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

Voters favor medical marijuana, oppose recriminalization (The Oregonian
says a statewide poll conducted Sept. 30 through Oct. 6 suggests 59 percent
support Measure 67, the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act, and 54 percent
oppose Measure 57, which would recriminalize possession of less than
one ounce of the herb.)

Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 17:36:14 -0700
From: Paul Freedom (nepal@teleport.com)
Organization: Oregon Libertarian Patriots
To: "commonlawnews-l@teleport.com" (commonlawnews-l@teleport.com),
Cannabis Patriots (cannabis-patriots-l@teleport.com)
Subject: CanPat - Voters favor medical marijuana-Oppose Recriminalization
Sender: owner-cannabis-patriots-l@smtp.teleport.com

The Oregonian

Voters favor medical marijuana--
(Oppose Recriminalization )

A statewide poll shows 59 percent support Measure
67 and 54 percent oppose Measure 57, which
would recriminalize possession of the drug

Sunday, October 11 1998

By Patrick O'Neill
and Maxine Bernstein
of The Oregonian staff

Most Oregon voters are comfortable with the idea of
marijuana as medicine, and a majority doesn't agree
that possession of small amounts of marijuana for
recreational use should be a crime.

A statewide poll conducted for The Oregonian and
KATU (2) shows voters strongly favor Measure 67,
which would legalize marijuana use by people with
certain diseases. A slightly smaller majority opposes
Measure 57, which would reinstitute criminal penalties
for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana.

"Oregon tends to be a more libertarian kind of state,''
said Rep. John Minnis, R-Wood Village, one of
Measure 57's sponsors. "I kind of think Oregon is stuck
in the '60s. There's an attitude of 'Leave me alone, let
me smoke my grass, let me do my own thing.' Until
that changes, we probably won't see much support for
this."

In the poll, 59 percent of those surveyed said they
would vote to legalize medical marijuana, and 54
percent said they oppose the recriminalization measure,
which was passed by the Oregon Legislature last year
and forced to the Nov. 3 ballot after opponents started
a signature-gathering campaign.

Since then, Measure 57's opponents have raised
$637,000 to defeat it, drawing large contributions from
such wealthy benefactors as billionaire George Soros
and insurance magnate Peter Lewis of Ohio. They are
opposed by Multnomah County Sheriff Dan Noelle and
an array of law enforcement backers who have raised
less than $300,000.

Oregon is one of five states this fall with medical
marijuana measures on the ballot. The campaigns are
being coordinated by Americans for Medical Rights,
which helped lead successful efforts to legalize medical
marijuana in California and Arizona.

The poll suggests there is broad support for use to
control pain and nausea from chronic or life-threatening
illnesses. Measure 67 would set up a permit system,
requiring a doctor's written proof, that exempts patients
with a "debilitating medical condition'' from prosecution
under marijuana laws.

"Some people claim it helps them," said Clinton Tracy,
a retired heavy-equipment mechanic. "And you just
about have to believe them if that's what they say."

Although Tracy said he will vote for Measure 67, he
said he remains concerned that medical marijuana
could be abused. "It has to be handled real carefully,"
he said. "It should be controlled closely."

Greg Steward, a Beaverton accountant, said he is
suspicious about what's motivating the measure's
supporters and will vote against it. "Most of the people
who were out petitioning for that make me a little
suspect," he said. "They looked like they were more
likely to use this for recreational purposes."

Steward said he thinks alternatives to marijuana - such
as Marinol, a prescription anti-nausea drug made from
the active ingredient in marijuana - make it
unnecessary to smoke marijuana to gain the same
medical benefit.

The survey found support for the measure in the
Portland area and in the Willamette Valley. The
strongest opposition was in Eastern Oregon, where 62
percent of people polled said they would vote no.

Dr. Richard Bayer, a Portland internist and a chief
petitioner for Measure 67, said the poll shows that
"Oregon voters are realizing that this is a health issue,
as much as our opponents are trying to spin this as a
law enforcement issue."

But Noelle charged that while the proponents cast the
issue in a medical light, "long term, this isn't about
medicine or compassion. . . . This is about legalizing
marijuana and ultimately about legalizing drugs.''

"This measure will effectively end law enforcement's
and prosecution's ability to deal with
(marijuana-growing) operations," he said.

Opponents of Measure 57 say that it won't deter
marijuana use and that it will divert money away from
treatment programs that would be more effective. But
some voters seem to agree with Minnis that the issue
turns on personal responsibility and freedom.

