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

Proposition 215 Disallowed In Chavez Case (The Long Beach, California
'Press-Telegram' Notes A Second Judge, Frank F. Fasel, Has Thwarted The Will
Of California Voters Regarding Marvin Chavez, Co-Founder Of The Orange County
Patient, Doctor, Nurse Support Group)

Sender: owner-dpfca@drugsense.org
Reply-To: dpfca@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/
From: FilmMakerZ@aol.com
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 15:22:12 EDT
Subject: Prop. 215 disallowed in Chavez case
Newshawk: FilmMakerZ@aol.com
Pubdate: Sat, 15 August 1998
Source: Press-Telegram
Contact: speakout@ptconnect.infi.net.
Website: http://www.ptconnect.com/
Author: Joe Segura, Staff Writer

Prop. 215 disallowed in Chavez case

Medicinal pot: Activist to stand trial Aug. 24 on drug-sale charges.

SANTA ANA - A second judge has banned the use of Prop. 215, the medicinal
marijuana initiative, from being argued before a jury in the defense of
activist Marvin Chavez.

Judge Frank F. Fasel said Prop. 215, known as the Compassionate Use Act of
1996, is flawed, but said the state Legislature - and not the jury - should
make the measure workable.

Chavez, the co-founder of the Orange County Patient-Doctor-Nurse Support
Group, will stand trial Aug. 24 on 10 felony drug-sale charges stemming from
his activities with the cannabis club.

The Garden Grove man was arrested in April after allegedly selling marijuana
to an undercover officer posing as a care-giver for a terminally ill uncle.

He says the support group is designed to be a clearinghouse for the seriously
ill who use marijuana medicinally.

The organization, established after the passage of Prop. 215, legalized the
medicinal use of marijuana in the state. There are about 200 members who
reportedly have presented a doctor's recommendation for marijuana use.

Last month, Orange County Superior Court Judge Robert R. Fitzgerald banned the
use of Prop. 215 from the pending trial, but he gave no reasons for his
decision. The case was turned over to Fasel, because Fitzgerald was scheduled
for a three-week vacation.

Although Fasel signaled that he also opposed introducing Prop. 215 into the
Chavez case, he left the door open during Friday's hearing to allow the
attorneys to add verbal arguments to their written briefs.

Defense attorney Jon Alexander said Chavez had received doctors'
recommendations and prescriptions for marijuana for seriously ill patients in
the spirit of Prop. 215. "Prop. 215 is the motivation for what he's done,"
the attorney added.

However, Deputy District Attorney Carl Armbrust said the law limits the
distribution of marijuana to the patient's primary care-giver. Chavez does
not fall into that role in any of the cases he's facing, Armbrust said.

Alexander countered that the law allows for multiple care-givers, arguing that
Chavez should be considered a care-giver "in spirit" since he provided
marijuana only to those who are seriously ill. He added that the jury should
be allowed to determine if that assertion is valid.

However, Fasel was not convinced. He said Alexander and co-counsel Robert
Kennedy of Long Beach, needed to show more facts that Chavez is a care giver.

The judge said that, at best, Chavez only visits the ill, adding that the
definition of a care-giver includes the duties of providing housing, health
and safety services.

"Just handing over marijuana just doesn't make it," Fasel added.

Alexander countered that Chavez's activities kept people from having to make
their purchases from street dealers.

"There have been 601 instances when Chavez has provided the marijuana," said
Alexander, adding that Chavez could not be considered a dealer. "Your regular
dope dealer doesn't require a note from a doctor. That's highly
distinguishable from a dealer."

Fasel wanted to know how he could determine that the Patient-Doctor-Nurse
Support Group is non-profit, prompting Alexander to respond: "There's no proof
that there were profits."

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

Medicinal-Marijuana Seller Loses A Ruling ('The Los Angeles Times' Version)

Sender: owner-dpfca@drugsense.org
Reply-To: dpfca@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/
Received: from FilmMakerZ@aol.com
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 15:19:27 EDT
Subject: Medicinal-Marijuana Seller Loses a Ruling
Newshawk: FilmMakerZ@aol.com
Source: Los Angeles Times Orange County Edition (CA)
Pubdate: Sat, 15 August 1998
Contact: ocletters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/ORANGE/
Author: Lisa Richardson, Times Staff Writer

Medicinal-Marijuana Seller Loses a Ruling

For the third time since California voters approved a measure legalizing the
medicinal use of marijuana in 1996, an Orange County Superior Court judge has
ruled that Proposition 215 is not a legal defense against charges of selling
marijuana.

Marvin Chavez, 42, the founder of an Orange County cannabis club, faces 10
counts of marijuana sales stemming from his activities as the club's director.

His attorneys had hoped to argue in his trial that Chavez was acting within
the boundaries established by the proposition because some of the marijuana
was sold to patients.

But Judge Frank F. Fasel found that the law protects the actions of patients
and their caregivers--not distributors of the drug. When Chavez's trial
begins Aug. 24, the jury will not hear any arguments based on the proposition.

