-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chavez Offered Plea Bargain ('The Los Angeles Times' Version)
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: "MN" (mapnews@mapinc.org)
Subject: MN: US: CA: Chavez Offered Plea Bargain
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 17:40:50 -0500
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: FilmMakerZ@aol.com
Pubdate: Wed, 5 August 1998
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Author: Lisa Richardson, Times Staff Writer
CHAVEZ OFFERED PLEA BARGAIN
O.C. Medicinal Marijuana Club Director Says He Will Reject the Deal
Though he faces 15 years in prison on 10 counts of selling and distributing
drugs, the director of an Orange County medicinal marijuana club said
Tuesday he would rather go to jail than admit wrongdoing as part of a
proffered deal that could keep him from serving time.
Marvin Chavez, 42, said Tuesday, the first day of his trial, that Superior
Court Judge Robert R. Fitzgerald had given him 24 hours to mull an
unexpected offer from the prosecution: Chavez would probably receive some
time in County Jail but would receive credit for time already served, along
with five years' probation. Because he was in jail for 90 days awaiting
trial, Chavez might not serve time at all.
The deal also would have allowed him to use marijuana personally but not to
distribute it to others, Chavez said.
But Chavez, an ardent defender and proponent of Proposition 215, said he
balks at either pleading guilty or agreeing to stop distributing "the
medicine."
"I'm thinking that I cannot take the deal," Chavez said. "I've always been
inspired by Gandhi and Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela--look at
Mandela! He spent 27 years in prison for what he believed in, and it paid
off.
"I'm not trying to save the world, but I'm an American," said Chavez,
director of the Patient, Doctor, Nurse Support Group. "I'm willing to stand
for my civil rights."
Proposition 215, which passed in November 1996, permits people with doctors'
recommendations to use marijuana legally to treat illness. It also calls on
the federal and other state governments to implement a plan for the
affordable distribution of marijuana to patients. The initiative, however,
has caused much confusion about whether federal or state drugs laws have
more weight.
Deputy Dist. Atty. Carl Armbrust confirmed that Chavez had been offered a
deal but would not discuss any details.
Should he agree to bargain, Chavez would fare far better than another
cannabis club member recently sentenced in an Orange County court.
David Lee Herrick, 48, was convicted in May on two counts of felony
marijuana sale and sentenced to four years in prison. Herrick, who has been
in jail since March 1997, was arrested after police found several plastic
bags of marijuana identified as cannabis club property and marked "Not For
Sale" in his possession.
One of Chavez's attorneys, Robert L. Kennedy, later in the day groaned on
learning of his client's inclination. Only last week, Kennedy was
anticipating an appeal of Chavez's potential conviction. The deal offered
Tuesday would provide an alternative to lengthy legal wrangling.
Also, with a new district attorney and county sheriff coming into office in
January, Chavez would do more for the movement by working with them than by
going to prison, Kennedy said.
Outgoing Sheriff Brad Gates campaigned heavily against Proposition 215, but
Sheriff-elect Mike Carona has said he believes doctors should have the power
to prescribe marijuana to seriously ill people.
"We will stand by [Chavez], but I would rather see him laying the groundwork
for an enlightened allocation of resources for those patients who are
seriously ill," Kennedy said.
Obviously exasperated, Kennedy added: "It's too bad he can't call Herrick up
and ask what his feelings are and what he'd do if he'd had the same offer."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Officers Work To Wipe Out Pot Plant Explosion
(According To 'The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,'
A Bumper Crop Of Wild And Cultivated Marijuana
Has Prompted Waukesha County, Wisconsin Prohibition Agents
To Destroy 20,000 Plants So Far This Growing Season,
More Than 10 Times Last Year's Amount)
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 10:35:15 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US WI: Officers Work to Wipe Out Pot Plant Explosion
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: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI)
Contact: jsedit@onwis.com
Fax: (414) 224-8280
Website: http://www.jsonline.com/
Pubdate: Wed, 05 Aug 1998
Author: Linda Spice and Mike Johnson of the Journal Sentinel staff
OFFICERS WORK TO WIPE OUT POT PLANT EXPLOSION
A bumper crop of wild and cultivated marijuana has prompted law enforcement
officers in Waukesha County to destroy 20,000 plants so far this growing
season -- more than 10 times last year's amount, officials said Tuesday.
"I don't know what to blame it on," Sheriff's Capt. Terry Martorano,
commander of the 15-member Waukesha County Metro Drug Enforcement Unit,
said of the record harvest. "Maybe it's the marijuana gods. Someone has
certainly looked over the crops this year because marijuana is growing
rampant."
Apparently, Waukesha County is not alone. James Haney, a state Department
of Justice spokesman, said Tuesday this year's growing season has been a
very good one.
"When the corn crop is doing well, the marijuana crop does well," he said.
During August, Waukesha County's metro unit is stepping up its efforts,
collecting and burning wild plants but saving cultivated ones as evidence.
Chris Boerboom, a weed scientist for the University of Wisconsin Extension
at Madison, attributed a bumper marijuana crop to ideal growing conditions
early in the season.
"I don't know if we had any specific environmental conditions that would
have caused a greater number to germinate this spring, but we did have high
temperatures and plentiful moisture through June and early July, which
would have led to good plant growth," he said.
Boerboom said that a lot of marijuana in the state is growing wild,
remnants of crops grown in the 1940s for rope fiber production.
Despite law enforcement eradication efforts, Boerboom said wild marijuana
probably will be back next year because new seeds are in the soil.
"Every year we target the entire county," Martorano said. "We have some
areas that we know that grow every year. We go out and handpick everything.
We don't cut it with weed cutters. We pull it out at the roots, so it
doesn't come out."
Haney said sheriff's departments handle marijuana eradication efforts and
report the number of marijuana plants destroyed to the Department of
Justice. The numbers for July have not been collected yet, he said.
However, for the first six months of this year, 6,017 non-cultivated
marijuana plants and 326 cultivated plants growing in fields have been
destroyed statewide, Haney said. That compares with 61,029 non-cultivated
marijuana plants destroyed and 200 cultivated plants destroyed in the first
six months of 1997.
The numbers for this year still could change dramatically, Haney said,
because the most active months of the growing season are July through
September.
For all of 1997, about 8 million non-cultivated marijuana plants and 5,289
cultivated plants were destroyed in fields statewide, he said.
Cultivated marijuana plants generally have higher tetrahydrocannabinol
levels and are more potent than non-cultivated plants, Haney said. THC is
the hallucinatory chemical most active in marijuana.
The percentage of THC is 0.5% to 1% in a non-cultivated plant compared to
3% to 6% in the commercially grown product, law enforcement officials said.
In Dane County, the Narcotics and Gang Task Force, based in Madison, pulled
up about 21,000 wild marijuana plants on July 19, according to Sgt. Mark
Twombly, the unit's commander.
"With the growing season, what we've found this year is the plants are much
larger than they have been in prior years for this early in the season,"
Twombly said.
The department has plans to eradicate a couple of large fields,
anticipating they will find about 250,000 plants, he said.
Without the eradication of the plants, the marijuana could wind up in the
hands of juveniles. Also, dealers will mix it with cultivated marijuana to
yield a higher drug profit, Twombly said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
No Trading Of Testimony For Leniency, Judge Says ('The Sun Sentinel'
In Florida Says US District Judge William J. Zloch Ruled In Fort Lauderdale
Tuesday That The Government Can No Longer Promise Sentencing Leniency
To Witnesses In Return For Testimony Against Co-Defendants - Zloch's Decision
Follows The July 1 Singleton Decision By A Three-Judge Federal
Appellate Panel In Denver)
NO TRADING OF TESTIMONY FOR LENIENCY, JUDGE SAYS
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 17:29:38 -0500
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: cheechwz@mindspring.com (A H Clements)
Subject: fwd: NO TRADING OF TESTIMONY FOR LENIENCY, JUDGE SAYS
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
[forwarded from Nora & Selena of the November Coalition]
newshawk: Selena K selena@november.org
source: Sun Sentinel (FL)
pubdate: 08/05/1998
NO TRADING OF TESTIMONY FOR LENIENCY, JUDGE SAYS
Published: Wednesday, August 5, 1998
Section: LOCAL
Page: 1A
By LARRY LEBOWITZ Staff Writer
A ruling that could prove troublesome for prosecutors and law enforcement
became law in one Florida courtroom when a Fort Lauderdale federal judge
declared on Tuesday that the government can no longer promise sentencing
leniency to witnesses in return for testimony against co-defendants.
U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch's ruling is thought to be the first of
its kind in the nation, according to Justice Department officials, defense
attorneys and legal scholars.
Zloch issued his written ruling on Tuesday, barring three men who have
already pleaded guilty to drug charges from testifying at the upcoming
trial of the remaining defendant, 73-year-old Oslet Franklin Lowery.
Even though trading lighter sentences for testimony has been an integral
part of the American criminal justice system since the 1870s, Zloch says
prosecutors are violating federal bribery laws prohibiting anyone from
buying the testimony of a trial witness.
Prosecutors have ``quite simply, purchased the testimony of the
co-defendants through promises of leniency,'' said Zloch, who issued an
oral ruling in the case two weeks ago. ``Each co-defendant, therefore, has
every reason to fabricate, falsify or exaggerate his testimony in an
attempt to curry favor with [prosecutors). . ..''
That ruling did not become law until Zloch entered his written order on
Tuesday explaining his decision.
For the short term, Zloch's ruling will create a modicum of chaos in the
South Florida federal courts because testimony that would be admissible in
some courtrooms is no longer permitted in Zloch's.
``I guarantee you, the government is very shook up by this ruling,'' said
Miami attorney Jeffrey Weiner, a past president of the National Association
of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Adalberto Jordan, chief of the appellate division at the U.S. Attorney's
Office in Miami, said he expects to receive swift approval to challenge
Zloch's ruling from the Justice Department and Solicitor General's Office.