"I just don't feel it should be a crime to have just a
small amount of it," said William Lacey, 47, of
Gresham, who was among those polled. "It's really a
personal decision."

Voters "understand Measure 57 is not going to be
effective in dealing with drug use by youth," said state
Rep. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, a Measure 57
opponent who is a prosecuting attorney. "Too many of
my colleagues in the Legislature told me behind closed
doors that this was an inappropriate means for drug
control, but they felt because they were in the public
eye they had to take a tough approach to marijuana
use."

Possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is now a
noncriminal violation on par with a traffic ticket. If
Measure 57 passes, it would become a Class C
misdemeanor with a potential jail term of 30 days and a
$1,000 fine.

The poll found no clear preference among likely voters
for Measure 61, an attempt to crack down on property
crime offenders by setting longer, mandatory
sentences. Results come just days after the Oregon
Supreme Court struck down the signature verification
process used to qualify the measure for the ballot,
casting its future in doubt. Secretary of State Phil
Keisling has said he will ask the court to reconsider on
Monday.

Thirty-nine percent of those surveyed said they support
the measure, a nearly equal number said they are
opposed, and nearly one-fourth are undecided.

"Given the timing of the poll, a lot of folks haven't
received their Voters' Pamphlet material yet. We think
they'll swing in support once they read up on it," said
former state Rep. Kevin Mannix, R-Salem, a
co-sponsor of the measure. "But it's still a horse race."

The statewide telephone survey of 618 likely voters
was taken Sept. 30 to Oct. 6 and has a margin of error
of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

***

[p. A5:]

"Tell me if you would favor or opposed medical use of marijuana in this
particular situation"

A) When a patient has chronic pain from a nonlife threatening condition
such as glaucoma or multiple sclerosis.

Y = 60		N = 33		undecided = 6

B) When a patient has pain or discomfort from a life threatening illness
such as AIDS or cancer.

Y = 73		N = 24		undecided = 3

C) When a patients suffers from psychological problems such as
depression

Y = 17		N = 76		undecided = 7

[Davis & Hibbitts telephone poll of 618 likely voters conducted Sept.
30 - Oct. 6. Margin of error plus or minus 4 percentage points on
statewide, higher on subcategories.]

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

Man quits chewing tobacco after using computer game (The Associated Press
says Steve Guard of Springfield, Oregon, quit chewing tobacco with the help
of a prototype program developed by Herbert Severson, a behavioral scientist
at Oregon Research Institute in Eugene, who has been studying "smokeless"
tobacco addiction for a decade. Severson collaborated with computer
programmer Tom Jacobs and producer Steve Christiansen of Intervision,
a Eugene-based multimedia company, with support from a grant by The National
Cancer Institute.)

Associated Press
found at:
http://www.oregonlive.com/
feedback (letters to the editor):
feedback@thewire.ap.org

Man quits chewing tobacco after using computer game

The Associated Press
10/11/98 5:38 PM

EUGENE, Ore. (AP) -- After 19 yars of chewing tobacco, Steve Guard finally
kicked the habit with the help of a computer game.

Using the program is about as easy as playing a video game and it takes
around half an hour to complete. A baseball diamond serves as a map to the
stages of quitting.

"I was chewing about a can every two days. It is a pretty addictive habit,"
said Guard, 34, of Springfield, who estimates nearly half of his co-workers
at a sawmill chew tobacco.

But Guard quit chewing tobacco with the help of a prototype program
developed by Herbert Severson, a behavioral scientist at Oregon Research
Institute in Eugene, who has been studying "smokeless" tobacco addiction for
a decade.

He collaborated with computer programmer Tom Jacobs and producer Steve
Christiansen of Intervision, a Eugene-based multimedia company. They were
supported by a grant from The National Cancer Institute.

Prompted by a narrator, program users answer questions about their level of
addiction and reasons for quitting. The program creates and prints a
detailed personal game plan based on the answers. Are nicotine patches or
chewing gum advisable? How do you deal with withdrawal cravings?

Along the way, program users can click on their computer screens to consult
videotaped interviews with other tobacco quitters.

In once interview, the father of two boys explains his reasons for wanting
to stop: "If Dad chews then maybe they would think its OK. Maybe they would
think it's cool. I don't want them to think that."