To be sheltered by Proposition 215, Fasel said, Chavez would have to prove
that he was the patient's designated caregiver and performed specific duties.

Fasel said the law is poorly written because it does not specifically address
the legal status of marijuana distributors.

"Establishing a method of distribution has to be a legislative function,"
Fasel said. "Asking the court to endorse a distribution center simply is not
feasible."

Deputy Dist. Atty. Carl Armbrust said Chavez's argument was irrelevant because
some of the charges against him stem from marijuana he gave to undercover
police officers.

Supporters of Chavez expressed disappointment at the decision.

"I have lost six members of my family to cancer, and I have a daughter who
survived," said Julie Ireland, a former Los Angeles police officer and member
of the club. "And if it weren't for the cannabis, she'd never have been able
to keep anything down."

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

Cannabis Co-Op Founder Told Proposition 215 No Defense
('The Orange County Register' Version)

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 10:48:56 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US CA: Cannabis Co-Op Founder Told Prop. 215 No Defense
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John W.Black
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Pubdate: Sat, 15 Aug 1998
Author: Stuart Pfeifer

CANNABIS CO-OP FOUNDER TOLD PROP. 215 NO DEFENSE

The founder of the Orange County Cannabis Co-op won't be able to use
California's medical marijuana law as a defense to charges that he
illegally sold marijuana, a judge ruled Friday. The decision by Orange
County superior Court Judge Frank F. Fasel is devastating to the defence
for Marvin Chavez, who contends he provided marijuana only to ill people
with doctors' permission to use the drug.

"The sole motivation for Marvin Chavez...was his belief that he was acting
according to Proposition 215," defense attorney Jon Alexander said after
the judge announced his decision in a Santa Ana courtroom.

Deputy District Attorney Carl Armbrust sought the restriction because Prop.
215 allows sick people with medical authorization to use marijuana but does
not permit sale of the drug.

Last month,co-op volunteer David Herrick was sentenced to four years in
state prison for selling marijuana. The judge in that case had also barred
use of Prop. 215 as a defence, prompting jurors to submit a note asking if
they could consider "the will of the people" in their deliberations.

Chavez,charged with ten felony counts of marijuana sales and
transportation, faces a maximum sentence of eight years in prison.

A different judge, Robert R. Fitzgerald, had offered to sentence Chavez to
time he's already served in jail if he pleaded guilty.The Santa Ana
resident rejected that offer.

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

Judge Says City Erred In Barring Marijuana Rally ('The Boston Globe'
Says Superior Court Judge Carol S. Ball Ruled The First Amendment
Requires The Boston Parks Department To Issue A Permit
For The Annual Hempfest, Which Is Expected To Draw 75,000 To 100,000 People -
MassCan's Advocacy Of Civilly Disobedient Marijuana Smoking
Does Not Allow The City To Deny The Permit)

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:10:31 -0400
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US MA: Judge Says City Erred In Barring Marijuana Rally
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: annmaria@webtv.net (Ann McCormick)
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Page: B01, Front Page - second section
Contact: letters@globe.com
Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/
Pubdate: Sat, 15 Aug 1998
Author: Judy Rakowsky, Globe Staff
Note: The Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition\NORML website is at:
http://www.masscann.org/

JUDGE SAYS CITY ERRED IN BARRING MARIJUANA RALLY

Cites Free-Speech Rights

Superior Court Judge Carol S. Ball said the First Amendment requires the
Parks Department to issue a permit for Hempfest, which last year resulted
in 150 marijuana-related arrests. Ball said the city can set conditions to
protect public safety at the rally, which is expected to draw 75,000 to
100,000 people. MassCan's advocacy of civil disobedience by public
marijuana smoking does not allow the city to deny the permit, Ball said.
``Civil disobedience is a bedrock of our society: the Boston Tea Party, the
Vietnam War protests,´´ she said. But the city overstepped its authority
when it demanded that MassCan, as a condition of the permit, ``discourage
the illegal smoking of marijuana at the rally´´ through public
announcements and performers.

Bill Downing, president of MassCan, said in court filings that ``we will
not be coerced into becoming agents, scaring the people with the very laws
we despise.´´

Boston police said last year's rally was rife with violations of city
regulations, including unauthorized vendors, more than 30 of whom had no
health permits and one of whom had a 100-pound propane tank, five times the
size of tanks permitted on the Common.

Police also were critical of speakers telling the crowd to ``light up.´´´

MassCann lawyer John Swormley told Ball that there was nothing illicit
about such statements because smoking marijuana is not the crime,
possession is.

The only people who could smoke marijuana on the Common would be those who
obtained it illegally before they got there, Swormley said. So, he
reasoned, the crime was already committed and thus no speaker at a rally
could be seen as inciting lawless activity.

