-------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Ado About Nothing (Eugene Weekly says a four-year investigation into a
suspected marijuana-growing operation near Coburg, Oregon, led to a 1995 raid
on a rural residence by dozens of black-clad, rifle-toting officers who
kicked in doors and splintered door frames while a helicopter hovered
overhead. Prohibition agents traumatized Byron Stone and his wife, Wanda,
leaving Byron 70 percent disabled, but they found only a half-ounce of
marijuana allegedly belonging to someone else. Lane County Circuit Judge
Jack Mattison dismissed Stone's lawsuit against police before a jury could
hear it, saying the "law doesn't always give a remedy" when government action
injures innocent citizens.)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 01:02:24 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US OR: Much Ado About Nothing
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Olafur Brentmar
Pubdate: Thu, 6 Nov 1998
Source: Eugene Weekly (OR)
Contact: editor@eugeneweekly.com
Website: http://www.eugeneweekly.com/
Copyright: Eugene Weekly 1998.
Author: Alice Tallmadge
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING
A misguided marijuana raid wastes time and taxpayer dollars and derails the
lives of two innocent parties.
It was almost classic prime-time TV - years of undercover surveillance of a
rural, tree-shrouded, high-end residence for evidence of a drug operation.
Anonymous informers. Wire taps. Diverted garbage bags. Blueprints of the
house perused to spot possible "operation" rooms. Scrutinized utility
bills. Snitch-reported rumors of automatic weapon caches and a planned
drive-by shooting, with the investigative detective as the target.
Even the climax was dramatic: dozens of black-clad, rifle-toting officers
swooping down on the woodsy home and its out-buildings, kicking in doors
and splintering door frames while a pounding helicopter hovered overhead.
But, in fact, this was no fictional episode. The January 1995 raid on a
rural home near Coburg was a joint operation of SWAT (Special Weapons and
Tactics) teams from Lane County, Benton County and the city of Eugene and
INET (Interagency Narcotics Enforcement Team), which includes members of
several area law enforcement agencies.
The real-life outcome also differed significantly from a formulaic
detective episode. On television, the final scene would have showed a
bounty of seized drugs and paraphernalia and sullen, handcuffed drug
traffickers huddled in the back seat of a police car. But in this raid, the
drug stash seized came to less than a half ounce of marijuana and one
bottle of ibuprofen, a non-prescription pain reliever. No arrests were
made. No drug paraphernalia were found. Not a shred of evidence of a
pot-growing operation was uncovered.
And the lives if one innocent couple were irrevocably changed.
Byron Stone, and his wife, Wanda, had for several years worked at the
raided property as caretakers and lived in a mobile home next to their
employer's home. At the time of the raid, Byron Stone, 47, was in the
kitchen, making french fries.
"I was talking to the lady who was coming to take a shift," he told EW in a
recent interview. "Then I looked out the window and saw a big, black van
backing up to the front door. There were guys all dressed in black, their
guns drawn, carrying a big battering ram. And they were headed for the
front door."
In the course of the raid, Stone says, he was ordered to lie on the ground,
his hands behind his back. When he lifted his head to express concern for
how his employer was being handled, he says, one of the officers put a knee
into his back and jerked him upwards. "I felt something [in my back] go.
Then another officer stepped up, locked and loaded his shotgun. I looked up
and was staring into the muzzle of a gun."
During the raid, the Stones' residence was also searched. According to
Wanda Stone, one door was splintered, another taken off its hinges.
"Drawers were emptied everywhere. There was a big hole in our daughter's
bedroom door. Her dresser drawers were pulled out, stuff strewn all over
room." The Stone's nine-year-old daughter was not at home during the raid.
Living through an unexpected police raid is understandably unnerving, but
Stone, who had served a 10-month combat tour in Vietnam, says for him the
incident triggered classic symptoms of post traumatic stress syndrome
(PTSD), a condition he had never suffered from previously.
"It was like going into shell shock 30 years later," Stone says. "I'd have
flashbacks. I had heart palpitations. Every loud noise, I'd just kind of go
to pieces. All I could do is just stand there and shake and quiver."
Stone says the raid came up with nothing because there was nothing to be
found. "It was guilt by association. Her [the property owner's] sister was
growing marijuana on some property in Cottage Grove. They [law enforcement
officials] were so sure they were going to find something [at the Coburg
residence] even though there was no evidence for a raid of that magnitude."
At most, Stone says, his employer smoked personal pot. "If I thought
anything else was going on, I wouldn't have been there. Period. I won't be
a party to that."
Court records show the property owner's sister did have a civil forfeiture
proceeding filed against her as a result of a raid in that same time
period, but that the sister was not arrested. A settlement was later agreed
upon in regards to the forfeiture action.
Stone ended up spending time in two different psychiatric hospitals in
Roseburg and Portland. His injured back and his fragile mental condition
cost him his caretaker's position, and he was unable to maintain a
subsequent job. Stone sought and received, after hiring an attorney, a
$5,000 worker's comp claim for his back and $1,000 under a different
agreement having to do with the PTSD. He is now considered 70 percent
disabled.
In 1996, the Stones filed a suit against several of the officers involved
in the raid and against Dean Finnerty, the Cottage Grove police detective
who led the investigation. The cases against all law enforcement personnel
were dismissed. The case against Finnerty, in which the Stones sought $1.5
million in damages for alleged violations of their constitutional rights
during the raid, was heard just two weeks ago by Lane County Circuit Judge
Jack Mattison.