``We respectfully disagree with Judge Zloch's order, as we argued in
court,'' Jordan said.
So do at least two other South Florida federal judges: Federico P. Moreno
and William P. Dimitrouleas have rejected similar arguments. Several
motions seeking to dismiss or suppress testimony are pending before a
half-dozen local federal judges.
But Zloch's ruling joins a growing national debate over plea bargaining.
Defense attorneys have argued that witnesses, influenced by the hope of
obtaining immunity or a reduced sentence, will promise to testify to
anything desired by the prosecution.
On July 1, a three-judge appellate panel in Denver tossed out the money
laundering and conspiracy conviction of Sonya Singleton because the
testimony of her co-conspirators was ``purchased'' in return for
recommended sentencing leniency.
The Singleton decision, which is headed for a showdown before the U.S.
Supreme Court, set off a slew of motions by defense attorneys nationwide
seeking to suppress key testimony or dismiss entire cases.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Singleton decision 10
days after it was issued, pending a rehearing before the entire panel in
November.
Zloch's ruling, like the Singleton decision, is hooked on the federal
bribery law that prohibits giving, offering or promising anything of value
to a witness for or because of his testimony.
The Justice Department has argued that Congress never intended for the law
to apply to pacts between prosecutors and defendants. But Zloch, who has a
reputation as one of the more conservative judges in a conservative
judicial district, says a ``plain language'' reading of the law doesn't
exempt prosecutors.
``If the judicial process is tainted by the admission of unreliable
testimony induced by a defendant's promises, it is no less tainted by the
identical actions of a prosecutor,'' Zloch wrote.
Several law-and-order members of Congress have reacted to the Singleton
ruling with bills that would exempt prosecutors and plea bargains from the
bribery law.
Moreno said Congress ``clearly intended to exclude plea agreements between
a defendant and a prosecutor'' and that ``government cannot be expected to
depend exclusively upon the virtuous in enforcing the law.''
While legal experts are debating whether the Singleton ruling will
seriously disable the government's investigatory and prosecutorial powers,
it could prove to be a double-edged sword for defense lawyers.
``If you want to go to trial, it helps,'' said Miami attorney Philip
Horowitz, who successfully argued to suppress the testimony against his
client, Lowery. ``If you have a client who wants to cooperate and is
willing to testify, it's going to hurt. The bottom line is I can't buy
testimony and neither should they.''
Some legal observers say the rulings are indicative of the growing
frustration among federal judges whose discretionary power has been eroded
by strict sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum terms for drug
crimes. Some judges and defense attorneys bristle when hard-core criminals
with information to trade wind up with shorter prison terms than low-level
associates with little to barter.
``The Department of Justice does not ensure justice,'' said Weiner. ``You
have a system where the little people are getting slammed with draconian
sentences, and the higher-ups are cutting deals.''
The sentencing guidelines, enacted in 1987 as part of the War on Drugs,
have placed most of the power to reward cooperating witnesses with
prosecutors.
``Many district judges, including this one, have expressed frustration at
minimum-mandatory sentences and resulting reductions available to those who
are higher in the criminal venture hierarchy and not available to those
with little information and thus little testimony to provide,'' Moreno
noted. ``Nevertheless, Congress has maintained its position to reward
cooperation and testimony with a reduction in the sentence.''
Copyright 1998, SUN-SENTINEL Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't Just Say No (A 'San Francisco Bay Guardian' Article
About Berkeley Researcher Dr. Joel Brown, One Of The Country's
Foremost Authorities On Drug-Prevention Education, Who Questions
The Effectiveness Of The Federal Government's Antidrug Education Policies
And New $1 Billion Drug-War Advertising Campaign)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:16:48 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US CA: Don't Just Say No
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: tjeffoc@sirius.com (Tom O'Connell)
Source: San Francisco Bay Guardian
Contact: letters@sfbayguardian.com
Website: http://www.sfbg.com/
Pubdate: 5 Aug 1998
Author: Jason Cohn
Page: 13
DON'T JUST SAY NO
Berkeley researcher Dr. Joel Brown questions the effectiveness of the
federal government's antidrug education policies.
LAST MONTH, WHEN President Bill Clinton stood side by side with Speaker of
the House Newt Gingrich and drug czar General Barry McCaffrey to announce a
new $1 billion antidrug advertising campaign aimed at kids, Berkeley-based
researcher Dr. Joel Brown knew his phone would soon be ringing.
Brown is one of the country's foremost authorities on drug-prevention
education and his outspoken opposition to what he calls "the failed
policies and programs of the past" has made him the voice of change in the
field. His pivotal 1994 study of California's school-based drug, alcohol,
and tobacco education programs concluded that the antidrug messages and
programs -- the very ones the federal government is poised to spend $1
billion on in the new round of television ads -- have no positive impact on
youth drug use and may even lead to more risky behavior.
Standing before a backdrop of young children in Atlanta in July, Clinton
said, "We know that the more young people fear drugs, the more they
disapprove of them, the less likely they are to use them."
But Brown argues -- with substantial evidence to back him up -- that basing
antidrug messages on fear is simply ineffective.
"These types of fear-arousing messages initially shock people -- very
initially -- and after that they become nothing more than the butt of a lot
of jokes," Brown told the Bay Guardian.
Images like the now infamous fried egg in a pan ("This is your brain on
drugs") may have a short "halo period" during which they might frighten
some potential drug users, according to Brown, but then they take on a life
of their own. "We have to consider the possibility that these ads and the
programs connected with them are actually placing kids at risk," Brown said.
Brown is in a better position to talk about how young people react to
antidrug messages and programs than most experts in the field because his
research has centered on extensive interviews with school-age children.
Brown has shown that drug-prevention policies based on the "Just Say No"
ethic of the early '80s shortchange the very nature of adolescence, which
is to seek and challenge. "Just Say No" requires students to accept on
faith what they are told in school or see on television. The problem is
that a great deal of that message is contradicted by observable reality,
Brown said.
"For example, these programs tell kids that marijuana is as bad as heroin,
which is as bad as alcohol," Brown said. But having been told this, kids
might observe a parent harmlessly drinking beer or wine with dinner or an
older sibling smoking a joint with friends. Furthermore, kids learn about
drugs from movies, music, the Internet, and what Brown calls an "informal
underground network of informational transmission." Young kids know, for
example, that doctors use marijuana to treat glaucoma and nausea, that
moderate amounts of alcohol can help people relax, and that psychedelic
drugs are used to explore alternate realities.
"The equation of all substances as just being 'bad,' with no possible
benefits, ends up with young people rejecting the messengers as well as the
message," Brown said. What is worse, he says, is that kids who exhibit the
most need for drug counseling are the first to get kicked out of school,
adding to the overall impression among students that educators don't really
care about them. The result is that, while drug-prevention education makes
up only a tiny part of the total curriculum, its effects play a
disproportionately large role in the alienation of young people from their
teachers and adult society.
Brown says the reason the zero tolerance, or "no use," policy has stayed in
place despite its demonstrable failure is not the fault of educators but of
policy makers who are more concerned with politics than science. His 1994
study, for instance, was commissioned by the California Department of
Education. But the department immediately disavowed the study when it
concluded that a decade of DARE and similarly oriented programs would
likely lead to increased drug use among minors -- a prediction borne out by
subsequent research and current statistics. "The discussion about drugs
focuses on who is tough and who can be tougher, while the children suffer,"
Brown said.
Brown has been widely published and often quoted in the New York Times, the
Los Angeles Times, radio, and television news programs. Nevertheless his
research is not often included in critical program and policy discussions,
and he and his like-minded colleagues are regularly labeled drug
legalizers, which he calls "a rhetorical device used to exclude some
researchers from the debate."
Frustrated by the difficulty of affecting ossified policy and finding
acceptance within academia, Brown and a group of other researchers have
formed a nonprofit organization, the Berkeley-based Center for Educational
Research and Development, which works directly with school districts and
family service centers to create progressive drug-prevention programs.
Brown, who carefully prefaces many of his statements with the insistence
that he is not an advocate of drug legalization or drug experimentation for
minors, said, "We're seeking a new vision for drug-prevention education
that combines honest, accurate, and complete information with the courage
to trust the capabilities of youth instead of dwelling on their
disabilities."
To contact the Center for Educational Research and Development, call (510)
559-8112.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Prison Population Is Rising - Politicians Must Be Very Proud
('Boston Globe' Columnist David Nyhan Discusses The Latest US Figures
On State And Federal Prisoner Populations)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 11:30:50 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US: OPED: The Prison Population Is Rising - Politicians Must Be
Very Proud
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: emr@javanet.com (Dick Evans)
Pubdate: Wed, 5 Aug 1998
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Contact: letters@globe.com
Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/
Author: David Nyhan (Columnist)
THE PRISON POPULATION IS RISING - POLITICIANS MUST BE VERY PROUD
If I told you that my prescription for making America a bit safer from
crime was to lock up every blessed soul living in Maine and New Hampshire,
you'd think I was nutty.
But official government policy in this country has almost that many people
behind bars this morning, more than 1.7 million. And if you throw in all
the employees who report to prison or jail every day, the guards, cooks,
nurses, and administrators, the total of Americans who spend their day
inside prison walls is more than the combined populations of Maine and New
Hampshire. Now for more news: The prison and jail population will probably
top 2 million in time for 2000. Sure, crime rates are falling, but prison
and jail populations are rising. How so? Longer sentences. Since Ronald
Reagan's tough talk on crime proved politically popular in the mid-'80s,
your typical inmate has had five months tacked on to his time in the jug,
from an average of 20 months to 25 months.
Just ask yourself: Have you ever seen a politician brag that he's for
shorter sentences? Easier time? More parole and probation? Have you
forgotten what George Bush's hatchetmen did to Michael Dukakis over Willie
Horton in the presidential election 10 years ago? No politician has
forgotten that lesson.
