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

Letter from Senator Gordon H. Smith (An Oregon constituent
of the right-wing know-nothing shares a letter from the Republican shill
for corporate interests rationalizing why he thinks sick and dying
medical marijuana patients should be sent to prison. Plus commentary
from a Britisher working in Holland.)

Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:30:34 -0700
To: dpfor@drugsense.org
From: Arthur Livermore (alive@pacifier.com)
Subject: DPFOR: Letter from Senator Gordon H. Smith
Sender: owner-dpfor@drugsense.org
Reply-To: dpfor@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/

Gordon H. Smith
Oregon

United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-3704
October 5, 1998

Mr. Arthur Livermore
44500 Tide Ave.
Arch Cape, OR 97102

Dear Mr. Livermore:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding the legalization of marijuana
and other illegal drugs. I found your comments informative and welcome
this opportunity to respond to your concerns.

I strongly oppose any effort to legalize marijuana, or any other illegal
drug. I am greatly concerned that marijuana is one of the most commonly
abused drugs by our nation's teenagers. In fact, according to the National
Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), marijuana is used by an average of 10
million Americans each month. Of our nation's 8th grade students, 15.8
percent use marijuana. I believe that any effort to legalize marijuana or
any other illegal drug would only exacerbate this problem and increase the
incidence of drug-related violent crimes in our state.

In recent years, there has been growing support for legalizing the use of
marijuana for medicinal purposes nationwide. For patients suffering from
terminal illnesses such as AIDS or cancer, marijuana is used legally in
some states, including California, to relieve the side-effects of
chemotherapy and other painful treatments.

However, studies have shown that long-term use of marijuana not only
destroys nerve cells but causes serious respiratory problems similar to
those caused by tobacco use, including chronic bronchitis and lung cancer.
Since there are other, more effective, legal pain-relieving medications
available in the marketplace, I do not support efforts to legalize
marijuana, nor do I believe that legalizing marijuana for medical purposes
is a viable argument. After the passage of a state initiative in
California which legalized the medical use of marijuana, approximately 30
marijuana distributing clubs, or "Pot Cafes" opened throughout the state.
Additionally, since the passage of this state legislation, marijuana use by
teenagers in California has doubled. Understanding these statistics, I
cannot, as a U.S. Senator, support legislation which would undoubtedly
bring these same results to our state.

Again, I appreciate your comments in regards to this matter of mutual
concern. Please be assured, should this issue come before the full Senate
for consideration, I will continue my commitment to ensure that all illicit
drugs remain illegal.

Warm regards,

Senator Gordon H. Smith

GHS:hj

www.senate.gov/~gsmith
oregon@gsmith.senate.gov

***

From: phil@shuv.demon.co.uk (Phil Stovell)
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: Re: Letter from Senator Gordon H. Smith
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 11:02:00 GMT
Reply-To: phil@shuv.demon.co.uk
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

A Limey lurker working in Holland de-lurks:-

On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:40:00 -0700, Arthur Livermore
(alive@pacifier.com) jotted some Wise Words of Wisdom:

>I strongly oppose any effort to legalize marijuana, or any other illegal
>drug. I am greatly concerned that marijuana is one of the most commonly
>abused drugs by our nation's teenagers. In fact, according to the National
>Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), marijuana is used by an average of 10
>million Americans each month.

Do you have enough prisons to lock up 10 million people for 93 years
each?

>Of our nation's 8th grade students, 15.8
>percent use marijuana.

So you have more dope smokers in the US than in Holland? Why is that
when cannabis is decriminalised here?

>I believe that any effort to legalize marijuana or
>any other illegal drug would only exacerbate this problem and increase the
>incidence of drug-related violent crimes in our state.

So cannabis makes you violent? There wasn't any trouble in the bar I
was in last night.

>In recent years, there has been growing support for legalizing the use of
>marijuana for medicinal purposes nationwide. For patients suffering from
>terminal illnesses such as AIDS or cancer, marijuana is used legally in
>some states, including California, to relieve the side-effects of
>chemotherapy and other painful treatments.

Glad to hear that people who are dying are allowed to have medicine.

>However, studies have shown that long-term use of marijuana not only
>destroys nerve cells but causes serious respiratory problems similar to
>those caused by tobacco use, including chronic bronchitis and lung cancer.
>Since there are other, more effective, legal pain-relieving medications
>available in the marketplace, I do not support efforts to legalize
>marijuana, nor do I believe that legalizing marijuana for medical purposes
>is a viable argument.

So he would like to lock up those dying people for using a medicine
that is approved in some states but not by him personally?

Is he medically qualified? Does he know that the UK and NL are
trialling medical cannabis?

Could he name these studies he mentions?

>After the passage of a state initiative in
>California which legalized the medical use of marijuana, approximately 30
>marijuana distributing clubs, or "Pot Cafes"

I like the name "Pot Cafes". We call them coffeeshops here in Holland.

>opened throughout the state.
>Additionally, since the passage of this state legislation, marijuana use by
>teenagers in California has doubled. Understanding these statistics, I
>cannot, as a U.S. Senator, support legislation which would undoubtedly
>bring these same results to our state.

Where's his proof of this doubling? Sounds a bit doubtful to me.

>Again, I appreciate your comments in regards to this matter of mutual
>concern. Please be assured, should this issue come before the full Senate
>for consideration, I will continue my commitment to ensure that all illicit
>drugs remain illegal.
>
>Warm regards,
>
>Senator Gordon H. Smith

Idiot.

Phil Stovell

Petersfield, Hants, UK
phil@shuv.demon.co.uk
http://www.shuv.demon.co.uk/|
Coming to you direct from Eindhoven, Holland

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

Oakland Pot Club Closes Its Doors (The San Francisco Examiner version)

Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 20:18:38 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Oakland Pot Club Closes Its Doors
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Pubdate: Tue, 20 Oct 1998
Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Copyright: 1998 San Francisco Examiner
Contact: letters@examiner.com
Website: http://www.examiner.com/
Author: Robert Selna

OAKLAND POT CLUB CLOSES ITS DOORS

Director Says Ruling Will Force Clients To Seek Street Drugs

Oakland's medical marijuana club has closed its doors.

The end came Monday after the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco denied a request by lawyers for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
Cooperative to keep the club operating during an appeal of a federal
judge's ruling, which found the club in contempt of court for
continuing to distribute marijuana in violation of federal law.

At a rally Monday protesting the cooperative's closing, leaders of the
2,200-member club, one of the larger ones in the state, said they
would cooperate with the court's decision, but expressed their
disappointment. "I think this is sad and irresponsible, and it makes
me feel like I don't want to be an American," said Jeff Jones, the
cooperative's executive director. "All of us here know too well the
imminent harm and suffering that will come to the numerous patients
that have received medicine from the Oakland CBC when we close our
doors tonight."

Jones said the cooperative will work with Oakland officials to try to
find alternative ways to dispense medical marijuana, but that the club
would not open without the support of the courts.

Jones predicted that 1,300 to 1,700 club members will now go to the
street to find the marijuana they need to ease the suffering
associated with AIDS, cancer and numerous other conditions.

Some club members said Monday they would do their best to grow pot at
home, although they said that's not a desirable alternative.

"You have to wait a long time and you are not allowed to grow very
much, so it's hard to depend on," said Tom Wahl, 43, who suffers
chronic pain from a hand smashed by a car jack. His partner, Steven
Scott, 25, said he needs medical marijuana to ease nausea caused by
AIDS.