``Cute,´´ said Ball. ``You ought to go to work for President Clinton.´´

Earlier in the week, Ball ruled that the city violated the free speech
rights of owners of the Paradise Club when the club was shut down July 8.
Last month, US District Judge George A. O'Toole found that the city
violated the First Amendment rights of the Nationalist Movement when it
denied the Mississippi group's 1994 application for a parade permit.

In a statement, the municipal law department welcomed Ball's recognition of
the city's need to manage large events and protect public property and
safety and said the city would issue a permit with appropriate restrictions.

A spokesman for Mayor Thomas M. Menino said the crop of First Amendment
rulings is no reflection on the administration's policies.

``None of these rulings say the city has done anything unconstitutional.
What they take issue with is the way the ordinances and regulations are
written,´´ said spokesman John Dorsey.

City lawyers said the permit would be issued by next Wednesday and the
judge set a hearing on the legality of the restrictions for Aug. 28.
Hempfest is scheduled for Oct. 3.

The Beacon Hill Civic Association as well as the Friends of the Public
Garden and Boston Common opposed Hempfest, contending that the event causes
inordinate damage to the grounds.

Sandra Steele, president of the Beacon Hill Civic Association, said the
rally should be moved to City Hall Plaza if it is to be held because her
young son relies on the Common for a neighborhood green.

Last year Steele's son was playing soccer elsewhere on the Common during
Hempfest and ``breathed secondhand marijuana smoke.´´ The children, she
said, ``were all smiles.´´

Copyright 1998 Globe Newspaper Company.

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

Marijuana Rally Sponsors Decry Permit Denial
('The Houston Chronicle' Version)

From: adbryan@ONRAMP.NET
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 16:23:42 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: ART: Marijuana rally sponsors decry permit denial
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

8-15-98
Houston Chronicle

http://www.chron.com
viewpoints@chron.com

Marijuana rally sponsors decry permit denial

BOSTON (AP) -- After years of public marijuana smoking at a
pro-marijuana rally on Boston Common, the city felt it was time to deny
organizers a permit for this year's event.
But the pot enthusiasts claimed their constitutional rights were
violated, and they sought an injunction Friday to block the city from
interfering with the ninth Annual Freedom Rally set for Oct. 3.

"Mayor Menino doesn't like people smoking dope, and he doesn't want the
city to be seen as condoning it," said John Swomley, attorney for the
Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition.

MassCann came away with a partial victory when Suffolk Superior Court
Judge Carol Ball persuaded the city to agree to issue a permit, but she
also scheduled a hearing later this month on restrictions sought by the
city.

When Boston initially denied the 1998 permit request, it listed 20
conditions MassCann would have to satisfy in order to meet city
standards.

Those stipulations -- including a requirement that all speakers and
performers discourage marijuana smoking and announcements that police
would enforce drug laws -- are likely to be addressed at the upcoming
hearing.

"The Boston Common is the oldest forum for freedom of expression," said
Bill Downing, president of Reading-based MassCann.

But city spokesman John Dorsey said the city was on solid constitutional
ground.

"If anything, it's a disclaimer," he said. "We're just asking to let
people know that police will be enforcing the laws."

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

City Must Issue Permit For Pro-Dope Rally On Common
('The Boston Herald' Version)

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 17:36:32 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US MA: City Must Issue Permit For Pro-Dope Rally On Common
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: KJBLeu@aol.com
Pubdate: Sat, 15 Aug 1998
Source: Boston Herald (MA)
Contact: letterstoeditor@bostonherald.com
Author: Hilary Krieger

CITY MUST ISSUE PERMIT FOR PRO-DOPE RALLY ON COMMON

Boston must issue a permit for a pro-marijuana rally on Boston Common, a
Suffolk County superior court judge ruled yesterday -- one day after the
city nixed the event.

"We won,", said John G. Swomley, lawyer for Massachusetts Cannabis Reform
Coalition. He called the permit denial and many of the restrictions the
city sought "clearly unconstitutional." He said the botton line is that
"Mayor (Thomas M.) Menino doesn't like people smoking dope and doesn't want
the city to be seen as condoning it."

Judge Carol Ball, ruling on an injunction sought by MassCann, said the city
can put restrictions on the permit as part of public safety efforts.

"It's the city's obligation to issue a permit" to avoid trammeling on free
speech rights, Ball said, but added that the parks department "absolutely
has the power" to regulate the rally.

However, she cautioned that some of those restrictions -- which must be
issued along with the permit by Wednesday -- could fail constitutional
tests.

In his Thursday letter that denied the permit, Parks Department chief of
staff Don King told event organizers they must "discourage the illegal
smoking of marijuana during the rally" by publicizing Boston police law
enforcement efforts before and during the rally.

John Dorsey, a spokesman for Menino, would not comment on which
restrictions will be included in the permit.

In the past, tens of thousands of people have attended MassCann's annual
"Freedom Rally," this year scheduled for Oct. 3. Last year an estimated
60,000 people from all over the country attended the rally, with more than
150, including minors, arrested on drug charges.