So sentences get longer, rhetoric gets harsher, and candidates outdo
themselves in bragging how tough they'll be on miscreants. Remember Bill
Weld riding into office promising to introduce his prisoners to ''the joy
of breaking rocks''? It's still a trend.
And that average sentence gets longer each month, with longer minimums,
three-strikes-and-you're-out, stricter sentencing rules that prevent judges
from weighing a defendant's youth, IQ, mitigating circumstance, or general
stupidity in easing prison stays. We are also cracking down on parole
violators: Nearly one-third of all inmates are back where they are because
they did something really stupid all over again.
You thought our hottest growth industry was something in the computer line?
Try prison construction. All through the '90s, our prison population
expanded by about 64,000 per year. That means every month, we need new
cells for 5,350 men - they are overwhelmingly men. That's a roof, a bed, a
barred door, a toilet, three squares and medical care, plus the custodial
charges, for a net increase of 175 men per day.
You are paying for all this. You are hiring, as taxpayers, on average,
every day of the year, weekends and holidays included, a fresh crew of 175
prisoners, whom you will now have to feed, cloth, medicate, guard, and
entertain, plus another crew to watch over them and make sure they don't
leave their new home before their 25-months-and-growing, on average, is up.
Make sense to you? Do you feel safer because going on 2 million of your
fellow Americans are locked up? In many cases, yes, we know there are
dangerous people who deserve to be locked away. The most violent and
felonious, sure, no problem, keep them tucked away.
But why do we have so many more prisoners per capita than any other
industrial nation, save Russia? That is the only country with more inmates
per head than we have. Our rate of incarcerating 645 out of every 100,000
citizens is six to 10 times higher than the rest of the so-called civilized
world. Sound bites elect politicians, and three-strikes-and-you're-out
sounds satisfactory after the local TV station zips up its audience share
with live shots from the latest gruesome crime scene. But 19 out of 20 of
those prison inmates chilling in noisy, crowded, understaffed,
over-brutalized prisons come out, typically after 25 months of
soul-deadening punishment. And they come back to live in our midst and try
to pick up where they left off. Some go straight.Some have the gumption and
IQ to get jobs, to overcome the stigma of a prison record, to renew family
life, to get on with living. A lot don't. They were drunk or high when they
did what they did to get in trouble in the first place, and most prisoners
have done a lot more wrong than what they got sentenced for.
Drink and drugs gave a lot of them the false courage they needed to try
something really crooked. And if they're a little light in the IQ
department, as many prisoners are, if they had broken families, lousy
schooling, and a predilection for dope, booze, or violent behavior, then
over they go, and in they go. But every other industrial nation, save one,
has devised smoother, calmer, more efficient, and less costly ways of
dealing with malefactors.
Shorter, swifter sentences, more counseling and oversight on the street,
intensive job-skill training and maximization of religious and
psychological help, teaching reading and writing and basic social skills,
all these would help. Prison too often makes hard and brutal men harder and
more brutal. I write a similar column every summer when the numbers come
out, usually picking two states whose population mirrors that in prison.
Next year, I'm afraid, I may have to toss in Rhode Island.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Addicted To Abolition / MAP Focus Alert Number 76 (A Review Of Mike Gray's
'Drug Crazy,' A New History Of The War On Some Drug Users, By The Notorious
Prohibitionist, Dr. Sally Satel, In 'The Wall Street Journal,' Combined With
A Request From The Media Awareness Project To Write A Letter To The Editor)
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 15:19:21 -0700
To: mgreer@mapinc.org
From: Mark Greer (MGreer@mapinc.org)
Subject: FOCUS ALERT No. 77 Sally Satel Trashes "Drug Crazy"
FOCUS Alert No. 76 - The "Lone Sally" Writes Again
Dr. Sally Satel has once again had her moronic prose published in the Wall
Street Journal. I hesitate to provide a sample letter with this Focus Alert
because there are so many targets in Satel's "Review" of Mike Gray's "Drug
Crazy" that I hesitate to influence your creativity. I will in fact post
two letters just to demonstrate how bereft of facts Satel's piece is.
Please read Satels Review below and let's all team up and really bomb this
paper with scores of letters. The WSJ is a 1998 MAP "target paper" and we
are working very hard to educate and "convert" this heavily pro drug war
paper into unbiased and accurate reporting on drug policy issues. Please
help. Even a quick short letter is an important effort. Every letter counts!
You CAN make a big difference
WRITE A LETTER TODAY
It's not what others do it's what YOU do
***
PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, fax etc.)
Please post your letters or report your action to the MAPTalk list if you
are subscribed, or return a copy to this address by simply hitting
REPLY to this FOCUS Alert and pasting your letter in or by E-mailing a copy
directly to MGreer@mapinc.org
***
CONTACT INFO
Wall Street Journal
Paul Steiger Managing editor
200 Liberty St
New York
NY 10281
212-416-2500
LTEs
Email: letter.editor@edit.wsj.com
"EXTRA CREDIT"
CC and/or fax your letter to the WSJ Book Editor
Wall Street Journal
Eric Eichman
Book Editor
200 Liberty St
New York
NY 10281-1003
212-416-2500
FAX 212-416-2658
Book Editor only
E-mail editor@cor.dowjones.com
***
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
NewsHawk: Mark Greer
Source: Wall Street Journal, Interactive Edition
Pubdate: Aug. 5, 1998
Contact: letter.editor@edit.wsj.com
Website: http://www.wsj.com/
Wall Street Journal Bookshelf
Addicted to Abolition
By SALLY SATEL
At the turn of the last century, unrestricted access to morphine, heroin
and cocaine led to a great wave of addiction in the U.S. Witnessing this
devastation of people's lives, the nation responded with antidrug laws.
Somehow the simple lesson here--that drugs are dangerous--has been
forgotten by many of our nation's elites. Mike Gray's "Drug Crazy" (Random
House, 251 pages, $23.95) is the product of such selective memory.
Mr. Gray, a film producer, makes the claim that the harms produced by drug
prohibition are worse than the hazards of the drugs themselves. Yet his
book is so lopsided that it fails to persuade. This is not to say that the
"drug war" is being waged in the best way. Indeed, many drugs today are
accessible, cheap and potent, not a good advertisement for current
interdiction efforts. But Mr. Gray's angry, anecdote-driven account is
hardly the best place to look for reform.
Most of the book catalogs drug-war excesses: abuses of police power,
corruption, gang violence, paranoid officials. The author uses them as
reason to abolish our drug laws. "The black market must be underbid," Mr.
Gray writes. "If that means drugs have to be given away to serious addicts,
so be it. Anyone who is determined to use heroin regardless of consequences
must be able to get the stuff from a legitimate source at a price that
doesn't require stealing car radios."
This is typical of the harm-reduction philosophy Mr. Gray advocates: Since
addicts will be addicts, let's make it easier on them and our car radios.
In other words, give them the means of their own destruction and leave the
taxpayer to pick up the pieces.
Making drug control work better by reducing demand--perhaps our best
hope--isn't even an option for Mr. Gray. Apart from denigrating the
D.A.R.E. program (a nationwide school-based education program) and calling
for fewer restrictions on methadone, he virtually ignores prevention and
treatment. He sees addicts as victims of everything but the drugs they
abuse. For example, he blames the recent increase in heroin overdoses on
the prohibitionists' scare tactics: "Cool Gen X-ers knew from experience
that government claims about marijuana were exaggerated, so they assumed
the grown-ups were lying about heroin as well." More likely the deaths were
due to batches of extremely high-purity drug.
Mr. Gray is adamant that prohibition must go, and he packs into each
chapter stories of corruption and brutality that would make even the
toughest drug hawk cringe. But in his zeal to legalize drugs, he slights
the facts. He claims that the nation's current homicide rate is a function
of prohibition, yet in a graph he presents the years 1951-55 have the
century's lowest rate, even though drug laws then were harsher than now.
Nor is mention made of property crime and burglary (the hallmarks of drug
use in the '60s and '70s), which have been on a steady decline over the
past two decades under the very laws Mr. Gray condemns.
Mr. Gray blames society's negative attitudes about addicts, whom he calls
"unfortunate citizens," on the federal Harrison Anti-Narcotics Act of 1914.
Yet the Harrison Act was simply the culmination of two decades of efforts
to pass antidrug legislation. Indeed, the 1914 law did not demonize
addicts; they had turned popular sentiment against themselves. As early as
1892, Sir William Osler's celebrated medical textbook called morphine
addicts "inveterate liars . . . not confined to matters relating to the vice."
The final chapter, "Prescription for Sanity," is more rhetoric than
practical advice. It features a post-prohibition agenda that is vague
except for one sure thing: In the world according to Mike Gray, we would
have a new dependent class of citizen--the government-supported addict.
Strikingly, Mr. Gray's prescription contains no discussion of how to reduce
the consumption of drugs. His heroes are Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke,
whose public-health commissioner is seriously considering heroin
maintenance (that is, the medically supervised distribution of
pharmaceutical-grade heroin); the millionaire backers of the California and
Arizona medical marijuana initiatives; and of course philanthropist George
Soros, who is underwriting much of the nation's harm-reduction movement.
Are some changes needed? Definitely. We could start by easing restrictions
on physicians who prescribe pain-killers; researching the medical
properties of marijuana; and rethinking aspects of the crack cocaine/powder
cocaine sentencing disparity. Some interesting suggestions (and some insane
ones) can be found on the Web sites of the advocacy groups that are listed
in the book's appendix.
In this era of hysteria over tobacco, the new evil weed, it is astonishing
to see how many intelligent people have gone soft on drugs. They are right
to be frustrated with aspects of our drug problem and to seek enlightened
direction, but Mr. Gray's skewed vision is just a bad trip.
Dr. Satel is a psychiatrist and lecturer at the Yale University School of
Medicine.