Proposition 215, passed by California voters in 1996, allowed patients
to legally possess and grow marijuana for a variety of conditions,
including AIDS and cancer, if recommended by a doctor. However, the
initiative clashed with federal laws against distributing the drug.

When U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issued an injunction in May
barring six Northern California clubs from distributing marijuana,
Oakland city officials responded by designating marijuana club
officials as city agents, invoking a federal law that protects state
and local officers from liability while enforcing drug laws. But
Breyer said the club was violating the drug law, not enforcing it.

Last week, Breyer refused to listen to club lawyer's arguments that
patients had a constitutional right to use the medication of their
choice in order to be free of pain. He also rejected the lawyers'
"necessity" defense, which allows a person to violate a law when it is
the only way to prevent a greater harm. Both of Breyer's decisions are
pending appeal with the 9th Circuit.

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

Court shuts Oakland pot club (An Associated Press version
in The Seattle Times)

From: "Bob Owen@W.H.E.N." (when@olywa.net)
To: "-News" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: Court shuts Oakland, CA pot club
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 19:04:10 -0700
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net

Copyright (c) 1998 The Seattle Times Company

Posted at 07:22 a.m. PDT; Tuesday, October 20, 1998
Court shuts Oakland pot club

by Jordan Lite
The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - One of the largest medical marijuana clubs in California has
been shut down in a dispute with the federal government over distribution of
a substance some patients say eases their pain.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday denied a request by the
Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative to remain open while it appeals a
ruling finding the club in contempt of court for continuing to distribute
marijuana.

The club, which claims 2,200 patients as members, was one of six in Northern
California sued by the Justice Department for violating the federal law
against distribution of marijuana. Of the six, only two remain open, along
with a handful of others around the state.

"It's going to be devastating," said Dave Fratello, whose group, Americans
for Medical Rights, sponsored the 1996 California proposition legalizing
marijuana use for medical reasons and is pushing hard for similar measures
in other states this year.

"In a lot of cases we're talking about people who are dying," he said. "If
they don't have easy access, they may not have any access at all."

Proposition 215 allows patients and their caregivers to possess and grow
marijuana without prosecution under California law, if recommended by a
doctor to relieve the pain from AIDS or cancer treatment, glaucoma or other
conditions.

The initiative had no effect on federal laws against distribution.

Nearly 30 medical marijuana suppliers were in operation in California last
year, Fratello said. A Los Angeles club is now the only sizable one still
open, he said. About 12,000 people in California have received doctor
recommendations saying they would benefit from marijuana, Fratello said.

Voters in six states - Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado and
Arizona - and the District of Columbia will be asked Nov. 3 whether to allow
the cultivation and distribution of marijuana for medical reasons.

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

State's Largest Medical-Pot Club Closed By US
(The Orange County Register version)

Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 11:23:04 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: State's Largest Medical-Pot Club Closed By US
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John W. Black
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Copyright: 1998 The Orange County Register
Pubdate: Tue, 20 Oct 1998

STATE'S LARGEST MEDICAL-POT CLUB CLOSED BY US

The Oakland group's appeal of a federal judge's contempt ruling goes nowhere.

OAKLAND- California's largest remaining medical-marijuana club was closed
Monday by a court order obtained by the Clinton administration's Justice
Department.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, without comment, denied a request by
the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative to remain open during an appeal of
a federal judge's ruling that held the club in contempt of court for
continuing to distribute marijuana in violation of federal law.

Shortly before the 5 p.m. deadline, leaders of the organization started
carrying out boxes of files and said they were closing voluntarily and
cooperating with federal marshals.

Jeff Jones, executive director of the club, issued a statement saying
Californians who backed Proposition 215, the November 1996
medical-marijuana initiative, "have had their votes nullified today by the
efforts of a heavy-handed and misguided federal
government."

"We fear for our patients," Jones said. He said he would work with city
officials to try to find a way to distribute the dug to patients who need
it and would form a political-action committee to lobby the federal
government to lift restrictions on medical marijuana.

The club, which claimed 2,200 patients as members, was one of six in
Northern California sued by the Justice Department for violating the
federal law against distribution of marijuana. Of the six, only clubs in
Ukiah and Fairfax remain open, along with a handful of others around the
state.

Prop. 215 allowed patients and their caregivers to possess and grow
marijuana without prosecution under California law, if recommended by a
doctor to relieve the pain from AIDS or cancer treatment, glaucoma or other
conditions.

The initiative had no effect, however, on federal laws against distribution
of marijuana. The federal government puts marijuana in the same category as
the most dangerous drugs and says it has no medical use.

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

Patrons Say Goodbye To Oakland Pot Club (The San Jose Mercury News version)

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:24:14 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Patrons Say Goodbye To Oakland Pot Club
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Marcus/Mermelstein Family (mmfamily@ix.netcom.com)
Pubdate: Tue, 20 Oct 1998
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Copyright: 1998 Mercury Center
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
Author: Dan Reed

PATRONS SAY GOODBYE TO OAKLAND POT CLUB

The sick who smoke marijuana to soothe what ails them won't be getting
their leafy medicine from Oakland's downtown pot club anymore -- a
federal appeals court panel on Monday refused a request to keep the
club open.

But almost everyone at the raucous, sometimes teary farewell to the
2,200-member club Monday evening figured they'd still get their
medical fix, either by scoring on the streets -- a somewhat dangerous
proposition -- or by tapping into an expected underground network of
former pot club members.

Jeff Jones, president of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, said
the club's stash is in safekeeping with members of the cooperative.
And he expects many to be able to provide for themselves as the club's
public arm tries to form a political action committee to fight for the
right of the sick who want to smoke.

``Who am I to stop the patients from helping themselves?'' Jones said
in a news conference outside the club's Broadway offices.

The club's closing is a sizable victory for the federal government,
which has been trying to override Proposition 215 since it was
approved in November 1996. The ballot measure approved medicinal
marijuana for patients with a doctor's recommendation.

Voters, by a majority of 56 percent, apparently agreed with
Proposition 215 advocates who said marijuana could help stimulate
appetites for cancer and AIDS patients, and that it generally offers a
pain-dulling alternative to harsher, legal narcotics.

But federal law supersedes state law, and federal law says
distributing marijuana, even for medicinal reasons, is a crime. The
Clinton administration in January sued the Oakland cooperative and
several other clubs, aiming to drive them out of business.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer rejected the club's
argument that the government's ban on medicinal marijuana violates
patients' constitutional rights to relieve pain. On Monday, a panel of
the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to extend Breyer's
deadline for the club to shut down.

Federal prosecutors could not be reached for comment.

``We are bitterly disappointed for the voters of the state of
California who have had their votes nullified today by the efforts of
a heavy-handed and misguided federal government,'' Jones told
reporters, as about 40 pot club supporters held aloft protest signs
and alternately listened, cheered and chanted. ``Many of those I have
come to know as patients and as friends since I opened this
organization almost two years ago will suffer unnecessary pain and
suffering without the Oakland CBC.''

While it is clear some sort of underground distribution is in the
works, it is not clear how many will be able to benefit from it. And
that, for club supporters, was sobering.

Robert Raich, the club's attorney, said the ruling, in effect, is a
death warrant for some.

``There are people who are going to die as a result of this,'' Raich
said of Breyer's ruling. ``And he doesn't really seem to care about
that.''