"We are glad (Suffolk) superior court recognizes that the City of Boston
has a legal responsibility to manage events of this size in a way that will
protect public property and maintain public safety," Menino's legal
department said in a prepared statement.

"We will comply with the judge's order by issuing a permit with
restrictions that will allow us to meet this responsibility to the best of
our ability," the statement continued.

MassCann, a state branch of the National Organization for Reform of
Marijuana Laws, advocates legalization of the drug, but doesn't actively
advocate smoking pot without "medicinal supervision," said Bill Downing,
president of MassCann.

"But not advocating and thinking it's wrong are two very different things,"
he said.

Associated Press contributed to this report

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

DEA Targets City Cop ('The Standard-Times' In New Bedford, Massachusetts,
Says New Bedford Police Officer Mark Bulbulian Been Indicted
By A Federal Grand Jury On Charges Of Conspiracy, Extortion And Bribery
For Allegedly Taking A Payoff In 1996 To Tip Off A Cocaine Dealer
About A Major Investigation Closing In On Him)

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 23:59:18 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US MA: DEA Targets City Cop
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John Smith
Source: Standard-Times (MA)
Contact: YourView@S-T.com
Website: http://www.s-t.com/
Pubdate: Saturday, 15 August, 1998
Author: David Rising, Standard-Times staff writer

DEA TARGETS CITY COP

Agency says bribe crippled drug probe

NEW BEDFORD -- The federal Drug Enforcement Administration is investigating
a city police officer over allegations he took a bribe in 1996 to tip off a
cocaine dealer about a major police investigation closing in on him.

The information came to light Thursday, when the U.S. Department of Justice
announced that Mark Bulbulian, of 320 Cornell St., was implicated in the
investigation as the liaison between the officer and the dealer. He has
been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of conspiracy, extortion
and bribery.

The investigation into the officer comes a little more than a year after
the Bratton Report -- a comprehensive study of the New Bedford Police
Department -- found that arrests for drug trafficking and distribution were
down, and that 20.4 percent of officers believed that some other officers
were taking drugs and/or money from drug dealers.

In Mr. Bulbulian's indictment, the U.S. Attorney's office refers to the New
Bedford Police officer as "X."

According to the indictment, Mr. Bulbulian set up a meeting between
drug-dealer James A. Pike and Officer X.

The three met at Gourmet Coffee and Bagel, a small coffee shop owned by Mr.
Bulbulian's sister, located in the Accu Plaza at the junction of Routes 140
and 18.

At the coffee shop yesterday, Mr. Bulbulian's sister, Yvette, would not
comment on the case.

But according to the indictment, at that meeting, on May 9, 1996, Officer X
agreed to give Mr. Pike information about an investigation targeting him,
in exchange for one cash payment of $3,500.

Later that day, Mr. Bulbulian and Officer X met in the Silver City Galleria
in Taunton. At that meeting, Mr. Pike handed Officer X $3,500 in cash, and
Officer X told Mr. Pike about an undercover state trooper with whom Mr.
Pike had been conducting drug transactions since April 1996, according to
the indictment.

Sgt. Craig Fries, of the Bristol County District Attorney's Drug Task
Force, said his unit, which was investigating Mr. Pike in conjunction with
the DEA, immediately shut down their operation, after learning through
sources that the man had been tipped off.

"It was shut down immediately due to the danger that was involved," Sgt.
Fries said.

He said the payoff blew the cover of a lengthy operation.

"He was a rather large dealer in this area, we decided to target him,
everything was going fine. We had several buys already from him, but then
we got that information and had to shut it down," Sgt. Fries said.

Mr. Pike was arrested and charged with various drug offenses and is serving
a sentence for those crimes, Sgt. Fries said.

But, Sgt. Fries said, after the trooper's cover was blown, his unit's
involvement in the case ended.

"Once we found out that this had occurred, we had shut it down and it took
a different direction," Sgt. Fries said. "The DEA basically took it from
there as far as the investigation into the leak."

The Cape Cod office of the DEA referred all comment on the investigation to
a Boston DEA public affairs department, but calls there yesterday were not
returned.

U.S. Attorney's Office Spokesman Samantha Martin said the investigation
into Officer X is ongoing by the DEA and the IRS, but would say nothing else.

"We can't comment on anything that might be ongoing," she said.

New Bedford Police Chief Arthur J. Kelly III said Officer X is not working
at this time.

"I cannot comment on any specific personnel action that I have taken in
this matter," he said.

Mr. Pike, 37, had been previously arrested numerous times on drug related
charges.

He was indicted in October 1996 by a federal grand jury on charges that he
carried 17 ounces of cocaine aboard a single-engine plane from New Bedford
to Bangor International Airport in Maine.

According to court records, police found the cocaine and $1,692 in a search
of the plane.