***
Two SAMPLE LETTERS:
Dear Editor,
Dr. Satel's review of Drug Crazy, by Mike Gray, is a poignant reminder
that some of us with a degree in higher education need not necessarily
exercise their mental acuity after they have been placed in their realm
of satisfied comfort.
One would almost suspect Dr. Satel of being a reformed addict, her
distaste for this "class" of undesirables is so great.
What is most interesting regarding her review of "Drug Crazy", by Mike
Gray, is her prohibitionist tendency to distort facts, misrepresent the
truth, and gloss over the truly important issues.
According to her, the drug laws of 1951-55 "were harsher than now".
Really!? Who does she expect will believe this, a complete idiot?
Where Mr. Gray, after six years of research to produce this book,
established the reason behind the "demonization" of then legal
narcotics, she clumsily suggests the author asserts that the Harrison
Act was responsible for society's attitude towards opiates and cocaine,
and she stresses the Act was not passed as a demonization measure.
Huh?
Did she actually read this book or obtain a botched Cliff Notes?
As for the harm perpetrated by prohibition - as she states, "abuses of
police power, corruption, gang violence, paranoid officials" - perhaps
she was reading the notes at night and couldn't stomach a planeload of
innocents blown from the sky by a psycho drug lord, or one half of the
Supreme Court of Columbia assassinated by the same. I suspect she cannot
admit this horrendous violence to herself - it doesn't fit her picture
of a happy little drug war, maybe a little bit errant, but nonetheless
keeping those hoards of potential addicts off the Government heroin
dole-out.
Where do you dig these reviewers up, Never-Never Land?
Kevin Droski
Michigan
***
Dear Editor:
It seems that only on the topic of the "War on Drugs" are proponents
allowed to spew blatant inaccuracies on a regular basis and go largely
unchallenged by the media. The latest example, "Addicted to Abolition" by
Dr. Sally Satel (WSJ 8/5) is a prime example.
In her biased diatribe Satel "reviews" Mike Gray's excellent and insightful
book "Drug Crazy." Virtually every paragraph of Satels commentary contains
a factual inaccuracy.
For example: Satel states "At the turn of the last century, unrestricted
access to morphine, heroin and cocaine led to a great wave of addiction in
the U.S. Witnessing this devastation of people's lives, the nation
responded with anti drug laws."
This is revisionist history at its worst. Our drug laws were implemented by
uninformed fear mongers like Harry Anslinger who used blatant inaccuracies
and wild exaggeration to push through legislation that has resulted in the
United States having the highest incarceration rates in the world.
The "great wave of addiction" Satel refers to was the lowest addiction rate
in our nations history and something we would be delighted with today. In
other words eighty years of drug prohibition, billions of wasted dollars,
and millions of ruined lives has resulted in a massive increase in
addiction rates compounded by the fact that any child in that country with
a few dollars in his pocket can buy any illegal drug at will.
Satel rambles on: "Somehow the simple lesson here--that drugs are
dangerous--has been forgotten by many of our nation's elites. Mike Gray's
"Drug Crazy" (Random House, 251 pages, $23.95) is the product of such
selective memory."
The fact that drugs are dangerous has nothing whatever to do with the fact
that the "War on drugs" is unwinnable stupidity. Cars are dangerous so are
cigarettes and aspirin but we don't put people in jail for using them
thereby creating a black market that increases drug use by orders of
magnitude.
The above quotes represent only the first paragraph of Satels litany of
fabrications, distortions and a nearly maniacal predilection towards
cognitive dissonance.
I can only assume that Dr. Satel's livelihood as an "addiction
psychiatrist" depends on the continuation of drug prohibition. This must be
a primary factor in her inability to view the topic with logic science and
reason.
XXX
-Word count 380-
Mark Greer
(Contact info)
Note: Always include your phone number. It will not be printed but is
needed to verify authorship by most papers.
WRITE AWAY!
***
Mark Greer
Media Awareness Project (MAP) inc.
d/b/a DrugSense
MGreer@mapinc.org
http://www.DrugSense.org/
http://www.mapinc.org
***
[A few more reviews of 'Drug Crazy' in this archive: ed.]
Drug Crazy - Stoning The Drug War
Book Review - 'Drug Crazy' Challenges Mind-Set Of Policymakers
Book Review - Drug Crazy
Stone Crazy
The War On Drugs - Vietnam All Over Again
War On Drugs A Bust, Author Argues
Drug Crazy - How We Got Into This Mess And How We Can Get Out
Drug Crazy And The UN Drug Summit
Pray For Peace Foundation News, May 1998
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Barton Attempts To Force Drug Testing Vote (The Version In The Washington,
DC, 'Roll Call Online')
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 23:38:40 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US: Barton Attempts To Force Drug Testing Vote
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: Wed, 5 Aug 1998
Source: Roll Call Online (Washington D.C.)
Contact: JMM@rollcall.com
Website: http://www.rollcall.com/
Author: Jim VandeHei (JWV@rollcall.com)
Note from Newshawk: I found this article in the 8/5 edition, but it could
have been here a few days earlier. There is no date on the page with the
article itself.
BARTON ATTEMPTS TO FORCE DRUG TESTING VOTE
Ticked off at Conference Chairman John Boehner (R-Ohio), Rep. Joe Barton
(R-Texas) is circulating a petition designed to force Republicans leaders to
schedule a vote by Friday afternoon that would institute mandatory, random
drug testing for Members of Congress and their staff.
At press time, Barton was scrambling to convince 50 GOP Members to sign a
petition that would require the entire Republican Conference to meet today
to discuss drug testing before a final vote would be set, presumably on Friday.
However, several GOP leadership sources said a vote will not take place this
week, if ever.
Barton said he was forced to circulate the petition after Boehner refused to
follow through on a promise made by Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga) to hold a
vote on drug testing before the August recess.
"Boehner said, and I quote, 'it ain't gonna happen,'" Barton said late
Wednesday. "I don't think the Conference chairman has the right to prevent
something from coming to the floor."
Boehner was not available for comment at press time.
Barton said he is confident he will get enough signatures to demand that
Members discuss the details of a testing bill that he hopes will land on the
House floor tomorrow. Once the entire Conference debates the issues, Barton
said, Gingrich has promised him a vote by Friday.
Under Conference rules, any Member can demand an internal discussion of a
given issue during a meeting of the entire House GOP if he or she can get 50
Members to sign a petition. However, the Conference rules do not guarantee
that Barton can force a discussion of drug testing before the August break.
One leadership source said numerous GOP Members are irritated with Barton
for "trying to push a political issue at the expense of his colleagues."
Barton, one of the GOP's leading proponents of drug testing, said
leadership's decision to delay action would all but rule out any chances of
mandatory, random screening of Members and their staff this Congress.
"I don't want to mislead you: We need to have a vote this week so we can
have some testing this Congress," Barton said, adding that the logistics of
setting up a drug testing system would take too long to implement if a vote
is taken after the August break.
Under current rules, Members are allowed to use their operating budgets to
test themselves and their staff for illegal drug use, but they are not
required to do so.
A debate in yesterday's closed-door GOP Conference meeting, however, exposed
divisions inside the party over drug testing, prompting Gingrich and
Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) to postpone a vote on the topic until
September at the earliest.
Armey spokeswoman Michele Davis said late Wednesday that the Republican
Conference will meet in September to discuss the issue before a final vote
is scheduled.
But several GOP leadership sources said party leaders do not want a vote
ever because scores of Members would be forced to vote for an idea they
adamantly oppose.
"Most of our guys hate the idea, but they will be forced to support it or
risk being portrayed as afraid to submit themselves and their workers to the
same tests many workers take," said one leadership source. "It's very much
like the pay raise: Members are forced to vote against their better judgment
to placate the voting public."
Rules Chairman Gerald Solomon (R-NY), an ardent supporter of drug testing,
started to mark up the bill yesterday in his committee before postponing
action on it pending consultation with leaders from both sides of aisle.
The Rules panel would have to reconvene today or tomorrow to finish the
markup before the bill could be sent to the floor.
While most Members don't want to publicly attack the idea of mandatory drug
testing, Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill) criticized the idea in an
interview.
"This is an implication that there is a problem here and you have to prove
you're not a druggie," Hyde said. "It's intrusive. You need to urinate in
front of someone to guarantee you didn't switch samples."
Hyde added: "I will take the damn thing if I have to, but it should not be
required."
Hyde said many Members feel as he does, but conceded that "it is one of
those things that people will have a problem voting against."
In addition to Hyde's criticism, House Oversight Chairman Bill Thomas
(R-Calif) has voiced concerns that the bill is unconstitutional and should
be reworked before a vote is scheduled, according to GOP sources.
Thomas said he will not take a position on the bill because, as chairman,
his job is to provide information on drug testing to Members, not to
advocate a new approach.
But, based on information provided to Thomas by the House counsel and
outside counsel, the drug testing mandate would be legally and practically
unenforceable and, in some parts, unconstitutional, according to documents
obtained by Roll Call.
Barton said those problems can be worked out. "Thomas supports part of the
bill, but he has some constitutional problems, but I am satisfied we can
overcome the constitutional problems," he said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marijuana Helped To Save My Life, Prominent Harvard Scholar Says
('The Ottawa Citizen' Says Geologist And Popular Author Stephen Jay Gould
Testified Today In Toronto In Support Of AIDS Patient Jim Wakeford's Lawsuit
Against The Canadian Government, Saying Medical Marijuana Helped Him
To Become One Of The First People On Earth To Survive Abdominal Mesothelioma,
A Deadly And Inoperable Form Of Cancer)
From: creator@islandnet.com (Matt Elrod)
To: mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com
Subject: Canada: Marijuana helped to save my life
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 09:16:18 -0700
Lines: 141
Newshawk: creator@mapinc.org
Source: Ottawa Citizen
Contact: letters@thecitizen.southam.ca
Pubdate: Wed 05 Aug 1998
Section: News A1 / Front
Author: Luiza Chwialkowska
Marijuana helped to save my life, prominent Harvard scholar says: Stephen
Jay Gould tells Toronto court to allow medical use of drug
His books crowd best-seller lists, he holds 40 honorary degrees, and
in legendary lectures that combine poetry with the study of ancient
fossils, he has taught generations of Harvard students how life
evolved on Earth.