The club still has two appeals pending, although no one seems overly
optimistic about their chances. Also, Raich said the club might try to
persuade Breyer to let it operate some of its other services -- such
as pot cultivation classes, massage therapy or support groups.

Jones said the group will reform as Patient Action Now, a political
action committee that will lobby the White House and Congress to get
marijuana off the controlled-substances list.

Tonight, the Oakland City Council, which has strongly backed the
Oakland cooperative, will also consider declaring a state of emergency
now that the club has been shuttered. While not legally binding on
federal agents, the resolution would show how seriously the city takes
the government's actions, Raich said.

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

Wealthy Benefactors Stoke Campaigns for Medical Marijuana
(Washington Post syndicated columnist David S. Broder erroneously says
the District of Columbia medical marijuana ballot measure is being funded
by George Soros and other millionaires. Focusing on the campaign by Arizona
residents to re-institute Proposition 200 reforms nullified by the
legislature, Broder says the campaign there has become a fight over the
initiative process - that is, open democracy - without noting that's what
Soros has been promoting in eastern Europe for decades.)

Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 18:59:07 GMT
To: ";AMR/updates.list"
From: Dave Fratello (amr@lainet.com)
Subject: W. Post's Broder on initiatives/donors

The Washington Post, Tuesday, October 20, 1998 - page A-5

WEALTHY BENEFACTORS STOKE CAMPAIGNS FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA

By David S. Broder
Washington Post Staff Writer

PHOENIX -- A war against the "war on drugs," fueled by millionaires, not
pot-smoking hippies, is taking place in six states and the District of
Columbia this month.

Voters in Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and the District will
find initiatives on their Nov. 3 ballots allowing physicians, under defined
conditions, to obtain and dispense marijuana as a palliative to their
patients. Here in Arizona, the medical marijuana question is before the
voters as part of a broader referendum on decriminalizing a wide category of
drugs.

Sponsors say they think they will win in every state and opponents in the
law enforcement community, Congress and the Clinton administration fear they
may be right.

One reason for the optimism among proponents is the money that has come in
from three men: New York financier George Soros, Cleveland insurance
executive Peter B. Lewis and Phoenix entrepreneur John Sperling, who are
staunch critics of the anti-drug policies pursued by successive Republican
and Democratic administrations.

The three are financing most of the $2 million campaign being run by the Los
Angeles-based Americans for Medical Rights, which is coordinating the ballot
drives everywhere but Arizona. Sperling is the principal backer of the
Arizona referendum, which has raised $1.4 million so far.

Dave Fratello, spokesman for the national organization, said, "The goal is
to change national policy, but we know we will have to win more battles in
1999 and 2000 before that happens." California voters approved a medical
marijuana initiative in 1996, but state and federal authorities have made a
persistent effort to prevent people from selling marijuana to individuals
who obtain a doctor's prescription. Nonetheless, some "cannabis clubs" are
operating in the state.

Proponents of the initiatives, such as Portland, Ore., physician Richard
Bayer, claim there are many cancer and AIDS patients for whom marijuana is
the most effective drug in relieving nausea and other debilitating side
effects. The Oregon campaign is using a multiple sclerosis patient as a
spokeswoman for the initiative. A poll this month showed the proposal with a
64 percent to 30 percent lead, but sponsors said they expect it to narrow.

On the other side, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy is
distributing talking points to community anti-drug coalitions and urging
newspapers in the initiative states to editorialize against these
propositions. Its position papers contend that other drugs can meet the
medical needs of cancer and AIDS patients and urge that marijuana not be
legalized at least until the Food and Drug Administration and the Institute
of Medicine complete ongoing studies on its safety and effectiveness.

But Barry R. McCaffrey, director of that office, is doing no campaigning in
the initiative states, in part because his allies thought there was a
backlash against White House interference when he stumped in Arizona and
California in 1996.

Local law enforcement agencies have not mobilized major money or strong
grass-roots opposition to the initiatives. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), an
opponent of the Arizona decriminalization effort, said, "When it's
everybody's responsibility, it's nobody's responsibility."

The Arizona battle may be the most significant because of the breadth of the
referendum. In 1996, Sperling, president of the Apollo Group Inc., which
owns, among other enterprises, the for-profit University of Phoenix,
launched the "Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control" initiative, with
financial backing from Soros and Lewis.

In addition to permitting marijuana prescriptions, it provided that instead
of jail, the first two possession convictions would result in probation and
participation in a drug treatment or education program.

He enlisted bipartisan support from Marvin S. Cohen, a Carter administration
chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board, and John Norton, the No. 2 in the
Reagan administration Agriculture Department. His big catch was former
senator Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), who said in a television commercial, "As
a former prosecutor and U.S. senator I've spent my life fighting against
drugs, and I can tell you that the Drug Medicalization Act will strengthen
our drug policy."

The TV spots in the 1996 initiative campaign stressed the provision
requiring those convicted of violent crimes while under the influence of
drugs to serve their full sentences, without parole. The ads also argued
that clearing prisons of people convicted of simple possession would save
money and make space for hardened criminals.

The measure passed with little opposition. It was only afterward, said state
Rep. Mike Gardner (R), that legislators discovered it had been written to
include not just marijuana but 116 other "Schedule I" drugs including LSD,
heroin and PCP.

"We want to medicalize all of them -- and not be namby-pamby," Sperling said
in an interview last week. "Even though," campaign coordinator Sam Vagenas
interjected, "we believe marijuana is the only one that meets the [medical]
standards today."

Gardner, chairman of the state House Judiciary Committee, immediately met
with his state Senate counterpart, and they drafted and passed two bills.
One ordered jail time for anyone convicted of possession who refused
treatment and the other suspended medical use of any of the 117 drugs,
including marijuana, until it is approved by Congress or the FDA.

No sooner were the bills signed than Sperling and his team, now calling
themselves "The People Have Spoken" coalition, rounded up the signatures to
force Gardner's bills to referendum.

The conflict quickly escalated. Sperling's side filed a second initiative
for the Nov. 3 ballot that would bar the legislature from making anything
other than technical changes in voter-approved measures and require a
three-fourths majority even for those. The legislature replied with a
countermeasure that would sunset initiatives after five years and permit
substantive amendments on a two-thirds vote.

Sperling and his allies are running their campaign on a "people vs.
politicians" theme. Their first radio ad, which began last week, noted that
their 1996 initiative "received approval of 65 percent of Arizonans. . . .
But that didn't stop the politicians from gutting it. They had the nerve to
say that voters were ignorant." Voting against the legislature's repeal
measures "will let the politicians know that we're smarter than they think."

In a way, the battle has become a fight over the initiative process itself.
Gardner said in an interview, "The initiative was part of our constitution
when we became a state, because it was supposed to offer the people a way of
overriding special-interest groups. But it's turned 180 degrees and now the
special-interest groups use the initiative process for their own purposes."

Referring to Soros, who is funding an Arizona campaign finance reform
initiative as well as helping on the drug referendum, Gardner asked, "Why
should a New York millionaire be writing the laws in Arizona?"

Soros replied in a phone interview: "I live in one place, but I consider
myself a citizen of the world. I have foundations in 30 countries, and I
believe certain universal principles apply everywhere -- including Arizona."