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

$2 Million Worth Of Marijuana Plants Uncovered ('The Associated Press'
Says A Police Helicopter Doing Aerial Surveys Spotted About 1,500
Mature Marijuana Plants Friday Growing Along The Fringes Of An Airport
In The Buffalo, New York, Suburb Of Cheektowaga - Police Valued Each Plant
At $1,333.33)

From: "Bob Owen @ WHEN, Olympia" (when@olywa.net)
To: "-News" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: NY: $2 million worth of mj plants found
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 19:57:35 -0700
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net

$2 million worth of marijuana plants uncovered
Associated Press, 08/15/98 13:03

BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) - Near the airport, hidden amid a dense tangle of reeds
and purple loosestrife, police uncovered another kind of ``weed'' that's
worth millions of dollars - carefully cultivated marijuana.

A police helicopter doing aerial surveys spotted some 1,500 mature marijuana
plants Friday growing along the fringes of the Buffalo Niagara International
Airport in the Buffalo suburb of Cheektowaga.

Their worth: an estimated $2 million. The find could be the biggest of its
kind in the Buffalo region, Erie County Sheriff Patrick Gallivan said.

Police were trying to determine who owns the property, and there were no
immediate arrests. Officers and a highway department crew spent hours
pulling up the plants, which will be dried out and weighed for evidence and
then destroyed next week.

``If our suspect comes back, we're going to catch him with his plants
down,'' an amused narcotics officer, Detective Lt. M. James Starr, said in
Saturday's Buffalo News.

The plants were growing in 20-gallon tubs embedded in the soil and averaged
about 5 feet, although some stood 10 feet tall. Police recovered gardening
tools and fertilizer, a chaise lounge, an umbrella and several tables.

``These were the largest marijuana trees I have ever seen,'' Starr said.

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

Drug War Facts - Medical Marijuana (An Update
From Common Sense For Drug Policy Includes A List Of Organizations
That Have Endorsed Medical Access To Marijuana)

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 18:30:10 -0700
To: dpfor@drugsense.org
From: Arthur Livermore (alive@pacifier.com)
Subject: DPFOR: Factbook: Medical Marijuana
Sender: owner-dpfor@drugsense.org
Reply-To: dpfor@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/

DRUG WAR FACTS
compiled by Kendra E. Wright and Paul M. Lewin
for Common Sense for Drug Policy, http://www.drugsense.org/csdp/

Updated: August 15, 1998

***

Medical Marijuana

1. Doctors are presently permitted to prescribe cocaine and morphine--but
not marijuana.

Source: The Controlled Substances Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.

2. Organizations that have endorsed medical access to marijuana include:
the American Academy of Family Physicians; American Bar Association;
American Public Health Association; American Society of Addiction Medicine;
AIDS Action Council; British Medical Association; California Academy of
Family Physicians; California Legislative Council for Older Americans;
California Medical Association; California Nurses Association; California
Pharmacists Association; California Society of Addiction Medicine;
California-Pacific Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church;
Colorado Nurses Association; Consumer Reports Magazine; Kaiser Permanente;
Lymphoma Foundation of America; Multiple Sclerosis California Action
Network; National Association of Attorneys General; National Association of
People with AIDS; National Nurses Society on Addictions; New Mexico Nurses
Association; New York State Nurses Association; New England Journal of
Medicine; and Virginia Nurses Association. A few of the editorial boards
that have endorsed medical access to marijuana include: Boston Globe;
Chicago Tribune; Miami Herald; New York Times; Orange County Register; and
USA Today.

3. Many organizations have favorable positions (e.g., unimpeded research)
on medical marijuana. These groups include: The American Cancer Society;
American Medical Association; Australian Commonwealth Department of Human
Services and Health; California Medical Association; Federation of American
Scientists; Florida Medical Association; and the National Academy of
Sciences.

4. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 established five categories, or
"schedules," into which all illicit and prescription drugs were placed.
Marijuana was placed in Schedule I, which defines the substance as having a
high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in the United
States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. To
contrast, over 90 published reports and studies have shown marijuana has
medical efficacy.

Sources: The Controlled Substances Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.;
Common Sense for Drug Policy, Compendium of Reports, Research and Articles
Demonstrating the Effectiveness of Medical Marijuana, Vol. I &; Vol.
II, Falls Church, VA: Common Sense for Drug Policy (1997, March).

5. The U.S. Penal Code states that any person can be imprisoned for up to
one year for possession of one marijuana cigarette and imprisoned for up to
five years for growing a single marijuana plant.

Source: The Controlled Substances Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.

6. On September 6, 1988, the Drug Enforcement Administration's Chief
Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young, ruled:

"Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically
active substances known. ...[T]he provisions of the [Controlled Substances]
Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to
Schedule II. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the
DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this
substance."

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, "In the
Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," [Docket #86-22] (1988,
September 6), p. 57.

7. The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In strict
medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume.
For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By
comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce
death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically
active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis
marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care."

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, "In the
Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," [Docket #86-22], (1988,
September 6), p. 57.

8. Between 1978 and 1997, 35 states and the District of Columbia passed
legislation recognizing marijuana's medicinal value.