In July 1982, doctors told geologist Stephen Jay Gould -- whose mind
dwells in prehistory and who measures time in billions of years --
that he had eight short months to live. With his career in full bloom,
he was diagnosed with a rare and incurable cancer called abdominal
mesothelioma.
A case study in determination, Mr. Gould was one of the first people
on Earth to beat the disease, thanks to surgery, radiation, and years
of torturous chemotherapy. But the ``most important effect upon my
eventual cure,'' he says in hindsight, was the illegal drug,
marijuana.
Mr. Gould is one in a chorus of patients and experts whose stories and
studies will be heard today in Ontario General Division Court, where a
Toronto AIDS patient is suing the federal government for the right to
smoke marijuana as part of his medical treatment.
An academician who hates to fog his prodigious mind with any kind of
substance -- he doesn't touch alcohol and hates drugs -- Mr. Gould
smoked marijuana to reduce the otherwise uncontrollable nausea that
came with the chemotherapy that saved his life.
``I was miserable and came to dread the frequent treatments with an
almost perverse intensity,'' he wrote of the chemotherapy.
``Absolutely nothing in the available arsenal of (anti-nausea
medications) worked at all.''
Marijuana, on the other hand, ``worked like a charm.''
Marijuana also works for Jim Wakeford, a 53-year-old Toronto community
activist with AIDS, who says his right to smoke the drug for its
anti-nausea and appetite-inducing effects is protected by the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
``It is beyond my comprehension,'' wrote Mr. Gould of marijuana laws,
``that any humane person would withhold such a beneficial substance
from people in such great need simply because others use it for
different purposes.''
Mr. Wakeford is asking for a constitutional exemption from the laws he
has to break to produce and possess the drug. He also wants the court
to force the federal government to ``produce and/or provide (him) a
lawful and safe source of medicinal marijuana.''
The founder of such highly regarded charities as the Oolagen Community
Centre, the Ontario Association of Children's Mental Health Centres,
and the Casey House Foundation, Mr. Wakeford almost died this spring
while waiting for this case to be heard.
His doctor, Toronto AIDS specialist John Goodhew, says smoking two
marijuana cigarettes a day is keeping Mr. Wakeford alive.
AIDS was causing him to literally waste away earlier this year. His
weight dropped from 140 pounds to 118 pounds. He was put on intensive
intravenous feeding that gave him hepatitis and nearly killed him.
Mr. Wakeford quit that and used marijuana to stimulate his appetite
instead. He is now back to 132 pounds and will restart his anti-AIDS
medicines when he gains more weight. When he starts them again,
however, he will still need the marijuana. Like Mr. Gould, he uses it
to fight nausea.
His lawyer, Osgoode Hall law professor Alan Young, will argue today
that Canada's marijuana laws violate Mr. Wakeford's rights under
Sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.
``Criminalizing the therapeutic use of marijuana constitutes a
deprivation of life, liberty and security of the person (Section 7),''
Mr. Young states in court documents. ``State interference with bodily
integrity and serious state-imposed psychological stress constitutes a
serious breach of security of the person.''
The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act also violates Section 15 of
the Charter, says Mr. Young, because it ``denies (Mr. Wakeford) equal
benefit of the law on the basis of the enumerated ground of physical
disability.'' The legislation also discriminates against AIDS victims,
he will tell the court.
Rather than bringing a live caravan of witnesses before the court,
lawyers have submitted testimony in the form of written affidavits
over the past two months. Today is the first time they will argue in
person before Judge Harry LaForme.
Mr. Young will summarize four volumes of evidence consisting of four
personal stories, including Mr. Gould's, and expert opinions from
seven pharmacologists, psychiatrists, oncologists, and AIDS
specialists.
The medical experts include Lester Grinspoon, a professor of
psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, who has been studying the social
and medicinal aspects of cannabis since 1969, and documented Mr.
Gould's case in a book Marijuana -- The Forbidden Medicine.
``Marijuana is the wonder drug of the future,'' Dr. Grinspoon told the
Citizen in an interview yesterday.
Comparing it to penicillin, Dr. Grinspoon said the drug is versatile
in its uses. ``It can help glaucoma, migraines, muscle spasms, and
nausea,'' he says, is cheap to produce, (``30 to 40 cents per dose
rather than $30-$40 for conventional anti-nausea medicines,'') and is
``non-toxic.''
``One to two thousand people in the U.S. die every year from aspirin,
but no one has ever documented a death from marijuana,'' said Dr.
Grinspoon.
Mr. Wakeford, on the other hand, might die without it.
``The marijuana is what is allowing him to eat and live,'' insists Dr.
Goodhew.
A verdict is likely to take several weeks, but could come as early as
this afternoon.
Mr. Wakeford vows to continue his fight regardless of today's outcome.
He won a $50,000 grant from the federal Court Challenges program that
supports cases challenging legislation under the equality provisions
of the Charter. He has also raised $10,000 for the Wakeford Medical
Marijuana Expense Fund and is looking for more donations.
``As long as I'm still alive, I will try to get safe, clean, and
affordable medical marijuana for everyone with HIV and AIDS,'' he
says.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
'Regulating Cannabis - Options For Control In The 21st Century' Conference
September 5 In London (A Bulletin From The Lindesmith Center In New York
Publicizes The International Symposium)
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 98 23:57:44 EST
From: enadelmann@sorosny.org
To: #TLC__INTERESTED_at_osi-ny@mail.sorosny.org
REGULATING CANNABIS
Options for control in the 21st Century
An International Symposium
London, September 5, 1998
Regent's College
Academics, lawyers, policy makers, scientists, public health officials,
drug professionals, criminologists, politicians, policy institutes, law
enforcement agencies, journalists, social scientists, researchers.
The Lindesmith Center and Release invite individuals and organisations,
with a policy or professional interest, to attend a symposium on options
for the regulation and decriminalisation of cannabis. This symposium
will bring together leading experts from Europe, Australia and North America
in the fields of science, jurisprudence, sociology and government to examine
recent experiences and possible options for regulating the world's most
popular illicit drug. This interactive conference aims to shed light on
optimal cannabis controls and bring a new maturity and clarity to public
debate. Particular attention will be devoted to exploring pragmatic
opportunities for reform within the context of prohibition and examining
recent constitutional and judicial developments in the regulation of
cannabis.
THE ORGANISERS
This is a collaborative event organised by The Lindesmith Center and
Release.
The Lindesmith Center is a drug policy research institute founded in
1994 as a project of the Open Society Institute, a private foundation
that encourages public debate and policy alternatives in complex and
often controversial fields. With offices in New York and San Francisco,
The Lindesmith Center undertakes and supports innovative projects
relevant to drugs, drug users, and drug policies that are often
overlooked or ignored in public discussion and government-
funded research.
Release is the UK based drugs and legal advice charity which was founded
in 1967 when it established the world's first ever 24-hour drugs and
legal advice helpline. The organisation's range of innovative services,
pioneering work with young people as well as its commitment to the civil
rights of drug users, has contributed to its unique credibility in the
drugs and legal advice field.
COST
The cost of attendance, including refreshments, lunch and conference
pack, is œ75 (sterling). A discount rate of œ37 for research students
is available upon request. Delegates are responsible for their own
accommodations but the symposium office at Release is pleased to assist
with details of hotels available at a range of prices.
VENUE
The symposium will be held on September 5 at The Regent's College
Conference Centre, situated within the formal gardens of London's
Regent's Park. The venue offers a quiet and idyllic setting for the
symposium and is only a half mile away from the arts, entertainment and
heritage of London's West End.
PROGRAM
Regulating Cannabis will explore various models of cannabis control,
both actual and proposed, address legal developments concerning
production, possession and sale, and examine UN international
conventions. The meeting is intended not as a platform for advocating
any one solution but rather a forum for considering a range of effective
cannabis control schemes.
Speakers and contributors include*
Daniel Abrahamson, Director of Legal Affairs, The Lindesmith Center
Robert Ali, Chair of the Australian National Illicit Drugs Expert
Committee.
Martin Barriuso, President of Kalamudia Association, Spain
Professor Lorenz Bollinger, University of Bremen,
Professor Peter Cohen, University of Amsterdam.
Dr. Patricia Erickson, Senior Scientist, Addiction Research Foundation,
Toronto.
Benedikt Fischer, Scientist and Coordinator, Addiction Research
Foundation, Toronto.
Mike Goodman, Director of Release, London.
Steve James, Manager, Victoria Police Cannabis Cautioning Program.
Professor Adriaan Jansen, University of Amsterdam.
Professor Krysztof Krajewski, University of Krakow.
Professor Harry Levine, Queens College.
Professor David MacDonald, The Australian National University.
Ueli Minder, Swiss Federal Office of Public Health.
Dr. John P. Morgan, City College of New York.
Ethan Nadelmann, Director of The Lindesmith Center.
Professor Craig Reinarman, University of California.
Professor Christian Nils Robert, Universit‚ de Geneve.
Susanne Schardt, Director Coordination Bureau - European Cities on Drug
Policy.
Professor Eric Single, University of Toronto.
Professor Lynn Zimmer, Queens College.
* The majority of these speakers have confirmed attendance and will be
joined by others not mentioned.
For more information regarding the agenda or supporting literature for
the symposium, please contact Mireille Jacobson at the Lindesmith Center
at (212) 548-0603, ext. 1469 or send an e-mail to mjacobson@sorosny.org.
