-------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug defender to plead guilty (The News Tribune in Tacoma, Washington,
notes Gideon Israel, a marijuana law reform advocate who has been holding
four public gatherings at Rainbow Valley, his 42-acre property, every year
for more than a decade, will plead guilty today to conspiracy to deliver
marijuana and manufacture marijuana and possession with intent to deliver LSD
and psilocybin mushrooms. He agreed to sell his property south of Littlerock,
give half the proceeds to the Thurston County Narcotics Task Force,
and promised not to hold outdoor festivals in Thurston County for 10 years.)
From: "Bob Owen @ WHEN, Olympia" (when@olywa.net)
To: "-Hemp Talk" (hemp-talk@hemp.net)
Subject: HT: Gideon Israel to plead guilty
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:01:37 -0700
Sender: owner-hemp-talk@hemp.net
Drug defender to plead guilty
Karen Hucks; The News Tribune
Marijuana advocate Gideon Israel will plead guilty today to three crimes,
agree to sell his property south of Littlerock and promise not to have
outdoor festivals in Thurston County for 10 years, his attorney said.
In exchange, Thurston County prosecutors will drop more serious charges
against him.
Seattle attorney Jeff Steinborn said Israel, who pleaded not guilty to 12
charges late last year, now will plead guilty to:
* A combined charge of conspiracy to deliver marijuana and manufacture
marijuana and possession with intent to deliver LSD and psilocybin
mushrooms.
* Distribution and delivery of marijuana.
* And possession with intent to deliver marijuana.
He could serve up to one year in jail, Steinborn said.
The Thurston County Narcotics Task Force will get half the net profit from
the sale of Rainbow Valley, Israel's 42-acre property on the Black River.
The task force uses money from confiscations for drug enforcement.
Israel has been holding four warm-weather celebrations each year for more
than a decade. The weekend concerts and campouts often drew 2,000 people
from as far as Vancouver, B.C., and northern California. Critics called them
loud "drugfests."
But Israel called the concerts opportunities for the "peace-love minority
group" to plan a counterattack on the "war on drugs," to make friends and to
commune. He has said that legalization of marijuana could cure most of
society's ills.
Thurston County officials have battled Israel for more than a decade over
everything from drug use at his festivals to unpermitted buildings on his
land.
Police raided Israel's property last November and charged him with leading
an organized crime ring, money-laundering and various drug offenses.
Officials brought in King County experts, including deputy prosecuting
attorney Tami Perdue, to investigate and try the complex case.
It was the culmination of a two-year investigation, which got a boost when
one of Israel's followers offered to be an informant. During that
investigation, undercover officers attended numerous gatherings at Rainbow
Valley. They purchased marijuana, hallucinogenic mushrooms and LSD,
authorities from the Thurston County Narcotics Task Force said.
Probable cause documents filed in Thurston County Superior Court said Israel
was making as much as $75,000 at some of those celebrations from admissions
fees and his slice of drug deals. He set up a marijuana growing and selling
operation and used a land trust to launder the money, the document contends.
Steinborn said he never took the money-laundering and racketeering charges
seriously.
But "it was effective in bullying us into taking a deal," he said. "The
stakes are too high - five years in prison for a guy who might not live more
than a year."
He wouldn't detail Israel's illnesses.
"I expected to win (the case) because of the incredibly outrageous conduct
on the part of the government," Steinborn said. "But he's not a healthy man
and the downside was a minimum of five years in prison and the loss of
everything. It was simply not an acceptable risk."
Israel supported himself from the entry fees to his gatherings, and now he
won't have a livelihood, Steinborn said.
Steinborn said marijuana is a sacrament for Israel, and he sold it to the
informant because he believed the man was a friend who wanted to partake in
the sacrament.
He will plead guilty and be sentenced at 1:30 p.m. today by Thurston County
Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks. Steinborn will ask that Israel serve no
time while prosecutors will ask Hicks to impose the maximum one-year term,
Steinborn said.
Israel often has said that he and his followers are being persecuted just as
the Nazis attacked the Jews.
But Thursday he would make only one comment: "Just ask everybody to pray and
send their positive energy tomorrow at 1:30 to myself and all my friends and
to the judge. And I love everybody."
Staff writer Karen Hucks covers Thurston County. Reach her at
1-800-388-8742, Ext. 8660 or by e-mail at kxh@p.tribnet.com
***
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 20:05:22 -0400
From: Don Wirtshafter (don@hempery.com)
Reply-To: don@hempery.com
Organization: Ohio Hempery 1-800-BUY-HEMP
To: "Bob Owen @ WHEN, Olympia" (when@olywa.net)
CC: -Hemp Talk (hemp-talk@hemp.net)
Subject: Re: HT: Gideon Israel to plead guilty
Sender: owner-hemp-talk@hemp.net
Thanks Bob for posting the shitty news on Gideon Israel. I hate this
situation. I tried like hell to find an alternative that would not go
this direction. I spent hours talking to Gideon and his attorney. I
hate plea bargains, especially when you have a defendant willing to go
to the mat to prove his rights.
Gideon in the end lost his will and ability to fight. This plea
"bargain" became the only plausible result. I had to reverse my
advocacy and tell Gideon I would back him if he decided to go forward
with this "deal". I know Gideon is not a criminal. The corrupt system
that would put a full time narc on him for two years and then only find
little penny-ante crimes is the criminal here. The fact that this narc
came into Gideon's life as the trusted paralegal of Gideon's former
attorney should be investigated. The fact that the narc has a long
criminal record should have disqualified him and put those whom he
worked with in prison.
In the end, I can only be sad. I loved Rainbow Valley for what it was,
a living example of another way for us to get along together. As a
dedicated member of the Peace and Love Tribe I can, in the end, only say
thank you to Gideon and the others that made Rainbow Valley possible. I
will miss it. To the Thurston County officials who stole this land, I
say that it will bury you.
Now, who wants to chip in to buy this fine real estate when these power
mongers put it up for auction?
Don Wirtshafter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientist dissects wily ways of cigarettes (A Seattle Times account
of Washington state's $2.2 billion lawsuit against the tobacco industry
for conspiring to violate antitrust and consumer-protection laws, focuses
on the testimony of Jack Henningfield, a specialist in nicotine addiction
and dependence, who suggested the industry used complex and devious tricks
to encourage smokers to remain smokers.)
From: "Bob Owen @ WHEN, Olympia" (when@olywa.net)
To: "-News" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: Scientist dissects wily ways of cigarettes
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 14:58:36 -0700
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net
Copyright (c) 1998 The Seattle Times Company
Posted at 02:33 a.m. PDT; Friday, October 9, 1998
Scientist dissects wily ways of cigarettes
by Matthew Ebnet
Seattle Times staff reporter
The scientist, with the practiced vernacular of a man who has spent his life
in books and sterile laboratories, stood up, adjusted his suit and told the
jury how he spent his morning digging through a wet and dirty ashtray.
The scientist had returned from his trip outside the King County Courthouse
with a bounty of tobacco remnants and butts, the dirty and the half-smoked,
the crushed and the twisted, the butts marked with a blur of red lipstick.
Using a special viewing machine, set up in the courtroom where Washington is
suing the tobacco industry, Jack Henningfield dissected the cigarettes,
gutting them, poking at their yellow stains, their strange perforations, and
said they illustrate how complex and devious the tobacco industry can be as
it tries, by using "dose control," to trick smokers into remaining smokers.
Steve Berman, a lawyer for Washington state, called the perforated, or
"light," cigarettes, which include a ring of tiny holes around the filter, a
"drug-delivering device" that are just as dangerous as regular cigarettes.
Henningfield's testimony is part of a lawsuit in which the state accuses the
tobacco industry of conspiring to violate antitrust and consumer-protection
laws. It also accuses Big Tobacco of hiding health research, not telling
people about the manipulation of cigarette nicotine levels and threatening
to retaliate against smaller companies that tried to sell "safer"
cigarettes.
The state is looking for $2.2 billion in state Medicaid and other insurance
costs and penalties for violations of the state Consumer Protection Act,
which could be a $2,000 penalty for each violation, which includes the sale
of every pack of cigarettes in Washington since the 1950s.
More than three dozen other states have lawsuits pending against the
industry. Four states - Florida, Texas, Mississippi and Minnesota - reached
settlements for a combined $36.8 billion. None of the cases has made it to a
jury verdict.
Henningfield is vice president of a consulting firm in Bethesda, Md., and
specializes in nicotine addiction and dependence.
Henningfield said that, of the cigarettes he collected, butts ringed with
lipstick are the best examples of the tobacco industry's nicotine
manipulation.
He said lipstick can show that smokers, smoking normally, plug the special
perforations on cigarettes with their lips, allowing more tar, nicotine and
bad chemicals into their lungs. Cigarette companies, he said, cut
perforations in their butts because it would provide some clean air for the
smoker; the companies sold them as "lights" or "low tar" cigarettes.
But while those cigarettes fared well in laboratory tests when tested with a
smoking machine, Henningfield said, the cigarettes fail in the real world.
"So it defeats the system," he said. But that's the way the industry
intended it, Henningfield said. "This is part of dose control."
Henningfield also gave other examples of what he called Big Tobacco's
manipulation of nicotine:
-- Cigarettes are dosed with accelerants, which look like tiny rings of
gunpowder around the shaft, so that they burn faster, and apparently, make
people smoke more.