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

Proposition 300 Prompts Anti-Drug Rally (The Arizona Republic
says Republican leaders rallied in front of 150 children at the Thomas J.
Pappas school for the homeless Monday, urging a "yes" vote on Proposition
300, to gut Arizona's medical-marijuana law. Proclaiming that drugs are bad
and cheerleading the children, Reps. Matt Salmon, John Shadegg and J.D.
Hayworth and Sen. Jon Kyl joined Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley
and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Graham Keegan in the
media event. Apparently the tyrants couldn't find a non-captive audience of
adults who wouldn't lynch them.)

Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 19:24:05 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US AZ MMJ: Proposition 300 Prompts Anti-Drug Rally
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Pubdate: Tue, 20 Oct 1998
Source: Arizona Republic (AZ)
Copyright: 1998, The Arizona Republic.
Contact: Opinions@pni.com
Website: http://www.azcentral.com/news/
Author: Mike McCloy

PROPOSITION 300 PROMPTS ANTI-DRUG RALLY

Republican leaders rallied in front of 150 children at the Thomas J.
Pappas school for the homeless Monday, urging a "yes" vote on
Proposition 300, to gut Arizona's medical-marijuana law.

Proclaiming that drugs are bad and cheerleading the children, Reps.
Matt Salmon, John Shadegg and J.D. Hayworth and Sen. Jon Kyl joined
Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley and state Superintendent of
Public Instruction Lisa Graham Keegan in the media event.

Supporters of the 1996 medical-marijuana initiative want to legalize
street drugs and to use the legalization of those drugs as medicine as
an opening wedge, the children were told.

University of Phoenix founder John Sperling and millionaires from New
York and Cleveland have spent more than $1 million for the initiative
and against a Nov. 3 referendum on changes made by the Legislature,
said Stan Barnes, president of Arizonans Against Heroin and an
announcer on KFYI-AM (910).

Proposition 300 would require Food and Drug Administration approval of
marijuana as medicine before Arizona doctors could prescribe street
drugs for side effects of cancer, AIDS and other ailments.

If Proposition 300 fails, the 1996 law would remain in
effect.

Sam Vagenas, consultant to The People Have Spoken, said using the
tax-supported school for the rally was an "abuse of public power."

"If there's no law against it, there ought to be," said Vagenas, whose
group opposes Proposition 300. "If we called up to do a press
conference at the school, they wouldn't let us do it, and we certainly
wouldn't do it."

Maricopa County schools Superintendent Sandra Dowling said she would
allow Vagenas' group to present an anti-drug message to students.

***

Mike McCloy can be reached at 444-8111 or at mike.mccloy@pni.com via
e-mail.

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

Goals Similar For Props 104, 105 (The Arizona Republic explains
two state ballot measures prompted by the legislature's nullification of
Proposition 200. Both would make it harder for the legislature to change
or repeal citizen initiatives. Opponents of medical marijuana in the
legislature put Proposition 104 on the ballot. Supporters of medical
marijuana gathered petition signatures to qualify Proposition 105.
If both proposals pass, the measure with more votes will take effect.)

Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 19:39:16 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US AZ: MMJ: Goals Similar For Props 104, 105
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Pubdate: Tue, 20 Oct 1998
Source: Arizona Republic (AZ)
Contact: Opinions@pni.com
Website: http://www.azcentral.com/news/
Copyright: 1998, The Arizona Republic.
Author: Chris Moeser

GOALS SIMILAR FOR PROPS. 104, 105

Both Initiatives Push People Power

Propositions 104 and 105 are both aimed at making it harder for the
Legislature to change or repeal citizen initiatives.

Which one is better?

It all depends on whom you ask. But the answer is closely tied to two
other items on the ballot -- Propositions 300 and 301 -- the
medical-marijuana proposals.

Last year, the Legislature gutted a medical-marijuana law that voters
passed 2-1 in 1996. The move inflamed voters and sparked both debates
this year.

Opponents of medical marijuana in the Legislature put Proposition 104
on the ballot. Supporters of medical marijuana gathered petition
signatures to qualify Proposition 105.

If both proposals pass, the measure with more votes will take effect.
Both have tough provisions. Proposition 104 would apply retroactively,
protecting every voter-approved law in state history. But Proposition
105 slaps more shackles on the Legislature, making it virtually
impossible to change a citizens initiative without referring it back
to the people.

Both propositions would prohibit the governor from vetoing any
voter-approved ballot measures. But that's where the similarity ends:

Proposition 104 would prevent the Legislature from repealing any
voter-approved measure for five years. After five years, it would
require a two-thirds vote. By contrast, Proposition 105 would forbid
the Legislature from ever overturning a ballot measure.

Proposition 104 would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to
change a measure or to transfer funds spent on the measure's behalf.
By contrast, Proposition 105 would require a three-fourths vote to
make changes or transfer funds, and the changes would have to "further
the purposes" of the measure.

In addition, Proposition 104 would:

Prevent the Legislature from using "emergency" legislation to change a
measure.

Allow the governor to veto legislative changes to a voter-approved
measure, and require a three-fourths vote of the Legislature to
override that veto.

Take effect retroactively, protecting all voter-approved
laws.

Other provisions of Proposition 105 would:

Allow the Legislature to refer any matter to the ballot, including
proposals to repeal citizen-approved measures.

Apply only to measures approved in November or later.

Both sides acknowledge each proposal contains improvements.

"(Proposition) 104 is a vast improvement over the status quo," said
Jack LaSota, a former Arizona attorney general and the legal counsel
for the Voter Protection Alliance, which is supporting 105, known as
the Voter Protection Act.

"But 105 is better because ... it eliminates the sort of arrogant "we
know better than you' mentality in the Legislature. That power is
watered down in 104."

But critics say it's the Voter Protection Act that smacks of
arrogance.

"I think you have to be pretty darned arrogant to say, "I can draft a
bill perfectly the first time without unintended consequences,' " said
Rep. Mike Gardner, R-Tempe, who sponsored the resolution that put
Proposition 104 on the ballot.

"105 is bad because it makes it virtually impossible for an initiative
to ever be changed."

Bart Turner, executive director of the Valley Citizens League, calls
Proposition 105 a "poorly written" law. The three-quarters
supermajority is too tough, Turner said, because legislative
amendments designed to fix mistakes could be defeated by opponents who
want to kill the entire law.

LaSota counters that legislators are free to refer anything back to
the ballot to allow voters to approve changes.

Turner, who wrote Proposition 104, says the three-fourths
supermajority gives too much power to a handful of legislators --
eight senators -- who could block any changes. The two-thirds vote
standard in Proposition 104 provides a higher bar than a simple
majority without making changes too difficult.

And he points out 105 only affects initiatives on the November ballot and in
the future, while 104 would protect everything. Turner suggested that
reveals the motives behind the Voter Protection Act: to protect the
medical-marijuana law.

"They are obviously not trying to protect the voice of the people,"
Turner said. "The only piece of existing law that 105 would protect is
the drug initiative."

He also criticizes the provision requiring any amendment to "further
the purpose" of the measure. Turner says the language is too broad and
leaves all legislative amendments open to court challenge.

But LaSota says Proposition 104 isn't strong enough because it allows
the Legislature to pass amendments that essentially gut voter-approved
measures.

He adds that legislators would not have put Proposition 104 on the
ballot if it were not for the Voter Protection Act. Lawmakers added
Proposition 104 to the ballot, LaSota says, in a classic "bait and
switch" move to confuse voters.

"I doubt that 104 would be on the ballot but for 105," LaSota said.
"The Legislature correctly discerned that 105 would provoke a debate
that the people would win and the Legislature would lose."