On these matters as well as for registration information, please contact
Vicki Charles at Release at (44/171) 729-5255, fax (44/171) 729-2599 or send
an e-mail to info@release.org.uk. Background information can also be found
on The Lindesmith Center website, www.lindesmith.org. Registration will be
available on Release's website, www.release.org.uk, as of August 12, 1998.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DrugSense Weekly, Number 58 (A Weekly Summary Of Drug Policy News,
Including The Second Part Of An Original Three-Part Feature
By Jeffrey A. Schaler, PhD, 'The Drug Policy Problem')
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 13:28:05 -0700
To: mgreer@mapinc.org
From: Mark Greer (MGreer@mapinc.org)
Subject: DrugSense Weekly August 5, 1998, No. 58
DrugSense Weekly, August 5, 1998, No. 58
A DrugSense publication
URL: http://www.drugsense.org
***
DRUGSENSE WEEKLY -
In 10 minutes a week you can stay aware and informed on drug policy
developments worldwide.
Consider investing another 10 minutes to write a letter to the editor
using the email addresses provided in this publication.
You CAN make a difference!
***
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
* Feature Article
THE DRUG *POLICY* PROBLEM - Part Two
Jeffrey A. Schaler, PhD
* Weekly News In Review
Drug War Policy-
OPED - McCaffrey: Media Blitz Is Effective Against Drugs
Kids and the Politics of the Drug War
Suppression Of Debate Is Monkey On Nation's Back
DEA Official Becomes Rich At The Expense Of Agency
DEA Drives Off The Old Guard
Drug War: Prison Front-
Police Say Prison Works
Corcoran Guards Thwarted Probe, DA Tells Lawmakers
Female Inmates To Be Sent Out Of State
Don't Look For Parole In Texas
Drug War: Sporting Front-
2 Track Stars Fail Drug Tests
Tour Goes On as Riders Close Ranks
Olympics Chief's Call To 'go Soft' On Drugs Attacked
Governing Body Of World Basketball Votes To Penalize Use Of Cannabis
Blowing Smoke: Marijuana Use NBA's Biggest Drug Concern These Days
Medical Marijuana-
Prop. 215 Disallowed In Pot Trial
Medical Marijuana Advocate Pleads Innocent To Conspiracy Charges
Oakland May Back Medical Pot Providers
MS Victims To Puff Pot To Test Medicinal Effectiveness
International News-
Heroin Scandal Rocks London's Devout Jewish Community
60 Mexico City Police Suspended For Drug Use
Alleged Drug Chieftan Threatens To Kill Americans
* Hot Off The 'Net
Peter McWilliams -Two sites to keep you informed
* DrugSense Tip Of The Week
Prison stats on-line
The November Coalition
* Quote of the Week
Norman Mineta
* Fact of the Week
***
FEATURE ARTICLE
THE DRUG *POLICY* PROBLEM - PART Two
by Jefrey A. Schaler, PhD
Editor's Note: This is Part two of Dr. Schaler's essay. Part one can be
read in the July 29 issue of the DrugSense Weekly Volume No. 57. See:
http://www.drugsense.org/news.htm The remainder of this article will
be published in future issues.
QUESTIONS WE NEED TO ASK AND ANSWER
To understand the values and beliefs behind our federal drug policy, it
is necessary to ask some unpopular questions:
Do illegal drugs cause crime? Given that drugs are inanimate objects,
are they capable of causing a human action?Can drugs "act" in the way
that people can?
Does drug use in the form of "addiction" encourage people to commit
crimes other than the purchase and use of the drug itself? And if so, do
the crimes stem from the addiction or from circumstances involved in
the trade in illegal drugs, such as competition between dealers?
Should drug policies that are based on the relationship between drug
use and crime be consistent with legal precedents?Should drug policies
reflect court opinions regarding the nature of addiction and criminal
responsibility, and vice versa?
For the most part, U.S. drug policies are based on the assumption that
drugs cause addiction. But many leading researchers and thinkers
question the very existence of addiction as an empirical entity in the
sociological "positivist" sense, viewing it rather as a social
construct.
Does addiction exist? Do drugs cause addiction? The answers to these
questions depend on what we mean by "addiction." If by addiction we are
referring to what drugs do to the physical body, then the answer to
both questions is yes. We know for a fact that drugs create changes in
the body, a physiological dependency often characterized by tolerance,
withdrawal symptoms, and death. However, if by addiction we are
referring to how drugs get into the body, the answer is less clear.In
this sense, research has produced no empirical evidence for the belief
that drugs can cause drug users to lose control of their
behavior.Furthermore, from a logical point of view, behavior is by
definition a matter of choice. Do the bodily changes effected by drugs
cause people to ingest more drugs in the same way that epilepsy causes
people to have seizures? Most people would say no.The two cases are
categorically different.
It is important to be clear about the meanings of words. When applied
to human action, the term "behavior" refers to a mode of conduct or
deportment. Human behavior is moral agency and as such can never be
caused. Things are caused; people make choices.This difference is what
makes us human. To speak of human behavior as caused makes no more
sense than to speak of things as capable of choosing.Such confusion of
language is inaccurate and irrational. The English philosopher Gilbert
Ryle called this kind of mistake a "category error."
Shall we then create and implement policy on the assumption that
addiction is simply a metaphor--that drug use is a moral issue ruled by
choice? In that case, how much policy making is called for?If we agree
that drug use is a choice--one that harms no one but the user--should
the government make any effort to control it?
Philosophical as these questions are, they should not be confined to
the ivory tower as some politicians and academicians may prefer. If the
advocates of a particular drug policy invoke science to justify their
actions, they should be required by a discerning public to examine all
available evidence, not just that which supports their political,
economic, or moral interests. If they invoke moral principles, they
should be challenged to defend those principles in a clear and rational
manner.
Any meaningful discussion of the values expressed in drug policies
raises large philosophical questions. We might begin by asking which is
more important, health or liberty?Is it better to be sick and free from
coercion in a society where medicine and state are separate, or to be
healthy under the control of a therapeutic state?Can we trust our
medical guardians to refrain from the paternalism and the persecution
of "undesirables" exercised by theocracies throughout history?Who will
guard us from the guardians?
The issue might be rephrased this way: Does the constitutional right to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right to harm
oneself? We accept the need for government to protect us from one
another, and we agree that the exercise of liberty at the expense of
another's freedom constitutes crime. But should the values of the
majority dictate the personal behaviors of a minority when such actions
harm no one else?Is it constitutionally proper for the government to
protect us from ourselves?
Finally, can institutional methods of social control such as those
advanced by our current federal drug policies increase responsibility
and decrease liberty simultaneously? Or are these outcomes logically
incompatible? If they are incompatible, what is actually going on in
the field of drug control--and cui bono (who benefits)? Could it be
that any drug policy short of total repeal of prohibition is simply a
problem masquerading as a solution?These are questions we rarely hear
discussed in a public forum.
***
WEEKLY NEWS IN REVIEW
***
Domestic News-Policy
***
COMMENT:
Fall-out from the ad campaign continued to resonate in the nation's
op-eds; prevailing opinion seems to be that not only are the ads
ineffective, the campaign itself is doing little to halt a growing
number of drug-war desertions in the media. McCaffrey was moved to
write this defense which is still making the rounds of major dailies
even as this is written. Kendra Wright's trenchant rebuttal was
published in the Austin American-Spectator.
Next is David Morris' remarkably accurate assessment of the current
status of reform with the press; Morris analyzed how McCzar's Dutch
debacle was dealt with on the Internet. He was especially accurate for
someone who had yet to discover MAP (although he had found Cliff
Schaffer's library)
A WSJ piece details amazing blindness at the DEA; a mid-level
functionary, cast in the mold of Aldrich Ames, brazenly siphoned a
million dollars a year in government funds directly into a dummy
company with his own name on it. Following on the heels of a
devastating GAO report, this could not have made good twenty-fifth
anniversary reading at the embattled agency.
As if to underscore "embattled" the next article from an on-line
publication disclosed why DEA Director Tom Constantine isn't popular
with everyone at the agency.
In contrast to McCzar's tortured syntax, Jerry Sutliff's succinct
treatment of a complex subject deserves to be read in its entirety.
***
MEDIA BLITZ IS EFFECTIVE AGAINST DRUGS
By Barry R. McCaffrey
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Office of National Drug Control Policy has
just launched a national advertising campaign to stop illegal drug
use aimed at young people, 9 to 17 years of age, and the adults in
their lives. After test ads in 12 cities throughout the U.S.,
campaign has gone national, with regional adjustments for target
audiences.
In some pilot cities, requests for information related to drug
prevention and treatment increased 500 percent after the ads appeared,
and calls to a national clearinghouse for anti-drug publications rose
300 percent.
[snip]
Pubdate: Wed, 29 Jul 1998
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: tribletter@aol.com
Section: Sec.1, page 16
Website: http://www.chicago.tribune.com/
Author: Barry R. McCaffrey
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n631.a05.html
***
KIDS AND THE POLITICS OF THE DRUG WAR
This month House Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Clinton unveiled a
five-year, $1 billion advertising campaign to combat adolescent drug
use. Between cartoons, America's kids will be bombarded with
federally-sponsored anti-drug commercials. But while Republicans and
Democrats pat each other on the back for "knocking America upside the
head" on the dangers of drug use, both parties are guilty of
grandstanding on the teen drug problem without contributing
substantially to the solution.
[snip]
Since viewing the ads, my 14-year-old and 10-year-old have learned it
is possible to get high from everyday household products. How many
other children who would never have considered such products as
intoxicants now have the notion planted in their heads? This is not the
type of education I want for my children.
[snip]
Pubdate: Fri, 31 Jul 1998
Source: Austin American-Statesman
Contact: letters@statesman.com
Website: http://www.Austin360.com/
Author: Kendra E. Wright
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n638.a03.html
***
U.S. SUPPRESSION OF DEBATE IS MONKEY ON NATION'S BACK
On July 9, before he left on what his office called a "fact-finding"
tour to the Netherlands, U.S. drug czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey declared
the Dutch drug policy "an unmitigated disaster." The stunned Dutch
ambassador responded: "I must say that I find the timing of your
remarks [rather astonishing], six days before your planned visit [to
gain] firsthand knowledge about Dutch drugs policy and its results."
