
Methadone works best for hundreds of thousands of heroin
addicts but some fare better with other opiate substitutes.
In England, doctors prescribe injectable methadone for about
10 percent of recovering patients who may like the modest
"rush" upon injection or the ritual of injecting." In
various countries oral morphine, codeine and buprenorphine
have also been used as maintenance drugs.
Nadelmann noted that, "The Swiss study has undermined
several myths about heroin and its habitual users...given
relatively unlimited availability, heroin users will
voluntarily stabilize or reduce their dosage and some
will even choose abstinence; that long addicted users can
lead relatively normal, stable lives if provided legal
access to their drug of choice..."
Dr. Ambros Uchtenhagen, Principal Investigator of the Swiss
National Project on the Medically Controlled Prescription of
Narcotics, discussed the results of the three year study,
which was conducted at seventeen out patient clinics and one
penal institution. The project tracked 1,146 patients from
January '94 to December '96, in order to study the effects
of prescribed heroin on the health, social integration, and
dependent behavior of the research participants.
The Swiss targeted the study at addicts who were doing
poorly on methadone maintenance, continuing to use illicit
drugs such as heroin, cocaine and benzo-diazepams as well as
alcohol. To participate in the study, the addicts had to be
at least twenty years old with two years of addiction and a
history of failure at other treatment modalities.
No take home heroin was provided and the patients had to
come to the clinic to inject under supervision two or three
times a day. They were also given counseling and
appropriate social services, as needed.
The results were remarkable:
--a 60% decrease in criminal offenses
--notable improvements in physical health
--a marked decrease in the use of other illegal drugs
--low levels of HIV and hepatitis infections
--rise in employment from 14% to 32%
Also at the conference were researchers from the
Netherlands, where a heroin maintenance study will begin
next month, and Australia, where a study was set to begin a
few months ago until the federal government withdrew its
consent three weeks before the start date.
One of the main developments of the conference was a meeting
held the next day at the Lindesmith Center, where
researchers discussed the possibility of a North American
heroin maintenance trial with cities in the US and Canada
participating. The Baltimore Sun has run several recent
stories about the possibility of such a program being set up
at the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.
We will be posting a more detailed report on the conference
over the coming weeks. Much more information on drug
maintenance can found on the Lindesmith Center web site,
http://www.lindesmith.org.
***
5. Money Laundering Sting Sparks International Incident
Last month DRCNet reported that some experts believe the
significance of the Mexican money laundering banking sting,
Operation Casablanca, in which 150 people were arrested and
$50 million was seized, was overblown and that it was not
likely to have a significant impact on the illegal trade
(http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/5-22.html#chumpchange).
The operation has, however, touched off an international
incident. A June 7 Reuters story reported that Mexican
President Ernesto Zedillo was planning to blast the United
States for violating Mexico's sovereignty, during the UN
Global Drug Summit at which he was to speak. In subsequent
statements, the Mexican government has accused US agents of
violating Mexican law, and has threatened to request their
extradition to Mexico for trial.
***
6. Royal Canadian Mounted Police Aided in Money Laundering
- Kris Lotlikar
Montreal International Currency Center Inc., an undercover
RCMP operation, inadvertently helped change over $120
million Canadian dollars in known or suspected drug money.
The operation was put into place in 1990 to catch money-
launderers looking to exchange Canadian for US currency and
bank drafts. The operation investigated members of only two
of the 25 suspected criminal organizations using the
exchange. On August 30, 1994, the sting ended, and police
seized $16.5 million in cash and property from suspects,
making 57 arrests. The RCMP claimed it had broken one of
the biggest money-laundering rings in Canada.
Due to inadequate funds and manpower, the police were not
able to follow up on a majority of the transactions.
Constable Mike Cowley, a RCMP investigator, was very
frustrated with the lack of resources. He wrote a letter to
his superior on Oct. 16, 1992, stating, "Without the
necessary resources, it seems like our undercover officers
are simply offering a money-laundering service for the drug
traffickers." Cowley also asked to be reassigned out of the
operation. The mob may have even known about the operation
because a corrupt RCMP squad boss in Montreal. Inspector
Claude Savoie took $200,000 in bribes in exchange for
leaking sensitive information. Savio committed suicide in
1993 to avoid police questioning. The RCMP estimates that
the money that moved through the undercover exchange was
enough to buy almost 5,000 kilograms of cocaine from
Colombian drug cartels. Once shipped back into Canada that
could yield an estimated street value of $2 billion.