Another man talks about how much money he regrets wasting on chewing tobacco
in 43 years. "Me and my wife decided to put a pencil to what it cost," he
says. "I've probably spent between $6,000 and $7,000, which I wish I had
right now."

Severson said the project makes counseling and advice available to people
even in remote towns.

"When you are dealing with smokeless tobacco, most of these are rural guys
and there are no formal cessation programs where they live," he said.

Severson said he hopes to develop a CD-ROM version of the game that could be
used in medical and dental offices, places of employment, or at home. He is
also seeking funding to develop an Internet version of the program.

Guard says he believes the program works.

"You have to want to quit," he said. "But I think if someone really wants to
give it up, it definitely helps."

(c)1998 Oregon Live LLC

Copyright 1997 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not
be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

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

To Make Narcotics Legal Defies History And Science (The Baltimore Sun
runs a three-book review by historian Jill Jones, author of "Hepcat, Narcs,
and Pipedreams" and the curator of the new DEA Museum opening in Washington,
DC, this year. A classic drug warrior, Jones thinks drug courts are the best
thing to happen in the drug treatment industry since methadone. Because of
her editorializing, you won't learn much about the import of Mike Gray's
"Drug Crazy - How We Got Into This Mess, How We Can Get Out"; conservative
Republican Dirk Chase Eldredge's "Ending the War on Drugs - A Solution for
America"; and "The Fix - Under the Nixon Administration, America Had an
Effective Drug Policy - We Should Restore It - Nixon Was Right," by Michael
Massing.)

From: GDaurer@aol.com
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:40:12 EDT
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: Why does she say that?
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

I don't often pull a specific story from MAP and suggest people write letters
to the newspaper. But here's an exception. Why does the author, Jill Jones,
feel the way she does about legalizing drugs? Check ($) out the tagline at the
end of the column.

Gregory Daurer
Denver, CO

***

Pubdate: 11 October, 1998
Source: Baltimore Sun (MD)
Contact: letters@baltsun.com
Website: http://www.sunspot.net/
Copyright: 1998 The Baltimore Sun
Author: Jill Jones, SPECIAL TO THE SUN

TO MAKE NARCOTICS LEGAL DEFIES HISTORY AND SCIENCE

Supporters of decriminalization of hard drugs, on the political right
and left, ignore both bad and good news

It has become very much the fashion on the left and the right to
denounce the "war on drugs" as a failure so abject that the only
possible solution is to legalize drugs. The legalizers have taken to
speaking of drug "Prohibition," as if cocaine and heroin were
comparable to alcohol, and insisting that the big problem is, and
always has been, not the drugs themselves but our drug laws. The
latest entry from the left is Hollywood filmmaker Mike Gray's "Drug
Crazy. How We Got Into This Mess, How We Can Get Out" (Random House,
251 pages, $23.95).

The latest entry from the right is conservative Republican Dirk Chase
Eldredge's "Ending the War on Drugs: A Solution for America" (Bridge Works
Publishing Co., 224 pages, $22.95).

Legalizing drugs is one of the few issues that unites those on both
the far left and the far right. The legalizers tend to be people with
little firsthand experience with the hard-core drug culture. This
allows well-meaning people like Republican Eldredge to assert that,
"If illegal drugs were legalized ... there is no reason to expect an
increase in the number of people whose value systems or psychological
profiles destine them to substance abuse." Any addiction expert will
tell you that availability and exposure are key.

I certainly understand the simple allure of saying just legalize
drugs, because I too once assumed, like many baby boomers, that this
would be a nice, clean answer. But the horrors of the crack epidemic
and a dozen years spent immersed in the history and policy of drugs
have thoroughly persuaded me that drugs are just too addicting,
complex, dangerous and corrupting to be made yet more available.

Moreover, there is highly promising news on the anti-drug front that
the legalizers choose to ignore: drug courts, the fastest-growing and
most successful development in decades. More on that later.

The legalizers, in arguing that illegal drugs are really not so much
worse than alcohol, reconfigure both history and medical experience to
advance their cause.

Mike Gray in "Drug Crazy" argues that American addicts were happily
using such new drugs as heroin and cocaine at the turn of the century,
and causing no pain to themselves or society. Yet as early as 1895,
Scientific American was writing, "Cocaine habitues are utterly
unreliable and disregard all personal appearance, going about unkempt,
bedraggled and forlorn. The cocaine habit Is & swift road to
destruction."