[snip]
Americans who believe that our drug policy is doing more harm than good
lack the power and resources of the drug prohibitionists. But they make
up for it in scholarship. Indeed, they seem to believe that simply by
presenting facts, they will convince the policy-makers.
The motto of one Web site declares "Just Say Know." My favorite
information fount is the remarkable Schaffer Library of Drug Policy
(www.druglibrary.org/schaffer). The nation owes a debt to Clffford
Schaffer, .
[snip]
Pubdate: Tue, 28 Jul 1998
Source: St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN)
Section: Opinion, 7A
Contact: nconner@pioneerpress.com (Reader Advocate Nancy Conner)
Fax: 651-228-5564
Website: http://www.pioneerplanet.com
Author: David Morris, Columnist
Note: Morris, a local author, lecturer and consultant, can be
reached at 1313 Fifth St. S.E., Suite 306, Minneapolis, Minn. 55414.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n633.a03.html
***
DEA OFFICIAL BECOMES RICH AT THE EXPENSE OF AGENCY
ARLINGTON, Va. - David Bowman's cubicle, usually a bureaucrat's ideal
of meticulous order, was a shambles. His desk had been rifled, his
computer was gone. This much, though, was left undisturbed on the
cubicle wall: the seal of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the
agency he had served for 21 years.
[snip]
Indeed. The Bowmans had lived luxuriously for years, thanks to the
father's mysterious side business, Bowman Enterprises Inc. The company
grossed $1 million a year on average. But investigators have concluded
that the money was illegally siphoned to a bogus company from DEA
headquarters here, in hundreds of checks averaging just under $9,000
each. In all, the government says in an indictment, Mr. Bowman stole
more than $6 million between 1990 and 1996.
And for years, nobody noticed.
[snip]
Source: Wall Street Journal
Contact: letter.editor@edit.wsj.com
Website: http://www.wsj.com/
Pubdate: Fri, 31 Jul 1998
Author: Phil Kuntz - Staff Reporter
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n640.a02.html
***
DEA DRIVES OFF THE OLD GUARD
Changing times brought on by Janet Reno have forced many of the
agency's most experienced, toughest agents into early retirement.
Their departure may be great news for drug cartels.
They call themselves the "Jurassic narcs" - a fitting description for
such an endangered species.
[snip]
Pubdate: August 17, 1998
Source: Insight On The News Online
Section: Vol. 14, No. 30
Contact: insight@wt.infi.net
Website: www.insightmag.com
Author: Jamie Dettmer
Note: Published in Washington, D.C.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n633.a12.html
***
TAINTED DRUG JUSTICE
Milton Friedman pointed out over 25 years ago that prohibitionary laws
are at their core corrupting of law enforcement, the judicial system
and society itself.
Drug transactions between seller and buyer are consensual - neither
makes the complaint about the activity. Consequently, law enforcement
authorities resort to using informants to obtain convictions.
This leads inevitably to a point where, as was said by the 10th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, "The judicial process is tainted and justice
cheapened when factual testimony is purchased, whether with leniency or
money" ("Loss of plea deals perils war on crime," July 20).
The war on drugs would become nearly impossible should the 10th Circuit
decision stand. For that reason I am confident the decision will not.
The verbal contortions required to reverse the dead-on correct decision
will make interesting reading.
GERALD M. SUTLIFF
Emeryville
Pubdate: Thu, 30 Jul 1998
Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Contact: letters@examiner.com
Website: http://www.examiner.com/
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n632.a06.html
***
Prisons-
***
COMMENT:
Rapidly expanding prisons are among the more durable consequences of a
harsh drug policy. Even though they imprison at only one sixth the US
rate, British prison rolls are also at record levels, explaining why
the recommendations of a professional police organization provoked
squawks of outrage.
Closer to home; the unsuccessful attempt to whitewash Corcoran
brutality may score some points for Gray Davis in November, but the
real problem is that an over-expanded, under-funded California prison
system is a ticking bomb.
The poignancy of sending young mothers beyond their families' visiting
range obviously didn't register with economy minded legislators in
Wisconsin.
Molly Ivins' long article explains how fear of recidivism has all but
eliminated parole in Texas.
***
POLICE SAY PRISON WORKS
Senior police officers have embarked on a collision course with the
Home Secretary, Jack Straw, by asking him to abandon plans for more
community punishments and, instead, to send even more criminals to
prison.
The challenge by the Police Superintendents' Association of England
and Wales comes at a time when the prison service is struggling to
cope with a record jail population of 65,000.
[snip]
Pubdate: Sun, 26 Jul 1998
Source: Independent, The (UK)
Contact: letters@independent.co.uk
Website: http://www.independent.co.uk/
Author: Ian Burrell, Home Affairs Correspondent
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n626.a04.html
***
CORCORAN GUARDS THWARTED PROBE, DA TELLS LAWMAKERS
Special Hearing On `Blood Sport' Fights
A district attorney told legislators yesterday that prison guards used
a code of silence to block his investigation of brutality at California
State Prison at Corcoran.
The prosecutor testified before a special committee looking into
operations at the San Joaquin Valley prison, where eight guards were
indicted in February on federal charges of staging ``blood sport''
fights among inmates in which one convict was killed.
[snip]
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Contact: chronletters@sfgate.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Pubdate: Wed, 29 Jul 1998
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n627.a05.html
***
FEMALE INMATES TO BE SENT OUT OF STATE
Panel allows move of 120 women to West Virginia prison to ease crowding
Madison - In as little as two weeks, Wisconsin for the first time will
send female inmates to a prison out of state to ease severe crowding,
under a contract approved Thursday by a key legislative committee.
[snip]
Pubdate: Fri, 31 Jul 1998
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI)
Contact: jsedit@onwis.com
Fax: (414) 224-8280
Website: http://www.jsonline.com/
Author: Richard P. Jones of the Journal Sentinel staff
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n632.a11.html
***
DON'T LOOK FOR PAROLE IN TEXAS
[snip]
The overall parole approval rate, according to the latest figures from
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, is 22 percent for both
violent and nonviolent offenders, which means it's actually much lower
for violent offenders. This is the lowest approval rate in state
history. Before 1992, the approval rate was about 60 to 70 percent and
was simply a way of managing the prison population.
[snip]
Pubdate: Thu, 23 Jul 1998
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
Author: Molly Ivins, columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram
Note: This item came from SJMN on-line edition
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n627.a01.html
***
Drug War: Sporting Front-
***
COMMENT:
Two events illustrated how drug policy impacts sports; the Tour de
France was turned into a shambles over the issue of doping, and two
American Olympians were suspended for testing positive for performance
enhancing drugs.
The IOC's position is as interesting as it is hypocritical: using
banned drugs is OK if you are merely cheating to win, but try taking
pot and we'll ban you.
Speaking of recreational use, the little noticed FIBA decision could
become a big issue for NBA contract negotiators.
***
TOUR GOES ON AS RIDERS CLOSE RANKS
GRENOBLE, France--What doping scandal? After agreeing with
bicycle-racing authorities to discuss the sport's pharmacological
problems in the fall and deciding not to talk now about anything but
the athletic aspect of the Tour de France, the 147 remaining riders
continued Sunday to roll toward their rendezvous with the Alps. If
teams had psychologists instead of sports doctors they would say the
race is in denial.
[snip]
Pubdate: Mon, 27 Jul 1998
Source: International Herald-Tribune
Contact: iht@iht.com
Website: http://www.iht.com/
Author: Samuel Abt, International Herald Tribune
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n623.a06.html
***
2 TRACK STARS FAIL DRUG TESTS
U.S. won't enforce IAAF suspensions
Another drug scandal rocked international sports Monday when track and
field's world governing body announced that two of America's top
athletes, sprinter Dennis Mitchell and 1996 Olympic shot-put champion
Randy Barnes, had been suspended for possible doping offenses.
[snip]
Pubdate: Tue, 28 Jul 1998
Source: Dallas Morning News
Section: OpEd
Contact: letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com
Website: www.dallasnews.com
Author: New York Times News Service
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n630.a10.html
***
OLYMPICS CHIEF'S CALL TO 'GO SOFT' ON DRUGS ATTACKED
LEADING figures in British athletics yesterday reacted in anger and
astonishment to calls by the president of the International Olympics
Committee (IOC) for a relaxation in doping restrictions.
Juan Antonio Samaranch ignited the latest drugs controversy during a
Spanish newspaper interview when he demanded some "harmless"
performance-enhancing drugs be legalised in sport.
[snip]
Source: Scotsman (UK)
Contact: Letters_ts@scotsman.com
Website: http://www.scotsman.com/
Pubdate: Tue, 28 Jul 1998
Author: Nick Thorpe
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n628.a06.html
***
GOVERNING BODY OF WORLD BASKETBALL VOTES TO PENALIZE USE OF
CANNABIS
FIBA NOTE: The FIBA World Congress meeting this week in Athens elected
Abdoulaye Seye Moreau of Senegal as its new president. He replaced
American George E. Killian who served for eight years.
The congress also voted to penalize the use of marijuana (cannabis) by
players in FIBA competitions.
[snip]
Pubdate: Tue, 28 Jul 1998
Source: Guardian, The (UK)
Contact: letters@guardian.co.uk
Website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Author: Sarah Boseley Scripps Howard News Service
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n626.a01.html
***
BLOWING SMOKE: MARIJUANA USE NBA'S BIGGEST DRUG CONCERN
The stock line with regard to marijuana use in the NBA for years went
something like this: if commissioner David Stern walked in on a team at
half time and they were getting high, he would have no other recourse
than to smile and just say no if a player asked him if he had a light.