Many questions arise about this operation. Was the
operation legal? If so much money is getting past an
exchange run by police, how much is getting past other
exchanges? How did the RCMP superior endorse this plan
without needed funds? Supreme Court Justice Mary Humphries
is trying to get answers for some of these questions. At
the time of the so-called "reverse sting operation", it was
illegal for anyone to possess proceeds from criminal
activities, including officers conducting an investigation.
Undercover RCMP agents never made customers fill-out the
proper forms and show identification required for exchanges
for over $10,000 dollars. On Sept. 24, 1992, one man
exchanged $959,720 in Canadian cash without being
identified.
In a case against a man accused of laundering money, the
government denied a Supreme Court Justice order to open
files on the operation. Deputy RCMP Commissioner Terry Ryan
and Jocelyne Bourgon each filed sworn affidavits stating
that the documents about the police-run currency exchange
are confidential. The Ottawa Citizen reports that in
January 1998, Madam Justice Humphries handed down a ruling
that officers knowingly possessed proceeds of crime and
failed to get suspects to properly report large currency
transactions as required by law. The operation made over $2
million in profits over the four years it was in existence.
***
7. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Recommends
Decriminalization
- Kris Lotlikar
The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse issued a report
recommending decriminalizing marijuana possession to a civil
violation. "The current law prohibiting cannabis possession
and trafficking appears to have had a very limited deterrent
effect, yet it entails high social costs and diverts limited
police resources from other pressing needs," says the study.
Paul Armentano of the National Organization for the Reform
of Marijuana Laws in the US is not surprised by the
findings. He told The Week Online, "Canada seems to be
leading the way in opening up debate on the issue."
"Occasional use often occurs with relatively little or no
subjective negative effects for the user," the study found.
"The available evidence indicates that removal of jail as a
sentencing option would lead to considerable cost savings
without leading to increases in rates of cannabis use." A
civil violation approach would entail a fine and no criminal
record for the offender. Debate started after the decision
to temporarily take away Canadian snowboarder Ross
Rebagliati's Olympic gold medal for having trace amounts of
marijuana in his system.
"It's about time," Eugene Oscapella, director of the
Canadian Foundation on Drug Policy, told The Week Online.
Mr. Oscapella felt that this report was past due and that
certain forces in the CCSA were trying not to raise debate
about current legislation.
The study points out that decriminalizing marijuana would be
within the boundaries of Canada's international treaty
obligations to prohibit marijuana. The current penalty for
possession of a small amount of marijuana is up to six
months in jail and/or a $1000 fine.
The Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy can be found online
at http://fox.nstn.ca/~eoscapel/cfdp/cfdp.html. The
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse has a web site at
http://www.ccsa.ca.
***
8. French Government Report Says Marijuana Poses Less
Dangers Than Alcohol
- Reprinted from the NORML Weekly News,
http://www.norml.org
June 18, 1998, Paris, France: Smoking marijuana poses less
of a threat to public health than the regular consumption of
alcohol, determined a French government commissioned report
Tuesday.
"The report again shows that the basis [for policies
prohibiting marijuana] is totally wrong," spokesman for the
Greens party announced in a prepared statement. The party
is calling for a federal review of the nation's drug
policies.
Marijuana has low toxicity, little addictive power, and
poses only a minor threat to social behavior, researchers at
the French medical institute INSERM concluded. The report
identified alcohol, heroin, and cocaine as the drugs most
dangerous to health. Tobacco, psychotropic drugs,
tranquilizers, and hallucinogens were placed in a second,
less harmful group. Marijuana was classified in a third
category of substances defined as posing relatively little
danger.
"This federally commissioned report concludes, just as the
World Health Organization did earlier this year, that
marijuana smoking does less harm to public health than drink
and cigarettes," said Allen St. Pierre, Executive Director
of The NORML Foundation.
Junior Health Minister Bernard Kouchner said that the
report's findings would not encourage the federal government
to consider decriminalizing the simple possession of
marijuana. He called the report "toxicologically correct
but politically wrong." Kouchner's office paid for the
INSERM study.
***
9. District of Columbia Medical Marijuana Initiative
Seeking Volunteers, Petition Deadline Coming Up
Initiative 59, a medical marijuana campaign organized by the
District of Columbia chapter of ACT UP, is seeking
volunteers to gather signatures to help get the measure on
the ballot. The deadline for securing the needed 17,000
valid signatures for the November ballot is July 6th. For
more information, visit http://www.actupdc.org or call ACT
UP at (202) 547-9404.