-- Companies made filters that appeared to have gaps in them that would
allow more air into smokers' lungs and reduce the amount of tar and nicotine
they inhaled. But, outside of a laboratory they also fail, Henningfield
said, because moisture from smokers' lips causes the filter to expand and
fill the gaps, therefore delivering more tar and nicotine.
Beyond that, he said, even if the perforations or the filters worked
properly, smokers compensate for a lack of nicotine by smoking more, perhaps
smoking 1 1/2 packs of "lights" instead of only one of regulars.
This is the second week of testimony. Earlier, Dr. David Burns, a
pulmonary-medicine specialist and professor at the University of
California's medical school at San Diego, testified that the tobacco
industry's private documents show it was aware of the health risks of
smoking even while they insisted publicly there wasn't proof that smoking
caused lung cancer and other maladies.
Settlement talks in New York between tobacco companies and the state are on
hold until late October.
Both sides would prefer to settle.
Washington state Attorney General Christine Gregorie has said a settlement -
which, like a trial, also would have implications for other states because
those states could sign on to the agreement - would enable states to bargain
for concessions a jury cannot demand, such as limits on advertising tactics.
The tobacco industry wants a settlement because it would mean they could
know for certain what their costs would be. They then could bargain for
things such as immunity from other lawsuits, something a jury also could not
give them.
Matthew Ebnet's phone message number is 206-515-5698. His e-mail address is:
mebnet@seattletimes.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro-Marijuana Group Settles Suit it Filed Over Ouster From '92 Fair
(The Salt Lake Tribune says the group Mood For A Day, which advocates the use
of hemp for food, fuel, medicine, paper and fiber, and therefore was ejected
from the 1992 Salt Lake County Fair, has settled out of court for $32,500.
Attorney Brian Barnard will receive the bulk of the settlement, leaving about
$1,500 for the group, which lost an estimated $2,000 in sales of T-shirts,
buttons and bumper stickers.)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:04:55 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US UT: Pro-Marijuana Group Settles Suit
it Filed Over Ouster From '92 Fair
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: Salt Lake Tribune (UT)
Contact: the.editors@sltrib.com
Website: http://www.sltrib.com/
Pubdate: Friday, October 9, 1998
Author: Sheila R. McCann
PRO-MARIJUANA GROUP SETTLES SUIT IT FILED OVER OUSTER FROM '92 FAIR
A pro-marijuana group's lawsuit over its ejection from the 1992 Salt Lake
County Fair has been settled out of court for $32,500.
A trial was scheduled to begin next week before U.S. District Judge Dee
Benson on claims by Mood For A Day. The group, which advocates the use of
cannabis hemp and marijuana for food, fuel, medicine, paper and fiber,
argued its members' First Amendment right to free speech was violated by
the eviction.
The county denies wrongdoing, saying it settled to avoid expensive and
unnecessary litigation.
Salt Lake County has agreed to pay the group $7,500. An insurance policy
for Salt Lake County Fair Inc., the nonprofit organization that ran the
1992 fair, paid $25,000 on behalf of four board members named in the suit.
Attorney Brian Barnard will receive the bulk of the settlement as fees. The
group will keep about $1,500, Barnard said. Mood For A Day had estimated it
lost about $2,000 in T-shirt, button and bumper sticker sales after it was
thrown out of the fair.
The group has not had a booth at the county fair since the suit was filed,
but has appeared at state fairs, Barnard said.
Authorities said 1992 county fairgoers complained Mood For A Day promoted
illegal drug use, pushed its literature on teen-agers and displayed
offensive bumper stickers and slogans, such as ``Thank You for Pot
Smoking.''
The fair board revoked the group's lease mid-way through the fair, and Mood
For A Day sued in federal court. A jury would have been asked to decide
whether Mood For A Day was advocating the legalization of marijuana, as the
group claimed, or was urging people to break the law, as the county
contended.
The group's civil rights may have been violated if it were ejected only for
supporting legislative change, or for a content-based reason other than
advocating the violation of drug laws, Benson said in a pretrial ruling.
Mood For A Day's lawsuit sought a promise it would not be evicted from
future Salt Lake County fairs. But management of the county fair has
changed since 1992, and the settlement did not include such an agreement,
Barnard said.
Copyright 1998, The Salt Lake Tribune
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon Physician Addresses Coloradans (An exchange, prompted by the previous
item, between Dr. Rick Bayer, the chief petitioner for the Oregon Medical
Marijuana Act, and reformers in Colorado and elsewhere who oppose
Amendment 19, the medical marijuana initiative also sponsored by Americans
for Medical Rights. Dr. Bayer explains why he agreed to appear
in a television advertisement for Amendment 19.)
From: "ralph sherrow" (ralphkat@hotmail.com)
To: ralphkat@hotmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Oregon Physician Addresses Coloradans
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 01:38:42 PDT
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 22:44:58 -0600 (MDT)
From: Citizens for Compassionate Cannabis (cohip@levellers.org)
Reply-To: Citizens for Compassionate Cannabis (cohip@levellers.org)
To: "Colo. Hemp Init. Project" (cohip@levellers.org)
Subject: Oregon Physician Addresses Coloradans
From: Rick Bayer, MD, FACP
Board Certified, American Board of Internal Medicine
Chief Petitioner, Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (Measure 67)
Posted to DRCtalk, October 9, 1998
Dear Mr. Edson, Ms. Kriho, and Coloradans:
I have not posted to this forum before but it is time for this
non-Coloradan to speak, because I may have just entered your campaign by
making TV & radio ads supportive of Amendment 19. I read recently that
A19 may or may not occur as per the questionable accounting methods of
the Colorado Sec of State so this post may be irrelevant. Be that as it
may, let me state my philosophy in case you have to look at my face and
hear my voice this fall.
I do not believe that medical mj laws belong in any constitution. AMR
was disappointed with us but we in Oregon would not work with AMR unless
our Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (Measure 67) was statutory rather than
a constitutional amendment. AMR is concerned that "the Arizona Prop 200
thing" does not happen elsewhere and their concern is legitimate,
however, many of us believe that "laws are a process rather than an
*event*" and prefer a statutory law. This is but one of many concerns
about A19 and Laura Kriho, whom I respect, has been very eloquent about
the imperfections in A19. Recognizing that Laura has much greater
experience in hemp/mj legislative work than I, it simply boiled down to
this for me:
"Will dying and suffering patients in Colorado be better off if A19 wins
or will they be better off if A19 loses?"
This, to me - a medical doctor - that was the crux of the argument.
Laura says patients will be better off if A19 loses and Warren Edson
says patients will be better off if A19 wins. This is not a question of
whether Laura could have written a better, more "patient-friendly" law
(no doubt in my mind about that).
I don't like some of the parts of Oregon's Measure 67 either, like the
registry ID card system but in polling data and focus groups, it seemed
important, etc. Remember that this is "political science" and not
molecular biology or reading a pathology slide from a biopsy. For us in
Oregon, it is imperative that we win big to silence our Republican
legislature and then work with our Oregon Health Division to make sure
that the permit card information is just as confidential as the report I
have to make to the Health Division about TB or gonorrhea.
Back to Colorado. . .
It is because of the descriptions like below that this Oregon doctor
chose to do a TV and radio ad for Colorado (which you all may never
hear). I do not pretend to know more about your state or laws than you
Coloradans and I certainly do not pretend to know more than Laura Kriho
on anything related to cannabis.
I do claim to know more than either Ms. Kriho or Mr. Edson (or Mr.
Barrus) about caring for dying and suffering patients. It was my
feeling that patients like the gentleman described below will be better
off with A19. There was also selfishness on my part because I believe
that Oregon patients whom I know quite well will be better off if there
are many states that win this fall rather than just Oregon and
Washington (we are looking pretty good here in the Pacific NW with both
campaigns led by doctors). I really think mj should be schedule II
(prescribable by doctors) and believe many victories this fall are more
likely to accomplish this than just a couple of victories.
So I am prepared to take the daggers and arrows for "butting into
Colorado politics" but wanted you all to know the reasons that I did so.
It was certainly not my love of AMR (and Laura knows that). Now, you
Coloradans can attack me for the correct reasons knowing that I
exercised my judgement based on my compassion and my past experiences
taking care of dying patients and knowing that many of those patients
can't wait until the next election. One final disclaimer is that I am
not on a payroll of AMR and in fact am losing thousands dollars this
campaign trying to win in Oregon (we have a 59 to 37 lead now in the
Oregon polls).
However, I do believe that dying and suffering patients should not be
arrested simply for using medical marijuana under a doctor's
supervision. And, I do believe that patients in Alaska, Washington,
Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, and everywhere will be better off if we ALL
win in a few weeks. My respect goes to those activists who disagree
with me but we simply disagree on how to vote in the event that is to
take place on November 3. On most other things, we agree.
Finally, I too am a grass-roots community activist in Oregon who
co-directs a community lead-screening program for urban pre-school kids,
protested recently via direct actions against our US Senators when they
were waffling about clean air standards, regularly participates in
discussions with the DOE (more like fights) about Hanford Nuclear
Reservation clean up efforts (more radioactive material is leaking into
the Columbia River upstream from my home in Portland), was a
spokesperson in last year's history-making Oregon Death With Dignity
Law, serves on the Physicians for Social Responsibility - Oregon, Board
of Directors, etc. etc. so don't waste your time criticizing me for not
being a legitimate community activist. You are, however, certainly free
to criticize my judgement and my decision, particularly the part that
was based more on my love for those in Oregon than my knowledge of those
in Colorado.