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has joined Attorney General
Grant Woods and former Secretary of State Richard Mahoney in endorsing
the Voter Protection Act, agreed.

SIDEBAR: Summary of provisions

Proposition 104: Prohibits the governor from vetoing a voter-approved
measure. Prohibits the Legislature from repealing a voter-approved
measure for five years. After five years, it would require a
two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Allows the governor to veto
legislative changes to a voter-approved measure and requires a
three-fourths vote of the Legislature to override that veto.

Proposition 105: Prohibits both the governor and the Legislature from
vetoing a voter-approved measure. Requires a three-fourths vote of the
Legislature to amend a citizen-approved measure. Allows the
Legislature to refer any matter to the ballot, including proposals to
repeal citizen-approved measures.

Prop. 105 supporters There are no organized campaigns to support or oppose
Proposition 104. Nor is there an organized campaign to oppose Proposition
105. But a campaign committee has been organized to support Proposition 105,
and it is called the Voter Protection Alliance. According to the Secretary
of State's Office, there are two contributors who have raised $400,000:
John Sperling of Phoenix, chairman of the Apollo Group of Phoenix, which
owns 88 private colleges nationwide under the name University of Phoenix:
$150,000. Peter Sperling of Phoenix, son of John Sperling and an executive
with the Apollo Group: $250,000.

***

Chris Moeser can be reached at 444-8069 or at chris.moeser@pni.com via
e-mail.

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

Yes On Proposition 104 (A seemingly coincidental staff editorial
in The Arizona Daily Star encourages a "yes" vote for what it calls
"the more thoughtful" of two ballot measures that would prevent
the state legislature from nullifying voter-approved initiatives
such as Proposition 200.)

Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 23:23:31 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US AZ: OPED: Yes On Proposition 104
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Pubdate: Tue, 20 October 1998
Source: Arizona Daily Star (AZ)
Contact: letters@azstarnet.com
Website: http://www.azstarnet.com/

YES ON PROPOSITION 104

The right of voters to enact their own laws was contained in one of
the first amendments to the state constitution in 1914, two years
after Arizona became a state.

This year, voters have the chance to change the constitution once
more, and in doing so to ensure that the power claimed by voters in
1914 cannot be usurped by the Legislature. A ``yes'' vote on
Proposition 104 is the best way to do that.

Propositions 104 and 105 would both forbid the Legislature from
thwarting the will of the people, as expressed in initiative measures
passed by popular vote.

The differences between the two measures are differences of degree,
rather than intent.

Proposition 104, which was referred to the ballot by the Legislature,
is the more thoughtful approach.

It forbids a veto of any voter-passed initiative by the governor. This
has never been done, but it was threatened by Gov. Symington two years
ago on a couple of measures he disliked.

Proposition 104 also prohibits repeal of any initiative measure for
five years and it requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to do
so even then.

That same two-thirds vote would be needed to change any portion of an
initiative measure, including all initiatives passed previously by the
voters.

It gets the job done with a minimum of fuss and with zero
ambiguity.

Proposition 105 is itself an initiative, placed on the ballot by
backers of last year's measure to ``medicalize'' marijuana and offer
treatment rather than imprisonment for those convicted of minor drug
offenses.

Those folks were understandably upset when the Legislature passed laws
that undid their initiative and they gathered signatures for a measure
to insure that it wouldn't happen again.

Proposition 105 forbids a gubernatorial veto and it forbids any
legislative repeal of an initiative measure. It also requires that any
amendment to an initiative law be passed by a three-fourths vote of
the Legislature and that any such change ``furthers the purposes'' of
the initiative passed by voters.

This language is ambiguous and subject to legal fights.

And the three-fourths requirement is too high. Initiatives are not
perfect. Often they contain minor mistakes or produce unintended
results. The will of the voters should not be tinkered with
cavalierly, but the Legislature should be able to correct mistakes
made by the drafters of voter initiatives.

The two-thirds test proposed by Proposition 104 is high enough to
guarantee that the Legislature will not thwart the will of the voters.

The Arizona Daily Star urges a ``yes'' vote on Proposition
104.

We do not, however, urge a ``no'' vote on Proposition 105. If voters
pick one measure and vote against the other one, they could end up
defeating both.

If both measures pass, the one receiving the most votes will prevail.

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

Protesters Vow To Press Fight Over Oregon (A sidebar in The Houston Chronicle
says members of the Hispanic community vowed to fight for further action
against the killers. Claudia Navarro, the mother of the victim,
Pedro Oregon Navarro, said "I'm very sad about what has happened. Maybe
if I could speak English, they would have listened to me." Houston
City Councilman John Castillo said, "It offends anyone who has any sense
of justice.")

Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 18:53:43 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US TX: Protesters Vow To Press Fight Over Oregon
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: adbryan@onramp.net
Pubdate: Tue, 20 Oct 1998
Source: Houston Chronicle (TX)
Copyright: 1998 Houston Chronicle
Contact: viewpoints@chron.com
Website: http://www.chron.com/
Author: Jo Ann Zuiga And S.K. Bardwell

PROTESTERS VOW TO PRESS FIGHT OVER OREGON

The mother of a man killed in his home by police expressed
disappointment Monday at a grand jury's decision to indict only one
officer involved in the fatal raid, and that for criminal trespass, a
misdemeanor.

"I'm very sad about what has happened. Maybe if I could speak English,
they would have listened to me," said Claudia Navarro, mother of Pedro
Oregon Navarro.

"I'm very frustrated, but I believe there is a God, and we are still
waiting for justice."

Members of the Hispanic community vowed to fight for further action
against the officers involved while police and a civil rights group
asked those angered by the decision to remain calm.

Demonstrators from the Justice for Pedro Oregon Coalition protested in
a steady drizzle Monday in front of the Harris County Criminal
Courthouse chanting, "No justice, no peace."

"This gives the green light for cops to go into homes and kill," said
protester Travis Morales. "A trespass charge is not going to stop any
police officer."

The demonstrators previously had scheduled a march Thursday as part of
the National Day of Protest to Stop Police Brutality. The protest will
begin with a rally at Market Square Park, at Preston and Travis, and
proceed to the police station.

Benito Juarez, a spokesman for the Houston Immigrant and Refugee
Coalition, said: "We were expecting this case to be an example so it
would not happen again.

"But it's sending the wrong message. The way Pedro Oregon was killed
was very clearly a civil rights violation."

Johnny Mata, spokesman for the League of United Latin American
Citizens, said the civil rights group has already requested that the
U.S. Justice Department investigate the case. "We will continue
pressing them on that matter," he said. "This is a travesty of
justice. We're asking for the community to be calm, but there is a lot
of outrage."

"It offends anyone who has any sense of justice," said City Councilman
John Castillo. "There are going to be great feelings of helplessness,
anger, frustration, which can lead to awful conclusions. I think
people need to be aware this can still be handled at the federal level."

Rick Dovalina, national president of LULAC, said: "Good police are
tainted by this process. We believe there's enough information right
now for the chief to fire those police officers ... It's not fair to
the other good officers you have over there."

The National Latino Peace Officers' Association, under the presidency
of HPD police Officer Adrian Garcia, released a statement "calling out
to the Hispanic community to stand strong on whatever their position
may be on this issue, but to reaffirm their position in a
nondestructive manner."

"Our concern is, there may be persons who would encourage this kind of
behavior, such as what happened in Houston in 1978 when the Moody Park
riot occurred.