Moreover, claims Gray, our first federal drug law, the Harrison
Narcotics Act of 1914, was foisted upon an unwary nation. He glosses
over the hard fact that American cities and states had been steadily
passing local anti-drug laws from 1875 on. Why? Because even then
Americans could see how easily people became addicted and then
anti-social.

Heroin, for instance, had been a popular street drug for only a few
years when a Manhattan doctor working in the prison system wrote in
1914, "The increase in the number of people addicted to habit forming
drugs has been extraordinary within the last five years. The greatest
increase has been within the last year."

The legalizers also like to ignore the 50 years when our drug laws
worked quite well. I would argue that-the laws were so successful that
drugs became a marginal social problem, removed from our public policy
radar screen until the 1960s. Yet, "Drug Crazy" author Gray declares
all events post-Harrison Narcotics Act "a brutal eighty-year conflict
that has produced the opposite of what was intended."

In fact, we were doing fine keeping drugs off limits until the late
1980s. But the Cold War gave national security precedence and we
winked at Cold War allies --like the French -- who did little as their
gangsters steadily escalated the postwar heroin trade. By the late
1960s, this growing heroin trafficking set off an inner-city epidemic.
At the same time, many baby boomers decided that getting high on
illegal drugs was a fun way to express social rebellion and perhaps
even achieve a better, more interesting self. By the time the
middle-class began to relearn history's lesson that the down side to
drugs is far bigger than the up side, driven home by basketball player
Len Bias' death from cocaine in 1986, the Colombian cartels were busy
shipping in 300 tons of cocaine a year. When the middle-class turned
away, the Colombians refocused on the poor, setting off the crack
epidemic, adding more than 3 million crack addicts to the existing
half-million heroin addicts. Are alcohol and illegal drugs really
comparable? Medical science shows that alcohol is moderately
addicting. It is also legal. We have about 10 million alcoholics.
Medical science shows that heroin and cocaine are highly addicting.
They are illegal. We have about 4 million drug addicts. The reality is
that making drugs illegal keeps a great many people from trying and
using them. If these extremely seductive substances became legal, we
could expect our addict population to triple, if not quadruple.

In "The Fix: Under the Nixon Administration, America Had an Effective Drug
Policy. We Should Restore It; (Nixon Was Right)," by Michael Massing, (Simon
& Schuster, 275 pages, $25), the author, who spent many years as a reporter
immersed in the drug culture, is also unconvinced by what he terms the
legalizers' "revisionist" view that drugs are not so much worse than alcohol.

Listen to the experience of one of the major characters in "The Fix":
"Before trying crack, Yvonne Hamilton was no angel, nonetheless, the
drug unhinged her in a way even drinking had not. 'Alcohol is a
depressant,' she' observed. 'You're down. Drinking allowed me to open
up to other people, to venture into new things. Drinking, I never
would have thought of robbing people. Crack gave me the confidence to
do that. I was very self-centered and selfish, and drugs intensified
that. It made me feel smarter than the rest of the world. It made me
become very physically aggressive. I did a lot of things under the
influence of crack that I otherwise would not have."

Multiply Yvonne by the millions who used and still use crack and we
can understand why the quality of life has crumbled in so many
neighborhoods. Which brings us to drug courts. We now have an awful
drug problem that needs serious attention. In Massing's book he
performs a highly valuable service recounting how the Nixon
administration, when confronted with the fast-escalating heroin
epidemic of the late 1960s, put together the best drug policy of any
postwar administration.

Notably, the White House brought in psychiatrist Jerome Jaffe (a
Baltimore resident) to set up 80,000 methadone maintenance treatment
slots. For the first time ever, there was meaningful help for heroin
addicts.

Equally important, though Massing doesn't emphasize it, was the
dismantling of the French Connection. We got the Turks to stop growing
opium poppies and the French finally cracked down on their heroin
traffickers. Heroin availability would remain low for another 15 years.

Massing also then tells the depressing tale of how Jaffe's whole
treatment system was subsequently so underfunded that while addiction
soared sixfold thanks to crack, treatment slots barely grew.

What is puzzling about Massing's book, which rightfully proposes that
treatment should be greatly expanded, is that he barely mentions drug
courts, the most promising development in treatment since methadone.

We have gone from one drug court in Dade County in 1981 to 500 drug
courts all over the country supervising 90,000 addict-offenders (still
a fraction of the total problem).