I am truly sorry that the apparent lack of intestinal fortitude
demonstrated by Coloradan doctors and their failure to advocate for
their patients forced me, an Oregon doctor, to make this decision
yesterday afternoon. Obviously, getting a doctor from Colorado would
have been better (and may still be possible???). But then again, Oregon
has the only Death With Dignity Law, etc.
In summary, I hope you Coloradans have a chance to decide on the issue
and encourage everyone to vote Yes on Amendment 19 because as imperfect
as it is (like a constitutional amendment for starters), many of us
believe simply that patients will be better off in the immediate future
if it wins than if it loses. I should not have to remind you all that
the immediate future is all that many patients have left.
OK, now you can start the criticism for the correct reasons. Thank you
very much for reading this before you wondered who the middle-aged
bald-headed doctor was on your TV set or who the voice on your radio
was.
Sincerely,
Rick Bayer, MD, FACP
Board Certified, American Board of Internal Medicine
Chief Petitioner, Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (Measure 67)
6800 SW Canyon Drive
Portland, OR 97225
503-292-1035 (voice)
503-297-0754 (fax)
mailto: ricbayer@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~omr
P.S. - To those in Alaska and Nevada, please note that I made ads for
those states as well and the below is still valid. Colorado was chosen
because I was responding to Mr. Edson's note and reflecting on my past
contact with Ms. Kriho. That and the fact I did the ads yesterday
presented the obvious stimulus to initiate the discussion.
Rick Bayer
***
Dr. Bayer was responding to the below post from Attorney Warren Edson
who had just been denied the right to make a choice of evils defense for
his client, after having previously been granted the right by the court
to present evidence of his client's medical need for marijuana.
***
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Warren C Edson wrote:
-I figured I had better send this out while I'm still sober........
I'm displeased to announce that today the Judge in Michael Domangue's
case heard issues relating to the DA's Motion for Reconsideration of the
Judge's decision to allow the Choice of Evils defense in Michael
Domangue's Med MJ case. The Judge reversed in part. He held that MD
can use choice of evils as an affirmative defense against the possession
of cured MJ charge but the Judge reversed his previous ruling and
disallowed the defense against charges of growing MJ. The DA's office
then dismissed the possession charges and kept the felony 4 growing
charge. Thus, there will be no choice of evils defense in MD's case
and MD faces a felony 4.
-Under Colorado law the Defense is not entitled to an interlocutory
appeal. The only way we can appeal the Judge's decision is to go to
trial and lose. MD would then be a felon. He would face 2-6 years in
the Department of Corrections and would lose his military benefits, his
only income source. Currently there is no offer from the DA's office
in this case.
The Judge based his decision on:
1) Growing MJ is a long term project and can't help an "imminent
threat."
2) The defendant had previously told the officers that he was
planning on throwing the 4" plant away because it looked dead and thus a
dead, thrown away plant can't help any needs.
3) Colo. had a Med MJ law but it was taken off the books by our state
officials. This shows legislative intent to not allow an affirmative
defense for MJ possession charges. (thanks elected officials). I don't
know why, given this, the Judge then allowed the defense for possession.
-This really sucks and now MD is screwed. If you see a long haired
white boy laying in the 5 Points gutters tonight please try not to run
me over.
***
This is a tough break, but I'm sure you did everything you could to
prevent it. The powers-that-be won't allow for anything as progressive
as a medical necessity defense to happen, espec. not this close to an
election.
You made a noble effort, and you still have a good chance of winning at
trial. One four inch plant - come on! Let's hope for some good jurors.
***
-Vote YES on Amendment 19 and I wouldn't have had to go through any of
this BS. -Warren Edson
***
Better read that initiative again. Amendment 19 would allow only
patients with one of the "debilitating medical conditions" listed in the
initiative to present an affirmative defense. PTSD is not one of the
listed conditions. Being a constitutional amendment, Amendment 19 might
actually override the statutory allowance for a choice of evils defense
for medical marijuana use, leaving patients like Michael Domangue
without any way of presenting evidence of their medical need to the
jury. Until, of course, someone successfully petitions the state health
dept. to add PTSD to the list of "debilitating medical conditions."
Laura Kriho
***
From Colorado Citizens for Compassionate Cannabis
October 9, 1998
Dear Dr. Bayer,
I appreciate your letter.
My opinion is that it was foolish of you to do these ads for AMR, given
your reservations about the different initiatives, for free. AMR was
obviously desperate to tape these spots, and you could have named your
price and put the money to work in coalition-building and other good
projects.
But what is really amazing is that with all of this money being spent in
Colorado on the Amendment 19 "campaign" (estimated at over $200,000 at
this point) that AMR couldn't find a local physician to be their
spokesperson.
Yes, you and I disagree on the fundamental question of the Colorado
initiative: Will it help patients? Many of us in Colorado believe it
will endanger patients by making distribution unconstitutional and
forcing sick people to obtain their medicine on the black market. There
are other flaws that can only be changed by amending the constitution,
which can only be done through the expensive and time-consuming ballot
initiative process.
I do not hold it against you personally for appearing in advertisements
for the Colorado initiative. Standing up for what you believe in is a
noble thing, even more so when you believe in something controversial.
I appreciate your letter to us in advance of these commercials. I would
like to hold your letter up as the best example I've ever seen in the
drug policy reform movement of people disagreeing without being
disagreeable. We should all try to achieve Dr. Bayer's model of respect
and empathy when dealing with people with whom we disagree. You're
doing what you think is right, even though we think it's wrong and
neither you nor your patients will have to sort out the consequences of
Amendment 19's passage.
I do find it appalling that AMR could not find any local physicians to
appear in their advertisements. Using out-of-state spokespeople can
only reflect badly on the AMR campaign. Where are our local physicians
and patients? Why should Colorado voters care what a physician in
Oregon has to say? If it's so good for Colorado (or Alaska or Nevada),
where's the local support?
As I've said before, the real failing of the AMR campaign is in the
strategy and not in the language of the initiatives. AMR did not just
ignore, but actively impugned, local grassroots organizations that
support medicinal uses of cannabis. We would have happily supported the
initiative if we thought it was going to move us forwards, not
backwards. If AMR had not chosen the strategy of ignoring local
concerns and local support, I can guarantee that:
1) Their initiative would be on the ballot now, with no question of
whether or not enough signatures were collected. Our volunteers would
have collected many thousands of signatures, at no cost to AMR, which
would have put them well over the top.
2) AMR would have a Colorado physician to do their television ads. We
have spent seven years working on cannabis reform in Colorado and have a
lot of contacts.
3) We would be seeing some real momentum forming from this "campaign"
that would last until well after the election.
As it is now, we are seeing almost no publicity from the AMR campaign.
One of Denver's two major newspapers, the Rocky Mountain News (the most
cannabis-friendly of the two), came out against Amendment 19, in part
because "doctors don't send their patients out into an illicit market to
obtain a drug from criminals" and "only criminals would sell the
substance to patients authorized for use by Amendment 19." I realize
that AMR is still in limbo about whether or not the votes cast on
Amendment 19 will be counted, but there is still so much that could be
happening for little or no cost (endorsements, rallies, debates,
presentations, etc.)
We are also seeing no coalition-building from the AMR campaign. If
they've gotten the endorsements of any major (or minor) organization in
Colorado, I haven't heard about it. And we've seen how much they loathe
the idea of building a coalition with grassroots medicinal cannabis
supporters. And now we find out they can't even get a local physician
as a spokesperson. This is appalling!
Perhaps the most depressing part of having an Oregon physician stump for
Colorado's Amendment 19 is that it ruins the credibility of all
medicinal cannabis proponents in Colorado. I can guarantee you that we
could get at least one local physician and several health care
professionals willing to speak publicly about medicinal cannabis. The
fact that AMR can't will only reflect badly on the movement in general.
So, as I've said before, real change is created by movements of people,
not by mere election wins and "symbolic" constitutional amendments. The
AMR campaigns are failing to create this movement of people, and in fact
is often dividing the movement that exists, and we do not support that.
Laura Kriho
Colorado Citizens for Compassionate Cannabis
P.O. Box 729
Nederland, CO 80466
Phone: (303) 448-5640
Email: cohip@levellers.org
Web: http://www.levellers.org/cannabis.html
***
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 22:17:55 -0600 (MDT)
From: Citizens for Compassionate Cannabis (cohip@levellers.org)
To: "Colo. Hemp Init. Project" (cohip@levellers.org)
Subject: Amendment 19: Med. Mj. Ballot Initiative in Colorado
Amendment 19: Medical Marijuana Ballot Initiative in Colorado
Is it good medicine?
Colorado Citizens for Compassionate Cannabis
October 10, 1998
The Colorado Hemp Initiative Project (CO-HIP) is the longest established
cannabis reform organization in the state, having worked for the
re-legalization of cannabis for medicinal, industrial and personal uses for
over seven years. In January 1998, members of CO-HIP along with several
patients and health professionals formed Colorado Citizens for
Compassionate Cannabis (CCCC) to focus strictly on the medicinal uses of
cannabis. There has been some confusion about whether CO-HIP or CCCC is
sponsoring Amendment 19, a medical marijuana initiative proposed for the
November ballot in Colorado. To clarify the situation, neither the
Colorado Hemp Initiative Project nor Colorado Citizens for Compassionate
Cannabis has any involvement in Amendment 19.