"Unfortunately, it has taken over 20 years to repair the morale of
that community because of that riot."

But other police officers are not sure that calm will
prevail.

"There's going to be trouble," one Houston officer said. "The public
isn't going to understand. I'm not sure I do."

Mayor Lee Brown and three City Council members said Monday they are
seeking a federal grand jury investigation of the incidents
surrounding Oregon's death.

Brown, Castillo, Orlando Sanchez and Annise Parker dispatched the
joint request soon after the grand jury verdict was announced.

"We feel it is very important for Houstonians to know that this is not
the end of the road," Sanchez said. "Even though the county grand jury
found only one indictable offense, we want to ensure that no federal
laws were broken."

Oregon was killed July 12 when officers assigned to an HPD gang task
force raided his apartment based on information supplied by a drug
suspect.

As at least six officers crowded into a narrow hallway outside
Oregon's bedroom, one officer shouted that Oregon had a gun. When an
officer's gun discharged accidentally, others said, they believed
Oregon had fired on them.

More than 30 shots were fired in the confined space, 12 hitting
Oregon, mainly in the back and from above. The 22-year-old father of
two died. No drugs were found in his apartment.

The single indictment handed down Monday was against Officer James R.
Willis.

"I understand how they could all not be indicted for the shooting,"
said one officer. "I'm not really sure how just one of them could be
indicted for criminal trespass."

Several officers who spoke to the Chronicle Monday did so on condition
they not be identified. Although the criminal investigation concluded
Monday, HPD's administrative investigation is ongoing, and officers
are prohibited from discussing it.

None of the officers expressed surprise at the lack of indictments. As
one put it: "I thought from the beginning that the shooting was a
tragic accident. It was what led them to go into the apartment that I
thought might have been criminal."

That officer, assigned to another gang task force, said the officers
involved in the Oregon raid made mistakes.

Such raids, the officer explained, might be based on an informant's
tip, but the tip has to be taken to a judge who reviews it and issues
a warrant if the tip is found to be sufficient cause for a raid.

HPD policy requires all such informants to be registered with the
department. The one used in the Oregon raid not only was not
registered, he was on probation, which would have made him ineligible
to become an HPD informant.

What surprised most of the officers about the grand jury's action,
they said Monday, was that only one officer was indicted for entering
the apartment illegally.

All the officers who spoke expressed concern about how the public
would view the matter. Said one officer, a 23-year veteran: "I don't
think this is going to be as bad as Joe Campos Torres -- but I say
that hopefully."

Torres, a young Vietnam veteran, died in May 1977 after Houston police
who arrested him for being drunk beat him and threw him into Buffalo
Bayou, where he drowned. Some of the officers involved later got
probated one-year sentences.

In May 1978, anger over the death and the lack of punishment prompted
the Moody Park riot, which sent 15 people to the hospital.

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

Denton DA candidate pleads guilty to marijuana delivery - Democrat remains
eligible for office if elected (The Dallas Morning News says Stephen Hale,
the Democratic candidate for Denton County district attorney, was given
two years' probation Monday, receiving "deferred adjudication." "If elected,
I am eligible to serve," he said Monday evening, "and I'm thinking about it
. . . . I believe that people who would support me don't care about my giving
a little bit of marijuana to a former girlfriend, and those who hate me will
hate me anyway.")

From: adbryan@onramp.net
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 08:21:00 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: ART: Denton DA candidate pleads guilty to marijuana delivery
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Cc: editor@mapinc.org
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

I hate it when a good story isn't on the online edition.
Skewz any tpyos.

At least Denton County has a sensible candidate for district
attorney. Colonel, GET THIS MAN ELECTED. :)

***

10-20-98
Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com
letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com

Denton DA candidate pleads guilty to marijuana delivery
Democrat remains eligible for office if elected

By Nita Thurman
Denton Bureau of The Dallas Morning News

DENTON -- The Democratic candidate for Denton County district
attorney pleaded guilty to delivery of marijuana Monday and was
given two years' probabtion.

Because Stephen Hale received deferred adjudication, he will
have no criminal conviction if he successfully completes the
probation. So he apparently could take office if elected Nov. 3.

After his arrest in March, he had said he was withdrawing as a
candidate, but he did not submit the necessary paperwork to the
Texas secreatary of staet's office. His name remains on the ballot.

"If elected, I am eligible to serve," he said Monday evening, "and
I'm thinking about it....I believe that people who would support me
don't care about my giving a little bit of marijuana to a former
girlfriend, and those who hate me will hate me anyway."

District Attorney Bruce Isaacks, the Republican incumbent on the
ballot, has denied any involvement in the charges against his rival.

Mr. Isaacks withdrew from prosecuting the marijuana case against Mr.
Hale, and Collin County Distrct Attorney Tom O'Connell was
appointed special prosecutor.

On Monday, Mr. Isaacks called his opponent's guilty plea "further
evidence of the little regard Mr. Hale has for the law and the
office he was seeking."

"However, I don't have any ill will toward him," Mr. Isaacks
said. "I hope he can get this chapter behind him and can
continue to be a practicing attorney and a productive citizen."

Mr. Hale was charged with delivering more than a quarter-
ounce of marijuana to a woman in June 1997.

"She was strung out on Valium," he said. "I finally agreed to
give her a little marijuana. And when I did, she was wired."

Five officers arrested Mr. Hale at his Denton apartment, he said.

"This Ranger from Wise County had a big smile on his face,"
Mr. Hale said. "... They put me in their narcmobile, but
they didn't even know where the jail was. I gave them
directions to the jail, me being the big criminal that I was."

As Wise County attorney from 1993 through 1996, Mr.
Hale dismissed several hundred marijuana cases. He said
he developed that policy after he was charged with
possessing the drug as an Army draftee in the 1970s,
near the close of the Vietnam War. He was given deferred
adjudication then, too, so he has no felony conviction,
he testified Monday.

"Almost every GI I knew smoked marijuana, but I got
caught," he said in 1994 after Wise County police groups
called for his resignation as county attorney. "I came
home from serving my country on felony probation
for not hurting anybody."

Officers have accused him of being soft on marijuana and
drunken-driving cases, and he said he thinks some of them
targeted him for his latest arrest.

"I dismissed over 500 marijuana cases because I did not
see how it was in the interest of justice to punish someone
for a victimless offense," he said. "That's still how I feel
about it. On the DWI's, I tried to get as many convictions
as I could. There was an overwhelming caseload.
Sometimes I would reduce the charge to get a guilty plea."

He said he agreed to plead guilty Monday on the advice
of his attorneys, Jerry Cobb and Ricky Perritt.

"I did it," he said. "I gave this old girl some marijuana...
I'm happy that I had the best legal defense team around.
And I'm happy I'm still on the ballot. I'm a lawyer, not
a pot dealer."

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

Policy Items In Federal Budget Plan (The Las Vegas Sun
says the $520 billion federal budget bill includes an item banning funds
to count votes on Initiative 59, the District of Columbia referendum
on medical marijuana, and also bans local or federal funding of needle
exchange programs in DC.)

Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 23:23:40 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US NV: Policy Items In Federal Budget Plan
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Pubdate: October 20 1998
Source: Las Vegas Sun (NV)
Contact: letters@lasvegassun.com
Website: http://www.lasvegassun.com/
Copyright: 1998 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
Author: ASSOCIATED PRESS

POLICY ITEMS IN FEDERAL BUDGET PLAN

Some major policy items in the $520 billion fiscal 1999 budget package.