***
10. EDITORIAL: A Marker on the Path to Sanity
Sometime in the not-too-distant future, when the Drug War is
over and America's long, failed experiment with Prohibition
is but a distant, unpleasant memory, historians of the era
will likely look back upon the month of June, 1998, as
something of a turning point. In every battle, and
especially in those fought by a principled few against a
seemingly omnipotent but ultimately doomed regime, there are
such turning points, often unrecognized at the time, which
mark basic changes in the terms of engagement and signal a
step forward in the progression toward victory. Gandhi, who
knew a bit about noble struggle against overwhelming odds,
put it this way: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at
you, then they crack you down, and then you win."
Over the past two weeks, several things have transpired
which signal just such a step forward for the drug policy
reform movement. First, on June 8th, the opening day of the
United Nations' Special Session on Narcotics, a two-page ad
was placed in the New York Times. The ad contained an open
letter to UN Secretary General Koffi Annan, signed by over
500 prominent individuals, stating that the drug war is now
causing more harm than drug abuse itself, and calling on the
Secretary to lead a discussion of alternative solutions.
The response to the ad was global and immediate. From
pained mutterings at the UN Session itself to editorial
comment in many of the world's most widely-read newspapers.
In response to that outcry came a second significant event,
Barry McCaffrey, the US Drug Czar, addressed the issue of
the reform movement itself. First, in response to
reporters' questions, he denigrated the "small group of
intellectuals" as "the mouse that roared." But just days
later, in written testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, McCaffrey warned, "There is a carefully
camouflaged, exorbitantly funded, well-heeled elitist group
whose ultimate goal is to legalize drug use in the United
States."
McCaffrey went on to say, "Through a slick misinformation
campaign, these individuals perpetuate a fraud on the
American people, a fraud so devious that even some of the
nation's most respected newspapers and sophisticated media
are capable of echoing their falsehoods."
Then, as the story grew, Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), an
inveterate drug warrior who has been known to publicly extol
the virtues of "our first drug czar," the propagandist Harry
Anslinger, suggested to the press that the time had come for
the Judiciary Committee, of which he is a member, to hold
hearings on "legalization." Noting that "today, many
powerful voices in our society are supporting a variety of
legalization policies" Biden called for the committee to
take a "hard, unblinking look" at the issue.
Now, it is indeed flattering that Barry McCaffrey believes
that the reform movement is so intelligent and "carefully
camouflaged" that it can "mislead" even the nation's most
professional and well-informed editors and media elite. And
it is certainly amusing that he ascribes to the modest and
still nascent movement the properties of an "exorbitantly
well-funded" operation. But what is truly significant in
McCaffrey's comments is that despite the fact that the
movement, which is in reality a collection of very different
groups with very different politics and visions of reform,
is neither brilliantly deceptive nor extravagantly funded,
it has reached the point, finally, where it can no longer be
safely ignored.
As to Senator Biden, there can be no doubt that the hearings
he has in mind will be orchestrated for the purpose of
prohibitionist propaganda. In fact, the only reason why
such a "look" at the issue of drug policy reform by Senator
Biden's Committee will be "unblinking" is that it is likely
that its members will keep their eyes tightly shut to any
and all evidence of the inherent flaws in the prohibitionist
model. But here again, in raising the level of the
prohibitionist response to the growing movement to such
heights, there is an implicit acknowledgment that
prohibitionists can no longer pretend that the debate does
not exist at all.
A man who walks the streets in daylight, confident of his
surroundings and sure of himself, will barely notice the
footsteps approaching from behind. It is only the nervous,
the timid, the one with something to fear, scurrying through
the shadows in an attempt to conceal his mission who turns
around to check his back. Let the record show that it was
in June, 1998 that the prohibitionists, in the wake of an
international gathering which was supposed to trumpet the
solidarity of the entire world in service to their war
machine, felt the need to look behind and take fearful note
of the relatively tiny but steadily growing movement for
reform striding purposefully toward them. And let there be
no mistake that for reformers, engaged against a global war
machine with nothing save truth and justice in their
arsenal, that act, the simple but telling look over the
shoulder, stands as the unmistakable marker of a new phase
in the struggle. A road sign of hope on the path toward the
defeat of a once seemingly invincible foe.
Adam J. Smith
Associate Director
***
DRCNet needs your support! Donations can be sent to 2000 P
St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036, or made by credit
card at http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html on the web.
Contributions to DRCNet are not tax-deductible.
***
DRCNet
***
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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[End]
to 1998 Daily News index for June 18-24