The proponents of Amendment 19 are a group called Coloradans for Medical
Rights. CMR was formed in 1997 as an affiliate to Americans for Medical
Rights. AMR is based in Santa Monica, California and is funded primarily
by billionaire George Soros. Bill Zimmerman is the campaign manager for
AMR and Dave Fratello is the spokesperson.
While we support the legal regulation of cannabis for all its uses, we have
some serious concerns about Amendment 19. Although the initiative may be
well-intentioned, it is poorly written and may actually endanger patients
rather than help them. It is based on a law enforcement model of medicine,
which drastically departs from the California therapeutic model (The
Compassionate Use Act) passed in 1996 by voters.
We expressed our concerns (outlined below) about the initiative to AMR in
the fall of 1997. We learned that the initiative was drafted primarily by
people from outside the state. A representative of AMR's funders told us
that the initiative is only "symbolic": designed to send a message to the
feds, but not ever to be actually implemented. AMR believes a restrictive
initiative can get the support of law enforcement and thereby more easily
win.
We do not believe amendments to our Constitution should be "symbolic." We
believe that the welfare of patients should be just as important as winning
an election. We believe it is possible to write a good law that will win
and benefit patients.
In January 1998, Colorado Citizens for Compassionate Cannabis submitted an
alternative initiative, the Compassionate Therapeutic Cannabis Act
(http://www.levellers.org/ctca.htm). The initiative was approved for
circulation by the state, but we never actually printed or circulated it.
Our goal in submitting the CTCA was to:
1) provide a backup initiative in case the AMR petition was ruled invalid
for some technical reason or legal error
2) provide people with an alternative to the law enforcement model being
promoted by AMR across the country
We never intended to circulate the initiative alongside the AMR petition.
We felt that would have been too confusing for voters. Circulating
competing initiatives is not good strategy.
It is still unclear whether or not the AMR initiative can be enacted by
Colorado voters. It will appear on the ballot, but the votes for it may
not be counted. The Secretary of State's office has come under great
criticism this year for their incompetent counting of initiative
signatures. The AMR initiative was originally ruled to have insufficient
signatures by the Secretary of State. AMR appealed the signature count,
and a Denver district court judge ordered the initiative placed on the
ballot, pending a review by the Supreme Court. On Monday, October 5, the
Colorado Supreme Court order Secretary of State Victoria Buckley to do a
line by line count of the signatures collected (she had previously counted
only a random sample.) According to the Denver Post the justices said,
"When the polls close on Nov. 3, Buckley is to count the votes cast for the
initiative 'if, and only if,' she has already determined there were a
sufficient number of valid signatures..."
(http://www.levellers.org/recount.htm)
Whatever the outcome of the signature count, we feel it is important to
state our concerns about the initiative to allow voters to make an informed
decision about Amendment 19. We have researched the amendment extensively
and have concluded that the initiative will endanger patients and may make
Colorado marijuana penalties worse than they already are. We believe the
effect of its passage may actually set Colorado efforts at cannabis reform
backwards.
Below are some of the concerns we have about Amendment 19. We have tried
several times recently to get AMR to comment on these specific concerns.
Dave Fratello wrote on September 15, 1998 that their goal was to
"communicate with tens of thousands of undecided voters, not to persuade
opponents to change their views." So we are not able to provide a
rebuttal to these concerns from the initiative proponents. If you have
any questions for them, mail them to: amr@lainet.com or see their Web
page. http://www.medicalmarijuana.com
Summary of Concerns:
1) The AMR initiative fails to create a distribution system for patients
to obtain marijuana. In fact, the initiative makes distribution
unconstitutional by setting low limits on possession and cultivation that
would preclude the state health department or any other entity from
distributing marijuana to patients.
2) This lack of a distribution system will endanger patients by forcing
them to obtain their medicine on the streets.
3) Passage of the AMR initiative will increase the number of patients
purchasing marijuana on the streets. This will needlessly endanger law
enforcement by expanding the black market in marijuana.
4) Because the AMR initiative is a constitutional amendment, it creates a
constitutional standard that marijuana for non-patients is illegal.
(Marijuana is currently not mentioned in the constitution and is only
regulated by statutes.)
5) Currently, possession of one to eight ounces of marijuana is a
misdemeanor in Colorado; less than one ounce is a petty offense, punishable
only by a ticket. The AMR initiative creates a constitutional standard that
only two ounces is a "safe" amount of marijuana. The AMR initiative gives
the government the reason and the power to increase penalties for
possession of more than two ounces, even for non-patients.
6) The federal government provides eight patients with eight ounces of
cannabis each month as part of a now-defunct federal medical marijuana
program. The AMR amendment prohibits patients from possessing more than
two ounces or cultivating more than three plants. Since it is impossible
to maintain an adequate supply (by federal standards) from only three
plants, any patient who tries to maintain an adequate supply will be
prosecuted. This will be detrimental to patients who will not often be
physically or financially capable of enduring a lengthy court battle.
7) The AMR initiative interferes with the physician/patient relationship
by limiting the diseases for which a physician can recommend marijuana and
dictating the dosage and frequency of medicinal use.
8) The AMR initiative opens physicians up to unspecified penalties if the
physician discusses marijuana with a patient who does not have one of the
"approved" medical conditions designated by the authors of the initiative.
9) The AMR initiative would require patients to register with the state
and obtain a photo I.D. card in order to receive protection from the law.
10) The AMR initiative would allow only those patients with an "approved"
medical condition to argue a medical necessity defense in court. Patients
who use cannabis as medicine for an illness that is not listed would not be
given the right to present evidence of their medical need in court.
11) The AMR initiative would allow law enforcement to have access to the
registry of medical marijuana users to determine whether a patient has
legitimately registered with the state. Although the initiative states
that the registry should be "confidential", there are no penalties set for
violation of this confidentiality. Without a harsh penalty, it is unclear
the extent to which law enforcement will be allowed to scrutinize the
registry and patient medical records.
12) The AMR initiative may outlaw sterilized cannabis seeds, which are
currently legal and used in a variety of food products. The initiative
creates a new definition of marijuana that does not exclude sterilized
seeds, as Colorado and federal statutes currently do. Therefore, a patient
would not be allowed to possess more than two ounces of sterilized seed.
(Currently, any amount is legal to possess.) Furthermore, since
constitutional law often overrides statutes, the initiative may outlaw
sterilized seeds even for non-patients.
13) The AMR initiative makes marijuana appear to be a dangerous drug. No
other medication has limits on its use written into the constitution. In
addition, state bureaucrats are not allowed to make medical decisions for
other illnesses/treatments.
These concerns are serious but have been ignored by the proponents of
Amendment 19. The question is, will Amendment 19 be a step in the right
direction or will it endanger patients and make Colorado law worse? This
is the question for Colorado voters who support medicinal cannabis.
The AMR initiative is a constitutional amendment. Therefore the flaws in
the initiative cannot be ironed out by the state legislature; the amendment
can only be changed by a vote of the people. Since the process to get an
initiative on the ballot is lengthy and expensive, any flaws in the
language of the amendment are likely to be with us for a long time, should
the initiative become enacted.
If you would like more information on this issue, please feel free to
contact us:
Colorado Citizens for Compassionate Cannabis
P.O. Box 729
Nederland, CO 80466
Vmail: (303) 448-5640
Email: cohip@levellers.org
Web: http://www.levellers.org/cannabis.html
Links:
Coloradans for Medical Rights Home Page
http://www.medicalmarijuana.com
Concerns about Americans for Medical Rights from patients in other states:
http://www.levellers.org/lemodel.htm
The compassionate alternatives to AMR's law enforcement model:
http://www.levellers.org/theramod.htm
This document is available online at:
http://www.levellers.org/a19.htm
***
From: "Barrus, Tom (Cahners)" (Tom.Barrus@denver.cahners.com)
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Cc: "'ricbayer@teleport.com'" (ricbayer@teleport.com)
Subject: Response to Dr. Rick Bayer
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:29:38 -0400
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
Dr. Rick Bayer in DRCTALK Digest 145 on 9 Oct 1998 wrote:
"Will dying and suffering patients in Colorado be better off
if A19 wins or will they be better off if A19 loses?"
I believe, Dr. Bayer, that dying and suffering patients in Colorado will be
better off if Ballot Initiative #19 (which still is not officially certified
for the ballot) loses.
The reason is that the initiative is bad law as written and perpetuates the
tyrannical idea that we need "permission" from the government to grow
plants. There are other reasons for opposing this oppressive piece of
garbage which appears to be modeled after law enforcement fascist tyranny.
Because #19, if passed, will make things worse, I will be voting against it
if it does happen to be certified for the ballot. I continue to speak out
against it on talk shows such as 50kwatt KOA, 850 AM.
Further in his posting, Dr. Bayer also said:
"I really think mj should be schedule II (prescribable by doctors)"
Dr. Bayer, I will assume that you are familiar with the schedules in the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Why are you advocating such a dishonest
position? I am a Registered Pharmacist
(until the kangaroo court of the so-called Administrative Law Judge, or more
correctly, the kangaroo court of the Colorado State Board of Pharmacy, aided
and abetted by the oath-breakers at the Attorney General's office,
revokes/suspends/whatever they do to my pharmacy license - but even then I
remain a person who graduated with a B.S. in Pharmacy, magna cum laude)
and know that even the words of this evil "law", the CSA do not in any way
justify classifying cannabis as a schedule I or schedule II controlled
substance.
At most, a weak case could possibly be made for classifying cannabis as a
schedule V controlled substance, like codeine cough syrup. A much stronger
case can be made for classifying caffeine as a schedule V controlled
substance.