Evidently, players rarely say no these days amid reports that as many
as 70 percent smoke pot at least on a recreational basis.
Because it's not included with cocaine, heroin, amphetamines and opium
in the league's current drug policy. With the existing agreement with
the union being scrapped in the current lockout by owners, the
marijuana issue is one of the elements being carved into the
negotiations over a new deal.
[snip]
Source: CBS SportsLine
Contact: http://www.sportsline.com/u/feedback/feedback.htm
Website: http://www.sportsline.com
Pubdate: Mon, 20 Jul 1998
Author: Mike Kahn, CBS SportsLine Executive Editor
***
Medical Marijuana
***
COMMENT:
The concerted attacks on 215 by hostile law enforcement at local,
state and federal levels leave little doubt about how important they
think marijuana prohibition is to their meal tickets.
The shocking tactics used against David Herrick 2 weeks ago in an
Orange County court will probably be repeated against Marvin Chavez.
This judicial misconduct will hurt the prohibitionist's image in the
long run, but meanwhile, it actively victimizes advocates of medical
marijuana, many of whom are patients themselves. They are being made
to pay a terrible price for their compassion and humanity.
In asking about Peter McWilliams' condition, I also talked to Ass't
Warden Linda Thomas. She wouldn't give me any useful information
either.
Oakland is a rare bright spot: a friendly local government working
with an impeccable distribution team to see if medical marijuana might
become practical reality despite unrelenting federal opposition.
In Britain, more details were released about the privately financed
research Effort to develop a workable system for administering
vaporized.
***
PROP. 215 DISALLOWED IN POT TRIAL
Courts: A judge says prosecutors can subpoena Cannabis Co-Op patients'
medical records.
A Santa Ana judge ruled Friday that Orange County Cannabis Co-Op
founder Marvin Chavez cannot use Prop. 215 as a defence in his upcoming
pot-peddling trial, Chavez's defence attorney said.
And Superior Court Judge Robert Fitzergald also upheld a prosecutor's
request for proof that people who obtained pot for alleged ailments
were actually ill, defence attorney Jon Alexander said.
[snip]
Pubdate: Sat, 25 Jul 1998
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Author: Jeff Collins-OCR
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n626.a07.html
***
MEDICAL MARIJUANA ADVOCATE PLEADS INNOCENT TO CONSPIRACY CHARGES
LOS ANGELES, July 27 - A Los Angeles medical marijuana advocate pleaded
innocent Monday to charges that he conspired with several others to
grow massive amounts of the drug to sell to Cannabis Buyer's Clubs.
Peter McWilliams, who claims he is suffering from AIDS and cancer, is
accused of conspiring with Todd McCormick to supply the clubs, which
distribute marijuana to those who say they use it as medicine.
[snip]
A status conference was set for Aug. 24 in front of U.S. District Judge
George King. Last week, McWilliams was granted $250,000 bail. So far,
he hasn't come up with the money to post it.
Meantime, Assistant U.S. Attorney Fernando Aenlle-Rocha said he hopes
officials from the Metropolitan Detention Center will "take steps to
remedy the problem" of the defendant not receiving all of his
medications. Linda Thomas, a spokeswoman for the downtown lockup where
McWilliams is being held refused to discuss the case.
[snip]
Source: KNBC - MSNBC affiliate in Los Angeles
Contact: msnbc@tvsknbc.nbc.com
Website: http://www.msnbc.com/local/KNBC/default.asp
Pubdate: Tue, 28 Jul 1998
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n628.a03.html
***
OAKLAND MAY BACK MEDICAL POT PROVIDERS
OAKLAND - The Oakland City Council is expected tonight to make
designated providers of medical marijuana "officers of the city,"
giving them legal immunity from criminal and civil actions.
Robert Raich, attorney for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative,
said the city's support should block the federal government's efforts
to shut down the pot club.
"This will hopefully blast a hole right through the Controlled
Substances Act," said Raich, who is representing the club and its
executive director, Jeff Jones, in the pending federal lawsuit.
[snip]
Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Contact: http://www.sacbee.com/about_us/sacbeemail.html
Website: http://www.sacbee.com/
Pubdate: July 28, 1998
Author: Lesli Maxwell Bee Correspondent
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n629.a06.html
***
MS VICTIMS TO PUFF POT TO TEST MEDICINAL EFFECTIVENESS
The Guardian
LONDON - The first human trials of the medicinal properties of
marijuana will controversially involve inhaling substances made from
the entire weed, not derivatives, it became clear Tuesday.
Dr. Geoffrey Guy, chairman of GW Pharmaceuticals, a company he set up
with a license from the British Home Office to explore the medical uses
of marijuana, told the House of Lords select committee on science and
technology in London that he expected to move to clinical trials,
probably with multiple sclerosis sufferers, within the next few years.
He hoped the drug would be licensed as a medicine within five.
[snip]
Source: Guardian, The (UK)
Contact: letters@guardian.co.uk
Pubdate: July 28, 1998
Website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Author: Sarah Boseley Scripps Howard News Service
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n626.a01.html
***
International News
***
COMMENT:
The international scene provided little but embarrassment for the drug
war; London may have been shocked at criminal behavior from an
unaccustomed source, but Mexicans had to little reason for surprise.
The bizarre Caribbean threat might easily have evoked memories of
Panama- that was the last time we invaded a sovereign country to make
a drug bust.
***
HEROIN SCANDAL ROCKS LONDON'S DEVOUT JEWISH COMMUNITY
The Orthodox Jewish community has been shocked by a series of arrests
of its members for alleged heroin smuggling. Police and Customs
inquiries are centering on a drugs link between Israel, Antwerp and
London.
[snip]
Source: Independent, The (UK)
Pubdate: Sat, 25 Jul 1998
Contact: letters@independent.co.uk
Website: http://www.independent.co.uk/
Author: Paul Lashmar
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n624.a10.html
***
60 MEXICO CITY POLICE SUSPENDED FOR DRUG USE
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Sixty officers from Mexico City's police force
were suspended Tuesday after failing a drug test, the latest blow to an
already dismal reputation for Mexico's capital police force.
The suspended officers included delegates to two of the city's biggest
districts and two other high-ranking officials, the city's attorney
general Samuel del Villar told a news conference.
The scandal came days after 15 policemen were arrested in a brutal rape
and kidnap case of three teenage girls.
[snip]
Pubdate: Wed, 29 Jul 1998
Source: Reuters
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n630.a05.html
***
ALLEGED DRUG CHIEFTAN THREATENS TO KILL AMERICANS
WASHINGTON -- A St. Kitts drug trafficker known as "Little Nut" is
threatening to randomly kill American veterinary students there if the
United States succeeds in extraditing him for trial, the State
Department said yesterday.
The threats by 37-year-old Charles Miller, wanted in Florida for
cocaine smuggling, prompted an implicit warning that American
authorities are prepared to go after the man if he harms U.S. citizens.
[snip]
Pubdate: Fri, 31 Jul 1998
Source: Standard-Times (MA)
Contact: YourView@S-T.com
Website: http://www.s-t.com/
Author: George Gedda, Associated Press writer
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n643.a05.html
***
HOT OFF THE 'NET
Peter McWilliams updates
Two sites are doing a good job of keeping us informed on the arrest and
incarceration of the nationally famous author and medical marijuana
activist Peter McWilliams. To review the latest on this developing case
see:
http://www.marijuanamagazine.com/
and
http://www.me.mtu.edu/~hull/
***
TIP OF THE WEEK
There is a really disturbing yet useful web page on the growth of the
prison industry at:
http://www.abcnews.com/sections/us/DailyNews/prisons980802.html
Be sure to click the Profits&Punishment banner.
And by all means scroll down to "Prison Population and interactive Atlas"
Here you can click on your state on a US map to find incarcerations rates,
growth percentages and other prison growth stats. Great for cites and
quotes in LTEs
***
The November Coalition
Do you have a friend, relative, or loved one in prison who is a victim
of our failed and cruel drug policies?
Do you need to provide examples of the hypocrisy and unfairness of our
existing policies?
Please visit the November Coalition web page. There you will find the
names and horror stories of scores of people who have had their lives
ruined by foolish laws maintained by a corrupt and power mad federal
government.
A ten minute visit to this page should convince nearly any open minded
individual that "The War on Drugs" is doing more harm than good. See
URL: http://www.november.org/
***
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
`Being briefed by the CIA is like being a mushroom: you're kept in the
dark and fed manure' - Norman Mineta
***
FACT OF THE WEEK
Every year since 1975, 85% of high school seniors have said they find
illegal drugs "fairly easy" or "very easy" to obtain.
Source: Johnston, L., Bachman, J. & O'Malley, P. (1996). National
survey results from the monitoring the future study, HHS, National
Institute on Drug Abuse.
***
DS Weekly is one of the many free educational services DrugSense offers
our members. Watch this feature to learn more about what DrugSense can
do for you.
News/COMMENTS-Editor - Tom O'Connell (tjeffoc@drugsense.org)
Senior-Editor - Mark Greer (mgreer@drugsense.org)
We wish to thank all our contributors and Newshawks.
NOTICE:
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.
REMINDER:
Please help us help reform. Send any news articles you find on any drug
related issue to editor@mapinc.org - For details on how to NewsHawk see:
http://www.mapinc.org/hawk.htm
PLEASE HELP:
DrugSense provides this service at no charge BUT IT IS NOT FREE TO PRODUCE.
We incur many costs in creating our many and varied services. If you are
able to help by contributing to the DrugSense effort please Make checks
payable to MAP Inc. send your contribution to:
The Media Awareness Project (MAP) Inc.
d/b/a DrugSense
PO Box 651
Porterville,
CA 93258
(800) 266 5759
MGreer@mapinc.org
http://www.mapinc.org/
http://www.drugsense.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[End]
to 1998 Daily News index for July 30-August 5