States include: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, IL, IO, LA, MA, ME, MI, MN,
MO, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, TN, TX, VT, VA, WA, WV,
and WI.

***

Available online at: http://www.drugsense.org/factbook/
Questions, comments or suggestions for additions and modifications
may be addressed to the Paul Lewin at: csdp@drugsense.org

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

FDA Can't Regulate Tobacco, Court Rules (A Knight Ridder News Service Article
In 'The Seattle Times' Says A Three-Judge Panel Of The Fourth US Circuit
Court Of Appeals In Richmond, Virginia, Ruled 2-1 Thursday That Tobacco
Control Is The Business Of Congress, Accused The US Food And Drug
Administration Of Trying To Create A National Tobacco Policy Behind The Backs
Of Lawmakers, And Stripped The FDA Of Its Power To Regulate The Manufacture
And Sale Of Tobacco)

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 15:41:47 -0400
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US: FDA Can't Regulate Tobacco, Court Rules
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: Saturday, 15 August, 1998
Author: Raja Mishra, Knight Ridder Newspapers

FDA CAN'T REGULATE TOBACCO, COURT RULES

WASHINGTON - In a stunning victory for the tobacco industry, a federal
Appeals Court yesterday stripped the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of
its power to regulate the manufacture and sale of tobacco, leaving the
federal government little ability to deal with one of the country's major
public-health concerns.

The three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond,
Va., said in a 2-1 decision that tobacco control is the business of
Congress. The judges accused the FDA of trying to create a national tobacco
policy behind the backs of lawmakers.

"The FDA has exceeded the authority granted to it by Congress," wrote the
court. "This case is about who has the power to make this type of major
policy decision."

President Clinton quickly moved to have the case retried before the entire
Appeals Court in Richmond, which is one level below the U.S. Supreme Court.
He also used the decision to attack Republicans in Congress for defeating
an anti-smoking bill earlier this summer.

"If the leadership in Congress would act responsibly," he said, "it would
enact bipartisan comprehensive tobacco legislation to confirm the FDA's
authority and take this matter out of the courtroom."

For now, America's tobacco policy will be shaped by a sprawling legal
hodgepodge, led by the 37 state attorneys general who have lawsuits pending
against the industry. Four states - Mississippi, Florida, Texas and
Minnesota - have multibillion-dollar agreements with the industry that
include some restrictions on advertising and sales to children.

Tobacco foes said this state of affairs will be ineffective in decreasing
the number of children who smoke, the rationale behind the FDA regulations
that were struck down. About 3,000 children start smoking every day, and
1,000 become addicted in their lifetime, public-health experts estimate.

"The Appeals Court's decision today makes it even more imperative that
Congress pass comprehensive legislation to address the problem of youth
tobacco use," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who led the Senate's failed
tobacco-control effort.

The industry obviously was pleased about yesterday's ruling.

"It wasn't just about underage smoking, the way that the rules were
devised," said Nat Walker, an R.J. Reynolds spokesman in the company's
Winston-Salem, N.C., headquarters. "There was even the possibility that,
had the FDA had the authority, they could have banned the sale of
cigarettes to adults."

The Appeals Court's decision caps a stunning comeback by the tobacco
industry this year, after several years of public beatings from government
officials and the release of a stream of internal documents painting the
companies as manipulative and secretive.

In June, the Senate's tobacco bill, which would have given the FDA the
required go-ahead to regulate cigarettes, died after an intense
public-relations campaign by the industry. And the industry has won several
recent court battles, including a ruling Thursday in Florida that could
lead to the overturning of the only lawsuit the tobacco companies have ever
lost.

Anti-smoking advocates were clearly disheartened by yesterday's Appeals
Court ruling but said they would continue their decades-long fight.

"This may be a temporary victory for the tobacco industry, but it is clear
that the days of Big Tobacco's rogue, unregulated existence are numbered,"
said Bill Novelli, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an
anti-tobacco group based in Washington.

The case grew out of the declaration of David Kessler, then the FDA
commissioner, in August 1996 that the agency would regulate the sale of
tobacco to minors and oversee tobacco advertising. Among other things, the
FDA required convenience stores to display signs saying cigarettes will not
be sold to minors and to check the IDs of cigarette buyers 19 to 27 years
old.

Because of legal challenges, these are the only provisions that have taken
effect, and signs warning youthful-looking buyers are common in groceries,
gas stations and convenience stores.

Other provisions of FDA regulations would have banned most cigarette
vending machines, most cigarette billboards and promotional products with
cigarette logos.

The FDA claimed it could wield this power because nicotine qualifies as a
drug and cigarettes a drug-delivery device, and the agency was designed to
regulate both these categories. In 1997 a federal judge in North Carolina
upheld this argument, though he struck down the FDA's ability to oversee
advertising, citing freedom of speech.

In yesterday's decision, the court said the FDA could not call tobacco a
drug. In the often- acerbic ruling, it caught the FDA in a sort of
rhetorical trap: Since the FDA says tobacco is very harmful to the public
yet has no benefits, if it honestly applied its drug-approval standards, it
would have to ban tobacco.