Before the hysteria of 1937 cannabis was a legitimate drug prescribed by
medical doctors. It was usually in the dosage form of an alcoholic elixir,
in particular Parke Davis manufactured "Elixir of Cannabis, U.S.P." This
dosage form was ingested orally, it was not smoked.
So again I ask, why the dishonesty is falsely ascribing schedule II
controlled substance status to cannabis? Cannabis does not meet the criteria
to be classified as a schedule I, II, III or IV controlled substance.
Only a weak case could be made to classify cannabis as a schedule V
controlled substance, if one honestly reads the "law", that is, the CSA
itself.
Prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs are prescribable by doctors.
Why not be honest is describing what cannabis really is? You are a medical
doctor. You know it is a lie to state that cannabis meets the criteria to be
either a schedule I, II, III or IV controlled substance.
Why did you lie? Will you retract your lie and speak the truth?
Will others who claim to be "drug-reformers" and who are also lying about
cannabis meeting the criteria to be a schedule III controlled substance also
admit that this is a lie?
When you're making your retraction, will you do us the favor the Congress
did not do in enacting their hate crimes bill, otherwise known as the CSA
and define what "abuse" means?
Is it lawyer/government official Warren C. Edson using the drug alcohol
without a prescription from a government licensed doctor for a legitimate
medical purpose to such an extent that he ends up lying in the gutters in 5
Points (a black neighborhood of NE downtown Denver)?
Is that what is meant by drug "abuse"?
Tom Barrus, RPh, MBA
Tom.Barrus@denver.cahners.com
I am a drug user and I am a good person.
"The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is an evil hypocritical 'law' created
by hypocrites, enforced and administered by hypocrites and supported by
hypocrites."
"Repeal the subjugation of the CSA and DEA by abolishing both evil
entities."
The Republicrats/Demopublicans have had their chance and failed.
VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
***
From: "Rick Bayer" (ricbayer@teleport.com)
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: RE: Response to Dr. Rick Bayer
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 19:49:37 -0700
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
Dear Pharmacist Barrus:
Thank you for your letter. You have indeed convinced me that I have
made the right decision by supporting dying and suffering patients in
Colorado and elsewhere who will benefit from a Yes vote on A19. I admit
that I thought hard about my decision but a response like yours tells me
I was correct to encourage a Yes vote on A19 and you have presented me
the opportunity to reinforce and communicate that decision to a larger
audience.
Rather than engage in seductive but caustic rhetoric about admittedly
unattractive aspects of federal policy, maybe you should divert your
attention to the beside of patients who are dying RIGHT NOW and are in
legal jeopardy because of restricted access to medical marijuana. I
know many patients like that, discussed my decision with patients at a
fundraiser in Portland last night, at a luncheon Friday - had some
discussions by telephone and e-mail Friday and Saturday while firming up
whether I did the right thing, and those patients unanimously support my
decision to make the ads. They don't understand why any concerned
individual would vote NO on any medical mj initiative on any ballot
anywhere and, like me, they want to pass laws everywhere so some day
they can get mj from a pharmacy as you discuss.
I also sincerely believe that patients who are using mj as medicine NOW
will benefit from a change in law NOW. Why should patients continue to
suffer waiting for YOU to be successful at getting YOUR proposal on the
ballot? You, Mr. Barrus, have NO law on the ballot to even vote on but
Coloradans for Medical Rights does (A19). The choice seems obvious and
it seems foolish to deny some patients some legal protection NOW.
Voters either need to vote "Yes" or "No" on A19 and you are certainly
entitled to your opinion. It is ironic that you are forcing me to
further "stump" for Coloradans for Medical Rights but you leave me
little choice other than to ignore your outrageous and demeaning
comments directed at me personally. You are not telling me anything
that I do not know about the CSA and there is no need to engage in
disingenuous academic mental masturbation on the Internet while patients
are getting busted for trying to survive through another round of chemo
or eat enough to maintain their weight while coping with AIDS. Patients
need change NOW!
If your success at advocating for dying and suffering patients was as
effective as your ability to deliver inflammatory text to the Internet,
there would be no need for A19 because you would be showing the rest of
the U.S.A. how to pass perfect medical marijuana laws. However, that
scenario does not exist and your angry words ring hollow. Your energy
and academic prowess may be better spent doing things other than
engaging me in electronic debate in this public forum but you deserved
at least one response to such an aggressive broadside aimed directly at
me personally.
Actions do speak louder than words and I intend to devote the remaining
time before November 3rd to action in support of those patients who have
worked very hard to get the lead we currently enjoy with Measure 67 in
Oregon (59-37 in recent polls). Winning a medical marijuana initiative
takes a lot more than cheap talk and harsh rhetoric. You can send your
WORDS to drctalk to rebut me if you find it therapeutic for you, but I
will be busy continuing the same type of ACTION that I have been doing
daily for the last year - helping to win a medical marijuana initiative
for patients in Oregon . . . and possibly elsewhere.
Of course, A19 is not up to me but up to the voters of Colorado to
decide (pending whether the votes will actually count or whether A19 is
invalid because of a signature deficiency).
I do sincerely wish to publicly thank those Coloradans who have written
to thank me for my decision to make TV and radio ads supportive of A19.
They far outnumber the types of responses from Mr. Barrus. I suppose I
also should thank Laura Kriho for showing more restraint than Mr. Barrus
because she called me on the phone and wrote to me privately rather than
flaming me publicly on the 'net. Thank you Laura for your diplomacy
even though you also vigorously disagree with my decision to make the
ads.
Finally, I wish to thank you Colorado for your support and please
remember. . . this is not about rhetoric. . .this is about patients. .
.and they need your support NOW.
Sincerely,
Rick Bayer, MD, FACP
Board Certified, American Board of Internal Medicine
Fellow, American College of Physicians - American Society of Internal
Medicine
mailto:ricbayer@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~omr
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug Unit Supervisors Admit Using Racial Slurs (The Chicago Tribune
says Fredrick Guerra, a supervisor in an elite drug-enforcement unit,
has continued to collect his $46,332 annual salary from the Cook County
Sheriff's Police while his disciplinary hearing grinds through the system
after he admitted eighteen months ago that he used racial and sexist slurs
to refer to subordinates, informants and drug dealers and that he
occasionally wore a black "Sambo" mask around the office. Several other
supervisors in the Cook County Metropolitan Enforcement Group unit,
including the deputy director, also were accused of running a unit in which
blacks were routinely referred to in derogatory terms.)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 12:42:55 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US IL: Drug Unit Supervisors Admit Using Racial Slurs
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Steve Young
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: tribletter@aol.com
Section: Metro Chicago
Website: http://www.chicago.tribune.com/
Pubdate: 9 Oct 1998
Author: Andrew Martin and John O'Brien
DRUG UNIT SUPERVISORS ADMIT USING RACIAL SLURS
Eighteen months ago, a supervisor in an elite drug-enforcement unit
admitted that he used racial and sexist slurs to refer to
subordinates, informants and drug dealers and that he occasionally
wore a black "Sambo" mask around the office.
But the supervisor, Fredrick Guerra, has continued to collect his
$46,332 annual salary from the Cook County Sheriff's Police while his
disciplinary hearing grinds through the system.
Several other supervisors in the Cook County Metropolitan Enforcement
Group unit, including the deputy director, also were accused of
running a unit in which blacks were routinely referred to in
derogatory terms.
The allegations have been buried in a court file in the federal
courthouse in Chicago for months, but they were revealed publicly this
week by an attorney for two former MEG agents. The two are suing Cook
County Sheriff Michael Sheahan and five MEG supervisors over the
alleged harassment.
The controversy has surfaced with less than a month before the general
election for sheriff, prompting Sheahan, the Democratic incumbent, to
call the timing politically motivated.
"We did the right thing," Sheahan said. "We took appropriate
action."
Along with Guerra, the sheriff's office is seeking to fire Andy
Dourvris, who like Guerra, has been allowed to continue to work at his
annual salary, $64,228, during the disciplinary hearings. The
sheriff's office could have suspended the men with or without pay but
chose instead to reassign them to desk jobs.
Nonetheless, sheriff's spokeswoman Sally Daly said investigators took
the charges very seriously. "Our action in this case speaks for
itself," she said.
Andre Grant, an attorney for the plaintiffs, Yorli P. Huff and John D.
Lewis Jr., denied that he released the documents for political
reasons, saying he has nothing to do with the campaign of Sheahan's
opponent, former Chicago Police Supt. LeRoy Martin.
"No one is saying they shouldn't have due process," Grant said. "The
issue is these guys have made these horrible racial slurs, and they
are paying them to sit at a desk."
Neither Guerra nor Dourvris could be reached for comment.
At the center of the dispute is Huff, a 30-year-old African-American
woman who was hired by Cook County Sheriff's Police in 1992 and
assigned to the MEG unit to make undercover drug buys.
Over the years, according to her supervisors' admissions to sheriff's
investigators, she was derided as inept and called offensive names.
Huff maintains that her career was damaged because she was an
African-American woman.
One MEG agent interviewed by sheriff's investigators said her bosses
told her to make sure "that there were no watermelon seeds, chicken
bones or Afro Sheen" in a car driven by Huff.
Huff declined to be interviewed as did Lewis, a former MEG agent added
to the suit in recent months.
The MEG unit, created 27 years ago to combat low-level drug dealing,
is made up of officers from the State Police, Sheriff's Police and
suburban police departments.