-Allows U.S. food exports to India and Pakistan, despite sanctions on
other exports.

-Prohibits FBI user fees for its instant check system for gun purchases.

-Links U.N. back due payments to passage of a bill banning aid to
international family planning groups promoting abortion.

-Bans local and federal funding for needle exchange programs in the
District of Columbia and bans federal funding for a D.C. referendum on
legalizing marijuana.

-Eliminates funding for the U.N. Population Fund, which is starting
new programs in China.

-Prohibits introduction of wolves or grizzly bears in wilderness areas
in Idaho and Montana.

-Establishes a six-month moratorium on new Indian gambling licenses.

-Prohibits funds for implementing national education tests.

-Bans the implementation of regulations changing how organs for
transplants are allocated.

-Prohibits federal funding for a rerun of the Teamsters
election.

-Bars federal funding for human embryo research.

-Prohibits the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from
issuing a final rule on national identification cards.

-Blocks a pay raise for members of Congress.

-Requires health plans for federal workers to cover prescription
contraceptives.

-Allows 40,000 Haitian refugees to gain permanent residency.

-Provides temporary visas for foreign nationals with high-tech
skills.

-Establishes a three-year moratorium on state and local Internet
taxation.

-Approves the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

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

Ex-agents accuse US of ignoring Mexico corruption - Administration officials
deny overlooking Salinas' actions (The Dallas Morning News quotes
Hector Berrellez, 52, a retired DEA agent who says "I once had information
that Raul Salinas had allegedly brokered deals with Pablo Escobar," the late
Colombian drug lord. "Washington ordered me not to write it up." Berrellez
and other former DEA agents say US officials turn a blind eye
to drug corruption in Mexico because they don't want to jeopardize
commercial and diplomatic ties.)

From: adbryan@onramp.net
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:17:46 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: ART: Ex-agents accuse U.S. of ignoring Mexico corruption
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

These former DEA agents actually think the drug trade can be stopped.
They are only deluding themselves. There is only one threat to the
drug trade and that comes from those of us in the drug policy reform
movement. When the threat becomes real, the Feds take action. IMO,
that's why they are trying to disrupt the various medmj initiatives.
It's also why the medmj clubs are being shut down in California.
Marijuana legalization, even for medical purposes, is a direct
threat to the drug trade. (If anyone wants to use this type of
theme in a letter to the DMN, be my guest. I can't have one
published for a few more weeks.)

10-20-98
Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com
letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com

Ex-agents accuse U.S. of ignoring Mexico corruption
Administration officials deny overlooking Salinas' actions

By Tracey Eaton
The Dallas Morning News

MEXICO CITY - When Raul Salinas de Gortari, brother of the former
Mexican president, was charged in 1995 with taking huge payoffs from
drug traffickers, even some of the most jaded Mexicans were shocked. But
some former U.S. agents barely blinked.

"We know a lot about what goes on. The problem is, we don't do anything
about it. We tolerate corruption in Mexico," said Hector Berrellez, a
former veteran agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration. "I once
had information that Raul Salinas had allegedly brokered deals with
Pablo Escobar," the late Colombian drug lord. "Washington ordered me not
to write it up. 'Stop writing that stuff,' they told me. So what am I
supposed to do? Go to the movies? Go see Zorro?"

Disillusioned, Mr. Berrellez said he actually did spend some of his
afternoons at the movies in Washington, D.C., before retiring in
September 1996. Now 52, his take on the continuing Salinas affair is
that some U.S. officials turn a blind eye to drug corruption because
they don't want to jeopardize America's commercial and diplomatic ties
with Mexico.

"Don't tell me we couldn't go to Mexico and stamp out drug trafficking.
Of course we could," Mr. Berrellez said. "But we don't. There is no drug
war."

If U.S. officials did shy away from investigating Raul Salinas, Swiss
authorities certainly did not. And on Tuesday, they plan to announce the
results of a three-year investigation into allegations that former
President Carlos Salinas de Gortari's brother had become a big-time
money launderer. Details of their investigation - first published in The
New York Times - are expected to show that Raul Salinas controlled the
shipment of tons of drugs through Mexico during his brother's six-year
term, which ended in 1994.

Raul Salinas, now in a maximum-security prison outside Mexico City, has
denied any connection with drug trafficking. And after a Mexican
prosecutor earlier this month announced that the government had traced
to Mr. Salinas bank accounts containing about $250 million, the former
president's brother fired off an angry response: "Don't let yourselves
be fooled. I don't have any more accounts."

Clinton administration officials, for their part, strongly reject the
suggestion that they looked the other way while Raul Salinas is alleged
to have raked in hundreds of millions of dollars in drug bribes, perhaps
with the consent of his powerful brother.

"Certainly at the policy level, there was no such understanding or sense
that there was a problem with Carlos Salinas," said one official, who
requested anonymity.

Raul Salinas held a midlevel government post during his brother's term
and was called "Mr. 10 Percent" - a reference to rumors that he took a
10-percent cut on back-room deals with the government, the official
said. But "we had no serious concerns about narco-corruption."

"Now it strikes us as unfair that law enforcement says, 'We've known
this for eons.' They say, 'Didn't you know they were corrupt?' Well, no,
we're not intelligence agents. We're policy-makers."

A spokesman for the DEA declined to comment.

Carlos Salinas, now living in exile in Ireland, has denied promoting
drug corruption and has said he was "astonished by the huge amount" of
money traced to his brother.

Michael Levine, who spent 25 years with the DEA and other federal
agencies, ran a sting operation called "Operation Trifecta" in 1987,
which he said revealed "massive government corruption in Mexico." He
said informants said that Carlos Salinas intended "to open his country
up for drug traffickers" after his election in 1988. But he said federal
officials, including some at the CIA, hushed up the details of his
undercover operation and discouraged him from targeting the Salinas
family.

U.S. officials didn't want to sink the North American Free Trade
Agreement, or NAFTA, he said.

"It's mind-blowing," he said. "Sometimes I look back and say, 'Did this
really happen?' You can't make up this kind of stuff."

The CIA declined to comment.

Mr. Levine said he remains convinced that the Salinas family had deep
drug-trafficking ties and that Carlos Salinas must have been involved at
some level.

"Raul could have never done anything without Carlos. I think Raul's the
fall guy. That's the story," said Mr. Levine, who has written three
books about his experiences and has a weekly radio show in New York
City.

There are other DEA veterans who agree with Mr. Levine. One is Celerino
"Cele" Castillo, who worked as an agent in Central and South America and
has testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.

"Our hands are tied. We are not allowed to conduct major operations
against well-known officials that we believe are involved in drug
trafficking unless it's approved in Washington. And approval is
unlikely. The U.S. government doesn't want to embarrass the Mexican
government," said Mr. Castillo, the author of a book called Powderburns.

Phil Jordan, former director of the El Paso Intelligence Center, jointly
run by the DEA and other federal agencies, said during the debate over
NAFTA five years ago that his superiors in Washington ordered him not to
talk about his concern that free trade would boost drug trafficking.

Since then, a U.S. Customs-led task force called Operation Alliance has
concluded that trafficking gangs are exploiting NAFTA to send more drugs
northward across the U.S.-Mexico border.

"Our worst fears have been realized," said Mr. Jordan, head of a
corporate security company in Dallas.