"A faithful application of the statutory language would lead to a ban on
tobacco products - a result not intended by Congress," the court wrote.

The tobacco industry said it would not necessarily ask stores to take down
its signs prohibiting sales to minors or to stop ID checks.

"The industry remains firmly committed to taking meaningful steps to reduce
underage tobacco use," said a spokesman for the major tobacco companies:
Philip Morris Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Co., Lorillard Tobacco Co., and United States Tobacco.

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

When Truth Gets Lost Amid Trivia (An Op-Ed In Wisconsin's 'Capital Times'
Says The New Issue Of FAIR's Magazine, 'Extra!,' Examines Media Bias
And Discovers A Washington Press Corps Far Out Of Touch
With The American People - It's Not That Journalists Are Right Wingers,
Per Se, But That They Are Defenders Of The Status Quo,
While The American People Are Inclined Toward Reform)

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 21:41:42 -0500
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US WI: OPED: When Truth Gets Lost Amid Trivia
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: The Capital Times (WI)
Pubdate: Sat, 15 Aug 1998
Contact: tctvoice@madison.com
Website: http://www.madison.com/

Editorial

WHEN TRUTH GETS LOST AMID TRIVIA

"What is sex?'' the ABC radio announcer demanded to know on a Friday
morning "news'' broadcast.

It was a teaser for a story on President Clinton's impending testimony
before the Ken Starr-chamber grand jury. But it was also a reminder of
the great extent to which the whole Monica Lewinsky "scandal'' has
been driven by a media that is far more obsessed with bedroom affairs
than foreign affairs.

The news in this country has become so trivialized that some
sociologists now speculate that a person may actually be more confused
after listening to an evening news program.

What's wrong with American media?

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, the national media watchdog group,
offers one answer.

The new issue of FAIR's magazine, "Extra!,'' examines media bias and
discovers a Washington press corps far out of touch with the American
people.

So, are Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich right? Are limousine-liberal
reporters cruising the beltway in search of the latest opportunity to
undermine conservative ideals? Hardly.

According to a survey of Washington reporters, editors and broadcast
producers conducted for FAIR by researchers at Virginia Commonwealth
University, the D.C. journalists were significantly more conservative
than the American people.

Compare attitudes about corporations. While 43 percent of the
Washington press corps reject the notion that too much power is
concentrated in the hands of large corporations, only 18 percent of
the public share that view.

Indeed, journalists registered as more conservative than the people on
each of the following issues: protecting Medicare and Social Security,
expansion of NAFTA, the need to control and regulate corporations,
taxing the wealthy and development of a government guarantee of health
care for all.

It's not that journalists are right wingers, per se, the study found.
The real point is that they are defenders of the status quo, while the
American people are inclined toward reform.

"(Journalists') adherence to the middle of the road and conventional
wisdom is consistent with media outlets owned and funded by
corporations that benefit from the status quo and are threatened by
alternative analyses,'' says sociologist David Croteau.
"Unfortunately, this too often leaves citizens with policy `debates'
grounded in the shared assumption of those in positions of power.''

Thus, we get endless stories about Monica's blue dress, rather than
the issues Americans worry about.

When journalist do "think outside the box,'' they are often shot down.
That was what happened to San Jose Mercury News reporter Gary Webb
when he exposed links between the Central Intelligence Agency and
Nicaraguan Contras who dealt drugs.

Webb was attacked by fellow journalists when the story appeared two
years ago. But this year, the CIA acknowledged that it had indeed kept
drug dealers on the payroll.

Former Associated Press reporter Robert Parry argues that Washington
reporters launched "excessive attacks'' on Webb because "Webb's series
jabbed a painful nerve for many thriving journalists who had shirked
their responsibilities to the American people.''

As the national media obsess all over themselves regarding the
Lewinsky affair this coming week, that same irresponsibility will be
in play. Real stories -- stories about campaign finance reform and
defending family farming and reforming HMOs and fixing American
foreign policy -- will be pushed aside in order to examine the stain
on a blue dress.

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

Heroin Use Among Young People Is Increasing In England And Wales
('The British Medical Journal' Notes The New Report From The Home Office
Police Research Group)

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:10:36 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: UK: Heroin Use Among Young People
Is Increasing In England And Wales
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn)
Source: British Medical Journal (UK)
Contact: bmj@bmj.com
Pubdate: Sat, 15 Aug 1998
Issue: BMJ 1998;317:431 (15 August)
Author: Richard Harling, BMJ

HEROIN USE AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE IS INCREASING IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Heroin use has risen among young people aged under 19 in England and Wales,
according to a report from the Home Office Police Research Group.

Throughout the 1990s several indicators have suggested that adolescents are
increasingly using heroin: the Department of Health's database on regional
drug misuse has been notified of more first episodes of heroin use;
prosecutions for heroin related offences have escalated; and seizures of
the drug have increased.