The controversy began in February 1997, when Huff filed a complaint
with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It found in
her favor, and she filed her suit alleging discrimination.
Sheriff's police launched their investigation after Huff filed her
EEOC complaint, and they interviewed dozens of former and current MEG
employees.
In April 1997, Guerra admitted to sheriff's investigators that he
often used racial slurs but that they were good-natured barbs,
according to a transcript of his statement to the investigators
released by Grant.
"Being a minority myself, guys are constantly making fun out of Cheech
and Chong stuff," he said. "And no big deal . . . . it wasn't done in
a bad way, as a joke."
Guerra also admitted wearing at the office an offensive, dark-skinned
rubber mask with curly hair. The covering is described in the
sheriff's investigative report as a "Sambo" mask. Guerra claimed white
agents had used the mask on undercover operations in black
neighborhoods "for safety reasons."
He also told investigators that one of his supervisors, Dourvris, a
MEG deputy director, commonly used a racial slur and referred to
blacks as lazy, according to the transcript.
In addition, he told investigators that another of his supervisors,
his brother, Frank, an Illinois State Police trooper who worked for
the MEG unit, also used racially offensive language in referring to
Huff.
Frank Guerra was reprimanded but no further disciplinary action is
anticipated, a state police spokesman said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HEMPilation II's competition? (A bulletin from The National Organization
for the Reform of Marijuana Laws says a new compact disc to benefit NORML
will be released on Nov. 3, Election Day. The bulletin also includes a press
release about "Lost Voices - The Songs of Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim
Morrison," a 15 song compilation of contemporary artists, scheduled for
release Oct. 20 to benefit Phoenix House, the nation's leading non-profit
drug treatment organization.)
From: NATLNORML@aol.com
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 18:29:33 EDT
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: HEMPilation.II's competition?
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
Reformers:
This should be a big seller?! Like Mitch Rosenthal and Phoenix House need
the money...Unlike NORML, who will release HEMPilation.II on November
3rd, 1998 - ELECTION day! Strike a blow for freedom, listen to cool
music and support marijuana law reform...please pick up a copy after
November 3rd. NORML just got the artwork for the CD...the cover is a
great photograph of a LEGAL Canadian hemp field. Gen. McCaffery, C.
Delores Tucker & William Bennett are not going to be happy. :0)
-NORML
norml@norml.org
***
For immediate release:
publicity contact: Barbara Shelley/Liese Rugo
(323) 653-1588, e-mail: babspr@aol.com
LOST VOICES: THE SONGS OF JIMI HENDRIX, JANIS JOPLIN AND JIM MORRISON
BENEFITING THE DRUG TREATMENT & PREVENTION PROGRAMS OF PHOENIX HOUSE
Release Date: October 20
Hammer & Lace Records/Polygram
CD NO: (7)314 565 541-2 (9)
ARTIST: VARIOUS
Lost Voices: The Songs of Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison, this
15 song album celebrates the artistic vision of these three legends with
tracks from contemporary and up-and-coming artists, in an effort to raise
awareness and funds for Phoenix House, the nation's leading non-profit drug
abuse service organization and a pioneer in the development of modern drug
abuse treatment.
Lost Voices mourns the loss of what might have been. Had the sudden and
tragic deaths of these three artists (all age twenty-seven and dead within
an awful ten-month period between September 18, 1970 and July 3, 1971) not
silenced Jimi, Janis and Jim, we might be celebrating almost thirty more
years of marvelous musical development.
Drugs and alcohol have caused tremendous pain and anguish to millions of
Americans, including many in the recording industry. HAMMER & LACE RECORDS
created Lost Voices especially for Phoenix House, in an effort to utilize
the power of music to communicate Phoenix House's cross-generational
message of support.
Lost Voices follows on a previous HAMMER & LACE/MERCURY RECORDS album
benefitting Phoenix House, the all-star Christmas collection titled "A Home
for the Holidays," released last year.
LOST VOICES INCLUDES:
Top Contemporary Artists: The Pretenders, Echo & the Bunnymen, Concrete
Blonde, Duran Duran, Billy Idol and Faith Hill. Also included are recent
tracks recorded in 1997 by Etta James and Taj Mahal.
Up-And-Coming Artists: Tyris, 19 year-old twin brothers performing an
alternative-charged, hard-edged version of "Love Her Madly"; Phoenix, a New
York native who provides an eerily seductive version of "Riders On The
Storm"; and Mirinda James, holding her own beautifully in her rendition of
"To Love Somebody."
Bonus Track: "Voices Lost" - Singer/songwriter Spencer Nilsen delivers
the poignant theme song "Voices Lost," an original composition that
brilliantly captures the powerful emotions and sentiment of the CD.
Founded in 1967, Phoenix House treats more than 3,000 adolescents and adults
in outpatient and residential drug rehabilitation programs in New York,
California and Texas. The American Council for Drug Education (ACDE) and
the Children of Alcoholics Foundation (COAF), affiliates of Phoenix House,
operate a wide array of substance abuse prevention and education programs on
a national basis. These include 1-800-DRUG-HELP, the nation's only 24-hour,
confidential drug help and referral line.
The Phoenix House Mission: To reclaim disordered lives; encourage
individual responsibility, positive behavior and personal growth; strengthen
families and communities; safeguard public health; and promote a drug-free
society through prevention, treatment, education and training, research and
advocacy. Keeping with Phoenix House's mission to preserve America's youth
and vitality through effective substance abuse education and treatment
programs, the marketing focus of Lost Voices will be targeted at campuses
nationwide, integrating with national outreach programs, including "Facts on
Tap" - a college-based alcohol education effort.
The Los Angeles-based founder/project producer Mark J. Fine, Senior Vice
President/A&R Catalogue for PolyMedia chose the name HAMMER & LACE RECORDS
to symbolize the strength of the label's convictions and its sensitivity to
social causes. Pointing out how musical artistry can be a catalyst for
meaningful change he notes, "Lyrics can take on renewed meaning in light of
the issue being championed, serving as a prism through which awareness,
care, and concern can be reflected. It's wonderful that talented musicians
have stepped forward and are making a difference in peoples lives."
-end-
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Contra Drug Link Unveiled (The Associated Press says a 410-page
declassified version of a report on the Contra-cocaine scandal by Inspector
General L. Britt Snider of the Central Intelligence Agency was posted on the
CIA's Web site late Thursday. Prompted by The San Jose Mercury News'
"Dark Alliance" series, the study says the CIA failed to fully inform
Congress and law enforcement agencies of reports that Nicaraguan Contras
were involved in drug trafficking.)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:13:40 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: WIRE: Contra Drug Link Unveiled
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: General Pulaski
Pubdate: Fri, 9 Oct 1998
Source: Associated Press
Copyright: (c) 1998 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Author: John Diamond
CONTRA DRUG LINK UNVEILED
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The CIA failed to fully inform Congress and law
enforcement agencies of reports that Nicaraguan Contras were involved
in drug trafficking, according to a newly declassified agency study.
While congressional oversight committees got some briefings during the
U.S.-backed Contra wars of the 1980s, ``CIA did not inform Congress of
all allegations'' linking Contras to drug trafficking, the CIA
Inspector General L. Britt Snider concluded.
``No information has been found to indicate that any U.S. law
enforcement entity or executive branch agency was informed by CIA of
drug trafficking allegations'' concerning 11 Contra-related
individuals who worked with the CIA, the report said.
The 410-page declassified version of the report, posted on the CIA's
Web site late Thursday, provides new insights into U.S. intelligence
during the Reagan years as it aided the anti-Communist Nicaraguan
Contra forces. Throughout those years, House and Senate Democrats --
then the majority party in Congress -- regularly questioned the CIA
about persistent rumors that the Contras were trafficking in narcotics
to finance their effort to overthrow the Sandinista government.
In classified briefings on Capitol Hill, CIA officials typically
acknowledged only one major case of narcotics involvement by an
anti-Sandinista group -- the so-called ADREN 15th of September group,
which had been disbanded in 1982. But the newly declassified report
links to drug allegations 58 other individuals belonging to various
Contra groups.
For example, the CIA had information linking 14 pilots and two other
individuals involved in transport to drug trafficking. In 1984, the
CIA broke off contact with one member of the Contra Sandino
Revolutionary Front linked to known drug trafficker Jorge Morales but
``continued to have contact through 1987-87 with four of the (other)
individuals involved with Morales,'' the report said.
In the fall of 1986 and all of 1987, Congress prohibited the Reagan
administration from funding any Contra group with members known to be
involved in drug smuggling. In response, the IG report says, the CIA
did not investigate such allegations and thus avoided invoking the
funding cutoff.
At a time when CIA files contained numerous cases of suspected drug
trafficking by Contra-connected individuals, Alan Fiers, then chief of
the CIA's Central American Task Force, was telling the Senate
Intelligence Committee in 1987, ``We have uncovered no indications
that any of these individuals are involved or have been involved in
narcotics trafficking.''
In 1988, Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Claiborne Pell, D-R.I., were
pressuring John Helgerson, the CIA's chief liaison to Congress, to
produce information on alleged Contra drug activity. In a memo to
senior CIA officials, Helgerson wrote, ``Realistically, we are likely
to have to respond somehow -- fairly quickly -- to the Kerry and Pell
requests regarding when we knew what.'' But Helgerson advised against
passing on ``raw reporting or operational traffic'' to the lawmakers.