Peter Lupsha, a former University of New Mexico researcher specializing
in organized crime, contends that drug trafficking in Mexico is simply a
low priority for Washington.

"For recent Washington administrations, whether they be President Bush's
or President Clinton's, free trade, investment, development and other
economic issues are paramount," he wrote in the journal Trends in
Organized Crime. "Drug trafficking, immigration, environmental concerns
. . . are all issues to be swept under the rug and ignored."

But in the end, "consistently ignoring or downplaying Mexico's problems
. . . will only work against the successful creation of the much-desired
free trade hemisphere," researcher Silvana Paternostro wrote in World
Policy Journal.

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

Dope Backer Fined (The Calgary Sun version)

Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 20:15:28 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Canada: Dope Backer Fined
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Lynn Harichy
Pubdate: Tue, 20 Oct 1998
Source: Calgary Sun (Canada)
Copyright: 1998, Canoe Limited Partnership.
Contact: callet@sunpub.com
Website: http://www.canoe.ca/CalgarySun/
Author: Mike D'amour, Calgary Sun

DOPE BACKER FINED

Advocate Wants Club To Distribute Marijuana In City

Moments after he was sentenced yesterday for trafficking pot on the
courthouse steps, Grant Krieger said he's planning to broaden his
distribution operations.

"I'm starting a Compassion Club," said Krieger, who was fined more
than $500 for trying to give pot -- in front of reporters and cops --
to a fellow multiple sclerosis sufferer in June 1997.

Krieger said he would pattern the local club on a Vancouver-based
group of the same name, which cultivates and distributes pot to the
terminally ill and other chronic pain sufferers.

"I have enough people to get this started in about a week," he
said.

During sentencing for possession for the purpose of trafficking,
provincial court Judge Robert Davie called Krieger's actions a
"publicity stunt."

"I'm satisfied he was motivated by his belief in marijuana as a
pain-killer," Davie said. "But that does not justify breaking the law."

Krieger told the court he no longer walks with crutches or a cane
because of the beneficial effects of pot, but Davie stopped him,
saying he wouldn't debate the issue of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

"That's better left to the medical community and Parliament," he said,
noting the charges against Krieger were for trafficking marijuana, not
possessing or smoking it.

Davie told Krieger selling grass usually warrants jail, even for
first-time offenders, unless there's "exceptional"
circumstances.

"I'm convinced these are exceptional circumstances," the judge
said.

"(Krieger) didn't incite violence or public disorder and I'm satisfied
he was trying to draw public attention to an issue," he said before
fining Krieger $550 for the approximately 15 grams of pot he had when
arrested.

If Krieger doesn't pay by Jan. 31 1999, he will spend 11 days in
jail.

Krieger said he may choose jail as a way to further his protest.

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

Australia Finds No Peril In Potsmoking Drivers (High Times News
says transportation authorities who administered blood tests to 2,500 drivers
involved in car wrecks in South Australia discovered that marijuana was not
a significant factor in causing such accidents. In fact, Transport South
Australia researchers determined that drivers who smoked cannabis were
statistically less likely to cause traffic accidents than drivers who used no
intoxicants at all.)

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 09:40:28 -0400
From: Scott Dykstra (rumba2@earthlink.net)
Reply-To: rumba2@earthlink.net
To: "rumba2@earthlink.net" (rumba2@earthlink.net)
Subject: CanPat - Pot Drivers safer than Non-Pot Drivers (Australia)
Sender: owner-cannabis-patriots-l@smtp.teleport.com

AUSTRALIA FINDS NO PERIL IN POTSMOKING DRIVERS

BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA--Marijuana is not a significant
factor in causing auto accidents, transportation authorities
discovered after administering blood tests to 2500 drivers
involved in car wrecks in South Australia. In fact, Transport
South Australia researchers have determined, drivers who
smoke cannabis are statistically a little less likely to be found
the cause of traffic accidents than drivers who use no
intoxicants at all.

"It may be that people driving on cannabis compensate for
the impairing effects of the drug," Dr. Jason White, a
Transport SA researcher, told reporters. "They are more
cautious, less likely to take risks, and drive slower."

The broad-scale driver survey was made possible by South
Australia legislation which requires all motorists admitted to
hospital after a crash to provide blood samples for drug
testing. The results, showing that by far the major cause of
car accidents is alcohol, replicate and underscore previous
studies by the US Department of Transportation in showing
that marijuana is not a statistically significant cause of accidents.

Unlike urine tests, which will show the presence of THC in
the bladder days after the last use of pot, blood testing only
shows THC positives during the four-hour period of acute
intoxication. Therefore these new Australian transportation
figures are even more reliable than the US DoT's surveys in
eliminating potsmoking as a significant cause of highway
havoc.

Dean Latimer - HT News,
filed 10/20/98

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

The Dirty Money Found in Everyone's Pocket (The Scotsman says 90 percent
of Scottish £20 banknotes are contaminated with ecstasy, or MDMA.)

Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:48:27 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: UK: Scotland: The Dirty Money Found in Everyone's Pocket
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: Tue, 20 Oct 1998
Source: Scotsman (UK)
Contact: Letters_ts@scotsman.com
Website: http://www.scotsman.com/
Copyright: The Scotsman Publications Ltd
Author: Jenny Booth

THE DIRTY MONEY FOUND IN EVERYONE'S POCKET

DID you know that 90 per cent of all Scottish UKP20 notes are contaminated
with ecstasy?

No, neither did I. Not until the red light started flashing and the klaxon
went off on the new drugs detection machine I was to report on in Shotts
prison visiting hall.

Having my fingers dusted by a pioneering electronic sniffer device seemed
an interesting way of passing the time until the VIPs turned up for the
press conference.

Seconds later: BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! I was testing positive for MDMA.
That's ecstasy, if you're not a raver - and I'm not, though it was briefly
flattering to have it suggested that I might be young and trendy enough to
go clubbing.

The prison officers are nice about it. The amount of E the ionscan
spectrometer had found on my fingers - 1,850 units, according thescrap of
paper printout I now intend to frame - was still within the range where I
had probably got it on my fingers by touching money contaminated with
drugs, they said.

That is most UKP10 and UKP20 banknotes, the denominations used in street
drugs deals. It probably happened when I bought petrol that morning.

The readout would be around 4,000 to 6,000 units if I had handled drugs
myself. If I was a proper prison visitor I would now be retested, searched
and thrown out if I was found to be carrying drugs. I would then be
prosecuted and my prisoner relative punished as well.

I wasn't the only one with illicit drugs on my hands - a photographer and
another reporter were also contaminated with ecstasy.

News of the positive tests had apparently found its way ahead to the
visiting dignitaries, because the Scottish home affairs minister, Henry
McLeish, refused point blank to have his fingers sniffed. "Minister Tests
Positive" wouldn't have been a helpful headline in these pre-election days.
Especially not for any SNP followers: in the prison workshops a nationalist
lag had pasted a Salmond for President poster on the woodcutter.

Still, it makes you think. Are there really that many drugs around that the
very currency is steeped in it? Yes. there are.

Drugs is the second biggest global industry after arms. Drugs are behind
nearly half of all the cases in the High Court. Stealing to get money for
drugs accounts for more than half of all theft. Society, is up to its neck
in filthy drugs money made from other people's addiction, misery and death.
There is probably drugs on everybody's hands.

That's probably why the prison sniffer dog seemed to take such a shine to me.

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

[End]