The use of heroin is also becoming more common in smaller towns. In a
survey of police forces and drug action teams, 80% of areas reported new
outbreaks of heroin use among young people. Most of the new users were
described as "socially excluded," but heroin is also being used as a
recreational drug by adolescents from more affluent families.

An additional £1m ($1.6m) is to be made available to health authorities
for drug prevention work. According to the report, drug education campaigns
may have failed the latest generation of teenagers by focusing too heavily
on recreational drugs such as cannabis and ecstasy and failing to
adequately communicate the dangers of heroin. It calls for future public
health messages about drugs to "acknowledge a hierarchy of dangerousness"
in order to "give heroin a bad name."

The report emphasises the importance of providing "caring, high quality
services" for young heroin users. Dr John Merrill, consultant in drug
dependence for the North West NHS region, criticises existing arrangements
because drug action groups do not always have access to advice from a
specialist with experience of working with young drug users. He would like
to see services coordinated at regional level by multiagency partnerships,
including adolescent psychiatry, drug misuse teams, primary care, social
services, and education.

Professor Howard Parker, professor of social work at Manchester University
and one of the authors of the report, would like the government to
re-evaluate its approach to treating young heroin users. Although he sees a
clear place for methadone as a detoxification agent, Professor Parker
believes that it is overused among younger addicts, leading to
overdependence on medical treatment. Instead, he advocates a philosophy of
"tough love," in which the behaviour of young heroin users is challenged in
a sensitive environment.

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

Junky Genes (Britain's 'New Scientist' Discusses Research
At The University Of Cincinnati College Of Medicine
Suggesting That Slight Genetic Variations May Make The Difference
Between A Person Being Unlikely To Abuse Heroin And Being Predisposed To It)

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 18:27:38 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US: Junky Genes
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Peter Webster
Pubdate: Sat 15 Aug 1998
Source: New Scientist (U.K.)
Contact: letters@newscientist.com
Website: http://www.newscientist.com/
Author:	Nell Boyce

JUNKY GENES

SLIGHT genetic variations may make the difference between a person being
unlikely to abuse heroin and being predisposed to it. Now researchers in
Cincinnati are discovering how small changes in a gene could influence
people's tendency to abuse opiates.

If it exists, the link between genes and addiction is likely to be easier
to pinpoint for opiates such as heroin than for other types of addiction.
This is because, unlike alcohol or cocaine, opium works through only one
molecular gateway in the cell.

Studies have already identified a small variation in the gene for the opium
receptor that appears more often in heroin addicts. Now researchers have
confirmed this finding and have found several new variants of the gene, one
of which appears to protect against drug addiction.

Lei Yu of the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and colleagues
found that an opium receptor gene variant, A118G, which occurs in 20 per
cent of the population, turns up nearly twice as often in people who have
never been addicted to opiates as it does in addicts. They also found that
a naturally occurring brain opioid binds to the A1 18G receptor three times
more strongly than it does to normal opiate receptors (Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, vol 95, p 9608).

The researchers caution that these results are preliminary and based on
only a small study group. Further work will be necessary to determine how
stronger opiate binding could translate into a protection from addiction,
they say. Yu and his colleagues are enrolling more people in their study
and are checking whether other variants associated with heroin addiction
also change the way opiates bind to the receptor.

"It's tremendously exciting," says Alan Leshner, director of the US
National Institute on Drug Abuse near Washington DC. He says the research
shows the first link between a variation in the biochemical activity of a
protein and a predisposition towards heroin addiction. "This is not yet
vulnerability to addiction but it shows we are looking in the right place,"
he says.

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

Deaths In Prison Custody ('The Irish Times' Publishes Statistics
For The Years 1990 To 1998 From The Department Of Justice In Dublin)

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:00:05 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: Ireland: Deaths in Prison Custody
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Martin Cooke (mjc1947@cyberclub.iol.ie)
Source: Irish Times (Ireland)
Contact: lettersed@irish-times.ie
Fax: ++ 353 1 671 9407
Pubdate: Sat, 15 Aug 1998

DEATHS IN PRISON CUSTODY

Year	Total	Breakdown

1990	4:	3 self-inflicted, 1 overdose

1991	5:	4 self-inflicted and 1 overdose. 2 on remand

1992	5:	3 self-inflicted, 1 overdose, 1 natural causes. 1 on remand

1993	3:	1 self-inflicted, 2 overdoses. 1 on remand

1994	5:	3 self-inflicted, 2 overdoses. 1 on remand

1995	3:	1 self-inflicted, 2 overdoses. 1 on remand

1996	9:	5 self-inflicted, 3 natural causes, 1 overdose. 3 on remand

1997	6: 	3 self-inflicted, 2 natural causes, 1 overdose, 1 on remand

1998	4:	2 self-inflicted, 2 natural causes. 1 on remand.

(Where figures are given for deaths on remand, they are included in - not
additional to other categories.)

Source: Department of Justice, Dublin

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

[End]