The CIA apparently had allies on the Senate Intelligence Committee who
``were not 'taken' with the topic and were very frustrated by the
tasking from Senators Kerry and Pell,'' the IG report said. Current
CIA Director George Tenet and Inspector General Snider were then on
the committee's staff.
Then-acting CIA Director Robert Gates did try to get tough regarding
contacts with drug traffickers. The IG report describes an April 9,
1987, memo from Gates to his operations chief, Clair George. Gates
said it was ``absolutely imperative'' that the CIA and its Central
American operatives ``avoid any kind of involvement with individuals
or companies that are even suspected of involvement in narcotics
trafficking.'' Apparently the memo never made it past George.
``No information has been found to indicate that this memorandum, in
its entirety, was disseminated to anyone at CIA headquarters other
than DDO George,'' the report states.
This IG report grew out of a CIA inquiry following a newspaper series
that alleged a connection between the agency and Contra-connected
crack cocaine dealers. The CIA has disavowed any such connection, and
the inspector general did as well in an earlier report.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue No. 62 (The Drug Reform Coordination
Network's original summary of drug policy news and calls for action,
including - DRCNet Needs Your Help; "Drug Crazy" Goes to Second Printing;
Harm Reduction Conference in Cleveland; New Law Denies Student Loans to
Non-Violent Drug Offenders; Judge Dismisses Charges in George Singleton Case;
Oregon Initiatives; Peter McWilliams Sues Attorney General for Failure to
Enforce Proposition 215; and Editorial - Reality vs. Demagoguery)
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 13:39:06 -0400
To: drc-natl@drcnet.org
From: DRCNet (drcnet@drcnet.org)
Subject: The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue No. 62
Sender: owner-drc-natl@drcnet.org
The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue No. 62 -- October 9, 1998
A Publication of the Drug Reform Coordination Network
-------- PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE --------
(To sign off this list, mailto: listproc@drcnet.org with the
line "signoff drc-natl" in the body of the message, or
mailto:lists@drcnet.org for assistance. To subscribe to
this list, visit http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html.)
(This issue can be also be read on our web site at
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/062.html.)
PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the
contents of The Week Online is hereby granted. We ask that
any use of these materials include proper credit and, where
appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If
your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet
requests checks payable to the organization. If your
publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use
the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification
for our records, including physical copies where material
has appeared in print. Contact: Drug Reform Coordination
Network, 2000 P St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036,
(202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail
drcnet@drcnet.org. Thank you.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. DRCNet Needs Your Help
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/062.html#supportdrc
2. Drug Crazy Goes to Second Printing
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/062.html#drugcrazy
3. Harm Reduction Conference in Cleveland
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/062.html#cleveland
4. New Law Denies Student Loans to Non-Violent Drug
Offenders
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/062.html#noloans
5. Judge Dismisses Charges in George Singleton Case
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/062.html#singleton
6. Oregon Initiatives
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/062.html#oregon
7. Peter McWilliams Sues Attorney General for Failure to
Enforce Proposition 215
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/062.html#lungrensued
8. EDITORIAL: Reality vs. Demagoguery
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/062.html#editorial
***
1. DRCNet Needs Your Help
With our number of subscribers approaching 7,200 and our
staffing situation finally coming together, DRCNet needs
your support and participation now more than ever to help
build DRCNet and the movement to new heights. We are soon
embarking on a major effort to recruit thousands of paying
members and tens of thousands of e-mail subscribers, to
build this network into a major force for social change.
Your membership dues or additional donation will enable us
to increase the size and impact of our outreach efforts; and
even more, will give our major donors the confidence to
invest further in the organization. And your letters
written to Congress, legislatures and the media, and other
actions taken in response to our action alerts, reported to
us at alert-feedback@drcnet.org, will send a message to
politicians that business as usual isn't going to work
anymore in drug policy, and that they had better start
legislating more rationally or will face mounting criticism
of their failing drug war.
Donate $35 or more to DRCNet, and you will receive a free
copy of "Shattered Lives, Portraits from America's Drug
War," the new photojournalistic volume depicting the human
side of our tragic laws and providing an overview of the
basic issues at stake. (Visit http://www.hr95.org to see
more of what this important new book is about.) To donate,
use our form at https://www.drcnet.org/cgi-shl/drcreg.cgi
(encrypted transmission, especially for credit card
donations), or http://www.drcnet.org/cgi-shl/drcreg.cgi (no
encryption, recommended you print it out and mail in with a
check), or just send your check or money order to: DRCNet,
2000 P St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036. Please
note that contributions to DRCNet are not tax-deductible.
If you wish to contribute beyond the basic membership dues
and are looking to make a deductible gift, you can support
our educational work through a tax-deductible donation to
the DRCNet Foundation. (You can also purchase Shattered
Lives from us for $23 including shipping, sales tax added
for District of Columbia residents.)
The more than 550 of you who have signed up for the eyegive
online fundraising program are collecting earning DRCNet
several thousands dollars a year. Thank you! If you don't
know about eyegive, point your browser to
http://www.eyegive.com/html/ssi.cfm?CID=1060 to find out.
The sign-up bonus is temporarily at $2, so just signing up
right now is a great way to help out DRCNet! If you've
signed up but not kept up, you can make it easy by
selecting http://www.eyegive.com as your browser's home
page. You can earn valuable dollars for the cause, just by
pointing and clicking on the eyegive home page whenever you
feel like it, up to fives times a day. And yes, we have
gotten checks from them, in the right amounts, it's legit!
***
2. Drug Crazy Goes to Second Printing
Just a few months from its official release, Mike Gray's
"Drug Crazy: How We Got Into This Mess and How We Can Get
Out," published by Random House, has entered its second
printing. Your efforts in asking about Drug Crazy in your
local bookstores have played a significant role in making
this first stage of the book's promotion a success. Keep up
the activity! Call your local bookstores, both chains and
independent stores, and just ask if they are carrying this
book. Even better is to go out and buy it. Drug Crazy has
been reviewed by Federal Judge John L. Kane, Jr., among
others, and is an extremely persuasive overview of the issue
that is accessible by the popular audience. Helping Drug
Crazy go big will help turn the tide in the drug policy
debate -- just last month we met someone who had read the
book and whose mind had been made up by what she read there.
Drug Crazy's appendix provides a host of Internet resources,
very prominently featuring DRCNet, so helping the book will
help grow the movement too. You CAN make a difference.
Read more about Drug Crazy at http://www.drugcrazy.com,
and find more links to reviews of the book and other
discussions at http://www.drcnet.org/wol/057.html#slate.
***
3. Harm Reduction Conference in Cleveland
This week (10/6-10) activists, health care workers,
researchers, former and current drug users, people living
with AIDS and HIV and public health officials from across
North America gathered in Cleveland, Ohio for the second
annual Harm Reduction Coalition conference. This diverse
group discussed such issues as syringe exchange, HIV
services and prevention, drug treatment, housing issues and
the further development of policy initiatives which can
reduce the harms associated with substance use and society's
responses to it.
Proponents of harm reduction point to real world successes,
such as the low rates of HIV among injection drug users and
their families in parts of the world which adopted syringe
exchange early, as well as the proportionately large numbers
of people who enter treatment as the result of being brought
into stable systems, rather than being chased underground by
punitive policies designed to punish, rather than help
people in need.
Allan Clear, Executive Director of the Harm Reduction
Coalition, told The Week Online, "One of our goals in
holding this conference is to bring together a wide
assortment of constituencies who are impacted by substance
use and by drug policy, either in their work or in their
lives. The conference provides a wonderful learning
experience and has led, we believe, to better communication
and more effective advocacy on all fronts.
"It is especially significant that we have city and state
health officials from all over America in attendance, as
they, more than the politicians in Washington, are really on
the front lines. They see the shortcomings in our current
policies, they see what works, what impact AIDS and other
diseases have had on their cities and their budgets, and
they are interested in being part of rational solutions.
The rhetoric is all well and good until you are confronted
by the actual human beings who are impacted. Everyone here
has an overarching concern for public health and for
community health and for reducing the destruction that we
see all around us. I think that it's wonderful that the
harm reduction movement has gained so much momentum here, as
America has lagged so far behind much of the rest of the
developed world in really addressing these issues in a
pragmatic and effective way."
(Day-by-day conference newsletters will be posted online at
http://www.drcnet.org/hrc-cleveland/ available sometime
Friday afternoon. The Harm Reduction Coalition can be found
on the web at http://www.harmreduction.org.)
***
4. New Law Denies Student Loans to Non-Violent Drug
Offenders
A provision in the Higher Education Act of 1998, which was
signed into law by President Clinton this week, will deny
student loans to college students convicted of drug
offenses. Under the new provision, students who are
convicted of drug possession will face a one-year suspension
of federal student aid. A second offense will result in a
two year suspension, and loans will be denied "indefinitely"
upon a third conviction. The language permits a student to
regain eligibility before the suspension period expires if
he or she completes a drug rehabilitation program and tests
negative for drugs twice over a six month period.
Congressman Mark Souder (R-IN), who sponsored the initial
house bill and added the drug testing requirements, said
last May that he hopes the law "will encourage all young
people with plans for college and the opportunities it
provides to avoid drugs or to get help if they are already
using them. You can't learn if your mind is clouded by
drugs. By passing our language as part of the Higher
Education bill, the House has expressed its commitment to
help identify students who are in trouble with drugs, hold
them accountable for their actions and give them an
opportunity for a productive, drug-free future."