There is a simple reason for the exploding interest. The 200 oldest
drug courts have shown twice as much success in rehabilitating
hardcore addicts as the regular treatment system. How is this done?
Drug court participants are intensively supervised, expected to work,
go to school and remain drug-free or face escalating court sanctions,
ranging from sitting in court all day to time in jail.

Most offender-addicts are with the drug court at least a year. If
indeed our hardcore addicts consume three-quarters of the illegal
drugs, a vastly expanded drug court system could seriously diminish
demand and the whole drug scene. Why not start here in Baltimore?
While we've had a drug court since 1994, It only has 600 slots to deal
with its offender-addicts in a city said to have 50,000 addicts. How
about it, Mayor Schmoke?

Jill Jones became interested in narcotics while writing a history of
the South Bronx. That led her to write "Hepcat, Narcs, and
Pipedreams," published by Scribners in 1996 and soon to be released as
a paperback by Johns Hopkins University Press. She has a doctorate in
American history and is historian and curator for the DEA museum,
scheduled to open in Washington this year .

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

Doctors Told To Inform On Patients (Scotland on Sunday says the Medical
and Dental Defence Union of Scotland has recently recommended that patient
confidentiality should not be protected in cases where injury could result
from drivers or pilots impaired by alcohol or other drugs.)

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 15:31:52 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: UK: Doctors Told To Inform On Patients
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: shug@shug.co.uk
Pubdate: Sun, 11 Oct 1998
Source: Scotland On Sunday
Contact: letters_sos@scotsman.com
Author: Mike Merritt

DOCTORS TOLD TO INFORM ON PATIENTS

Drink and drug drivers must not be allowed to put the public's safety at
risk, says BMA

DOCTORS are being warned they must break patient confidentiality and turn
in drink-driving patients to the police or face disciplinary action
themselves.

Both the British Medical Association and the Medical and Dental Defence
Union of Scotland say GPs are becoming increasingly concerned about the
number of patients who are being treated for drink or drug problems but
still drive cars. A medical newspaper has even reported the case of an
anonymous airline pilot who was on powerful tranquillisers while flying
passenger jets.

The defence union, which acts as a legal advice centre for 20,000 members,
has recently recommended that patient confidentiality should not be
protected in cases where injury could result.

Dr George Fernie, legal adviser at the MDUS, contacted members after
studying 500 cases in his work as a surgeon with Strathclyde Police. He
said that if GPs and dentists did not report a patient who was driving
under the influence - and subsequently caused death or serious injury -
they faced possible action from the General Medical Council, which could
result in them losing their medical licences.

"One would not breach patient confidentiality lightly but we are clearly
answerable to the GMC," he said. "If somebody is driving under the
influence of drink or drugs the GP should speak to the patient first and
say they will report them to the authorities if they persist. But there are
difficulties with that. The patient may leave or, worse, become violent
towards the doctor.

"GPs must not put their own safety at risk and in those circumstances would
be justified in reporting the patient without their knowledge. We know of
patients who are being treated for drink or drugs who even drive away from
the surgery car park. If a doctor knows that a patient is endangering the
public it may be appropriate to pass on that information. It is also not
about when a patient seeks help for drug or drink abuse. It is also when
they are coming off a drug - they can be just as much a danger driving then
too. It is a dilemma for doctors. If you had not responded in a
professional way and somebody died, you would have that on your conscience
- as well as possibly problems with the GMC."

Dr Brian Potter; Scottish Secretary of the BMA, agreed with the advice
being circulated by the MDUS. "Confidentiality should only be broken in
circumstances where a third party may be hurt. If a GP is in possession of
such information he should pass it on he said. "An increasing number of
doctors are reporting their patients, but in a way it reflects the increase
in drug and drink abuse in society."

Sheila MacLean, Professor of Medical law and ethics at Glasgow University
gave her backing to the controversial proposals. "This plan is an extension
of the rule that doctors can breech confidentiality if there is an issue of
public interest at stake," she said. "In this case there is a powerful
argument. The death and harm that could be caused by someone driving under
the influence of drink is very much in the public interest.

"Many would agree that it is wrong for someone, who is breaking the law and
could go out and kill another person, to hide behind confidentiality."

However, MacLean said the downside of the proposals could be a decline in
the number of patients coming forward for dependency because of fears that
doctors could report them.

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

MPs Move To Outlaw Sale Of Cannabis Seeds (The Telegraph, in Britain,
says police have lobbied for, and Home Office ministers favor, outlawing
the possession of cannabis seeds and the equipment necessary
for their cultivation.)

Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:21:36 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: UK: MPs Move To Outlaw Sale Of Cannabis Seeds
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)
Pubdate: Sun, 11 Oct 1998
Source: Telegraph, The (UK)
Contact: et.letters@telegraph.co.uk
Author: David Bamber, Home Affairs Correspondent

MPS MOVE TO OUTLAW SALE OF CANNABIS SEEDS

THE possession of cannabis seed and the equipment necessary for the
cultivation of the drug are to be outlawed, under proposals favoured by
Home Office ministers.

The Government is looking "sympathetically" at a demand from Britain's
chief constables for an end to the legal traffic in cannabis seeds.
Ministers think banning the seeds and equipment would send out a strong
signal that they are prepared to be tough on drugs.

The move follows intense lobbying from detectives who think it is an
"absurd loophole" in the current law that anyone can legally buy cannabis
seeds which can then be cultivated.

Malcolm George, the secretary of the drugs sub-committee of the Association
of Chief Police Officers, said: "We would like some sort of offence brought
in to remove this anomaly. There's only one thing you can do with cannabis
seeds and that's grow cannabis plants."

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

Plant Patent Pits Scientists Against Indian Activists
(The St. Louis Post-Dispatch says 12 years ago, California scientist
and entrepreneur Loren Miller founded the International Plant Medicine Corp.
and took out a US patent on a variety of ayahuasca, a sacred hallucinogen
among Amazonian Indians. Miller started testing the plant for uses
in psychotherapy and treating cancer. A few years ago, indigenous leaders
learned of the patent, and relations between plant collectors
and South American tribes have been headed downhill since.)

Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:54:22 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Ecuador: Plant Patent Pits Scientists Against Indian
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: General Pulaski
Pubdate: Sun, 11 Oct 1998
Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch (MO)
Section: NEWS
Contact: letters@pd.stlnet.com
Website: http://www.stlnet.com/
Copyright: 1998 Post Dispatch
Author: Bill Lambrecht Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau

PLANT PATENT PITS SCIENTISTS AGAINST INDIAN ACTIVISTS

QUITO, ECUADOR This drug is for the doctor, not the patient. It's potent
enough to stir threats, shut down bioprospecting and end U.S. aid to South
American Indians.

The drug is named ayahuasca and it looks like any bushy tree. But to
Amazonian tribes, it is a sacred hallucinogen whose name translates to
"vine of the soul."

Using the bark from ayahuasca (pronounced eye-uh-WAHS-cuh), shamans concoct
a potion that propels them into a world inhabited by spirits, alongside the
forces of sickness and death, they say.

It's also popular with middle-age North Americans seeking a reprise of
their psychedelic years and among young Europeans hunting thrills in South
America.

Twelve years ago, California scientist and entrepreneur Loren Miller
founded the International Plant Medicine Corp. and took out a U.S. patent
on a variety of ayahuasca. He started testing it for uses in psychotherapy
and treating cancer. A few years ago, indigenous leaders learned of the
patent, and relations between plant collectors and South American tribes
have been headed downhill since.

"It has become a symbol of gringos ripping off the Indians," said David
Neill, a Missouri Botanical Garden staff member in Ecuador.

To outraged Indian activists, the patent amounts to a violation of a sacred
tradition. Word spread that healers wanting to use ayahuasca would need
Miller's permission, which is untrue. In the highly charged atmosphere
since, several Amazon nations have refused new permits for bioprospecting.

Miller was declared "an enemy of indigenous peoples" by an organization
called COICA, which stands for Coordinating Body for Indigenous
Organizations of the Amazon Basin. The group banned Miller and his
associates from the region and warned in a statement in 1996 that tribes
"will not be responsible for the consequences to their physical safety."

Miller took those words as a death threat, and the U.S. Embassy in Quito
regarded it seriously enough to issue a statement earlier this year calling
the warning "a repugnant illegal action." The Inter-American Foundation, a
U.S. government agency, cut off aid to COICA this year; the group had
received $500,000 up to now.

The tribes won't back down. A COICA spokeswoman said last week that
reactions in Amazonian lands "are more and more strong" against the patent.
The group may challenge its legality.

Miller, 49, a pharmacologist by training, declined to be interviewed,
saying that he fears for his life. Tests have found no properties in
ayahuasca suitable for drug development, and the patent that has changed
the tenor of bioprospecting in Latin America sits in a drawer.

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

[End]