But Rob Stewart, a spokesman for the Drug Policy Foundation
in Washington, DC, says that the provision is unfair in that
it singles out drug offenders for special punishment. "If
someone can serve time for other more serious offenses, such
as murder or robbery, and still be eligible for a student
loan, then it is discriminatory to deny the same privilege
to the non-violent drug offender who has served time or paid
the fine," he told DRCNet.
Stewart also fears the law will have a disproportionately
negative effect on minorities, because African-Americans,
while they make up 13% of all illegal drug users, make up
55% of convictions for drug possession. "The targeting of
minority communities by drug enforcement will inevitably
result in few African-Americans and Latinos in receiving
financial aid."
Stewart also said that requiring offenders to complete drug
rehab and undergo testing arbitrarily interferes with an
individual's privacy. He said, "It has not been established
that someone who is arrested and convicted for possession
has a drug problem at all, other than the fact that they
broke the law. It certainly does not prove that they are
incapable of learning or participating in a college or
university."
"The government wants to 'send the right message,'" he told
DRCNet, "and say that drug use is wrong. But they are
ultimately sending the message that the government is
willing to violate individual rights and to bar people from
bettering themselves."
***
5. Judge Dismisses Charges in George Singleton Case
Last Friday, a judge in Craig County, Oklahoma dismissed the
case against George Singleton, a Vermont man who was
arrested while driving through the county last February.
Singleton was charged with driving under the influence of
intoxicants, when a state trooper who had pulled him over
seized a bag of what he thought was marijuana from
Singleton's car. The substance turned out to be a
combination of legal herbs Singleton uses to treat his
tuberculosis, and blood samples taken from Singleton at the
time of his arrest revealed no trace of any known
intoxicants. The prosecution stood by the trooper's written
report that Singleton had appeared intoxicated, but the
judge dismissed the case based on the lack of corroborating
evidence. Singleton spent 25 days in an Oklahoma jail
following his arrest, when he was unable to post bail. (See
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/061.html#dwd for more background,
as well as Adam Smith's editorial on the DRCNN radio show at
http://www.drcnet.org/drcnn/dl28/100298drcnn2.ram -- Real
Audio required.)
***
6. Oregon Initiatives
- Bear Wilner
With Election Day less than four weeks away, the official
state Voters' Pamphlet has been mailed to all Oregonians.
As in many states, this document contains the ballot
questions and full texts of all initiatives and referenda.
In addition, there are explanatory statements for each
measure, which are drafted by committees with members taken
from both sides of the issue at hand.
One distinctive aspect of Oregon's pamphlet, though, is the
fact that for $300, individuals or groups may purchase half-
page segments in order to run statements supporting or
opposing the measures of their choice. These statements are
not censored or edited by the state. With the marijuana-
related Measures 57 and 67 on this Fall's ballot, every
household in Oregon is being exposed to what turns out to be
a fairly thoughtful debate on drug policy.
This is nearly unprecedented in United States history, and
for the No on 57 and Yes on 67 campaigns, the cost of the
advertising pales before its true value. Opponents of drug
policy reform have long sought to deny the basic legitimacy
of re-examining the status quo. With a platform like the
Oregon Voters' Pamphlet, the issues can at last be examined
on their merits.
***
7. Peter McWilliams Sues Attorney General for Failure to
Enforce Proposition 215
AIDS patient and recent cancer survivor Peter McWilliams
filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles this week, requesting that
the Superior Court order California Attorney General Lungren
to uphold his Oath of Office and fulfill his duties under
the California Constitution concerning Proposition 215. The
suit asks for no monetary damages, but asks the judge to
instruct Attorney General Lungren, the Republican candidate
for Governor, to fulfill his Oath of Office to "support and
defend the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State of California against all enemies,
foreign and domestic."
The suit charges Lungren with four breaches of the
California Constitution:
1. The California Constitution, Article III Section 3.5 (c)
states: "An administrative agency...has no power... (c) To
declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a
statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations
prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate
court has made a determination that the enforcement of such
statute is prohibited by federal law or federal
regulations." No such determination has been made to date.
2. The California Constitution, Article III Section 3
states: "The powers of state government are legislative,
executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise
of one power may not exercise either of the others except as
permitted by this Constitution." The suit argues that
Lungren overstepped his executive-branch duties and acted
both judicially and legislatively by giving his own
extremely narrow and limited interpretation of Proposition
215 the full force of law.
3. The California Constitution, Article V Section 13 states:
"It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that
the laws of the State are...adequately enforced." The
lawsuit argues that Lungren has inadequately enforced Prop.
215, now the California Health and Safety Code Section
11362.5, which is meant "To ensure that seriously ill
Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for
medical purposes... To ensure that patients and their
primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical
purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not
subject to criminal prosecution or sanction... To encourage
the federal and state governments to implement a plan to
provide for the safe and affordable distribution of
marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana."
4. The California Constitution, Article V Section 13,
states: "It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see
that the laws of the State are uniformly... enforced." The
lawsuit compares Lungren's vigorous defense of affirmative-
action-ending Prop. 209, which AG Lungren personally
supported, with his open suppression of Prop. 215, a bill he
opposed, which passed in the same election.
McWilliams is calling for the impeachment of Attorney
General Lungren, based on the allegations in the lawsuit. A
web site with further information has been established at
http://www.lungrendoyourduty.com. Press inquiries should
be directed to Ed Hashia at (213) 650-9571 x125.
***
8. EDITORIAL: Reality vs. Demagoguery
To hear some politicians tell it, the phrase "harm
reduction" is a smokescreen, a code word for a malevolent
plot to make heroin available at candy counters and to gain
popular acceptance for drug addiction as a way of life. But
don't try getting away with such rhetoric in Cleveland this
week, as a broad array of health care officials,
researchers, treatment professionals and activists gather
for the second annual conference of the Harm Reduction
Coalition.
As politicians in statehouses and in Washington fall over
each other to pass legislation which will earn them the
mantle of "tough on drugs," local health officials, who have
to deal with the real costs of those policies, are finding
that the harm reduction movement is providing practical and
economically sound strategies for dealing with real
problems. Long accepted in most of Europe as a pragmatic
approach, harm reduction is finally becoming normalized on
the streets, and in the health departments of cities across
America.
Harm reduction is a philosophy which says, "If people are
going to use substances, be they legal, like alcohol or
illegal like heroin, it is in the interest of both the
community and the individuals affected to reduce the harms
associated with that use." This includes allowing IV drug
users access to clean syringes to prevent the spread of
devastating diseases like AIDS and Hepatitis C, referral
services for health care and drug treatment, information on
the effects of drugs and on the various methods of
administration, overdose prevention, housing and employment
services, and much more. Harm reduction seeks to keep
people alive and healthy so that they may live to get their
lives together.
Politicians who have made careers out of demonizing and
persecuting unpopular minorities such as drug users see a
problem with the approach. One Republican congressman,
addressing needle exchange, said that since AIDS was a
potential consequence of sharing syringes, it would be wrong
to try to mitigate the chances of AIDS, and to thereby
remove a disincentive to use drugs. Harm reductionists, of
course, don't have the luxury of pontificating from an
office on Capitol Hill. They see the ravages of AIDS first-
hand, and they are determined to see that methods of
preventing its spread are implemented among the populations
they work with.
Diana McCague is one of the attendees this week in
Cleveland. She was recently arrested, for the second time,
for running a needle exchange program in New Jersey in
violation of state law. "People are using drugs" she said
recently, "and although it would be great if they'd all
stop, the fact is that many can't, or are not ready to face
their addiction. It boggles my mind that we would rather
pretend that this isn't the case than to prevent them from
contacting and spreading deadly diseases. Outlawing clean
needles is little more than state-assisted suicide. That is
essentially what New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman
is practicing. These people don't want to die. Doesn't it
make sense to draw them into healthy contact with health
workers rather than push them further underground where they
are harming not only themselves but the community as well?"
While it is deeply saddening that politicians, plying their
trade far from the realities of the streets, have labeled
McCague and others like her as criminals and deviants, it is
heartening that local officials, on the front lines, are
showing up to conferences like the one in Cleveland. Harm
reduction is indeed being practiced in the US, and the
numbers of its proponents are growing.
Politicians, by their nature, are followers. Very few of
the creative and effective solutions to real-world problems
are handed down from on-high. Most bubble up from the
trouble-spots themselves. Harm reduction, the efforts of
community-based organizations to ameliorate the damage
caused by substance abuse and by the drug war, is certainly
no different. "If drug use is illegal," the politicians
ask, "then why would we allow drug users to have syringes?"
And from the comfort of the rotunda, that question seems
legitimate. But ask a harm reductionist, someone who has
seen the devastation and who is working to do something
about it, someone who cares deeply about life and believes
in the possibilities for positive change, and they will tell
you just how ridiculous that question really is. "It's
simple," says McCague, "dead addicts don't recover."
Adam J. Smith
Associate Director
***
DRCNet needs your support! Donations can be sent to 2000 P
St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036, or made by credit
card at http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html. Donations to
the Drug Reform Coordination Network are not tax-deductible.
Deductible contributions supporting our educational work can
be made by check to the DRCNet Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax
exempt organization, same address.
***
DRCNet
***
JOIN/MAKE A DONATION http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html
DRUG POLICY LIBRARY http://www.druglibrary.org/
REFORMER'S CALENDAR http://www.drcnet.org/calendar.html
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html
DRCNet HOME PAGE http://www.drcnet.org/
ONLINE LIBRARY http://www.druglibrary.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[End]
to the 1998 Daily News index for October 8-14