In their suit, the Stones claim the affidavit Finnerty submitted to Judge
David Brewer in order to obtain a search warrant for the Coburg property
contained exaggerations and inaccuracies.
The 17-page, single-spaced affidavit details the evidence Finnerty amassed
in his four-year investigation of the Coburg property. At the time the
document was written, Finnerty says he had four years of experience and
"hundreds of hours" of training in controlled substances investigations.
"Since approximately 1993 I have worked essentially full-time on this
investigation," Finnerty wrote.
The evidence cited by Finnerty leading him to believe a large-scale drug
operation was being conducted at the Coburg residence included:
* a piece of paper with the numbers "110 and "370" written on it. The
numbers referred to marijuana transactions, he concluded. "Specifically,
the '110' is consistent with the prices of one-quarter ounce of
high-quality marijuana, and '370' is consistent with one ounce of
high-quality marijuana";
* a shopping list containing the notation, "Large pots for replanting big
plants (3), planting soil (Miracle Grow), lawn (Weed and Feed)";
* a two-year analysis of electricity consumption at the Coburg home that
showed the house used "almost double" the amount of electricity as other
comparable homes in the area. Finnerty concluded the usage was consistent
with a grow operation;
* an analysis of blueprints of the home, which showed two "unusual" rooms
in the residence;
* four findings of very small amounts of used marijuana from the
residence's trash;
* the fact that "significant real estate transactions" had occurred between
the owner of the property and the Stones;
* the fact that Byron Stone "has a felony dangerous drug conviction in Lane
County."
Finnerty also noted the content of several conversations with anonymous
sources he called "Concerned Citizens #1 and #2," whom he said were in a
position to possess inside knowledge about the Coburg residents. The
sources claimed there were automatic weapons on the property and also had
reported that a drive-by shooting of the detective himself was being
planned by a third party.
During the trial, Finnerty was unable to produce the papers on which were
written the "significant" numbers, "110" and "370." He admitted he did not
know whether the homes he was using to compare the Coburg property's
electrical usage to were all electric or natural gas. (It was also shown
that the approximately 5,000-square-foot Coburg house included a heated,
three-car garage, a hot tub, four water heaters and two, large glassed-in
rooms.)
The "numerous transactions" Finnerty cited as evidence of the Stones' money
laundering for their employer ended up being the Stones' purchase of a
Cottage Grove home from their employer's family trust back East. The
transaction was arranged by Eugene attorney Joe Richards. It was also
clarified that Byron Stone's one and only arrest was for possession of
marijuana in 1972, for which he received a three-year probation.
Despite these discrepancies, on Oct. 23, Judge Mattison dismissed the suit
before the jury began deliberations. According to the Stones' attorney,
David Force, the judge said he believed Finnerty's testimony about the
missing evidence and the conversations with the unnamed informants. Those,
along with the used marijuana found in the trash from the residence,
represented "probable cause" to seize and search all persons on the
property, the judge said.
The judge, wrote Force, "said the case left 'a bad taste in the mouth'
because it appeared that people who didn't deserve to had suffered greatly,
but that the 'law doesn't always give a remedy' when government action
injures innocent citizens."
Dean Finnerty has been named a corporal in the Cottage Grove Police
Department. (The department's attorney did not return phone calls
requesting more details about Finnerty's change of status.)
The Stones plan to appeal their case against Finnerty and also the cases
against law enforcement personnel that were earlier dismissed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue No. 66 (The Drug Reform Coordination
Network's original summary of drug policy news and calls for action,
including - Sweep!; District of Columbia - silencing the voice of the voters;
Arizona - restoring the will of the voters; Colorado - ballot status
uncertain, voters certain; Oregon perspective; Report finds injection-related
AIDS ravaging African American and Latino communities - police presence a
factor in disease's disproportionate impact Supreme Court hears car search
case; DRCNet launching stopthedrugwar.org web site; DRCNet launches new
"activism" online discussion group; High school honor student expelled for
sipping sangria at internship party; an excellent editorial on American's
ivory-tower mass media, Message sent, by Adam J. Smith; and, A message from
DRCNet to you.)
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 08:57:57 -0500
To: drc-natl@drcnet.org
From: DRCNet (drcnet@drcnet.org)
Subject: The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue #66
Sender: owner-drc-natl@drcnet.org
The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue #66 -- November 6, 1998
A Publication of the Drug Reform Coordination Network
-------- PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE --------
(To sign off this list, mailto: listproc@drcnet.org with the
line "signoff drc-natl" in the body of the message, or
mailto:lists@drcnet.org for assistance. To subscribe to
this list, visit http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html.)
(This issue can be also be read on our web site at
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/066.html. Check out the DRCNN
weekly radio segment at http://www.drcnet.org/drcnn/.)
PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the
contents of The Week Online is hereby granted. We ask that
any use of these materials include proper credit and, where
appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If
your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet
requests checks payable to the organization. If your
publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use
the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification
for our records, including physical copies where material
has appeared in print. Contact: Drug Reform Coordination
Network, 2000 P St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036,
(202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail
drcnet@drcnet.org. Thank you.
ONLY TILL THURSDAY: The DRCNet Drug Crazy Book Giveaway is
still open to entrants, but only till midnight on Thursday!
Enter or get more info at http://www.drcnet.org/contest/,
and you might win a free, personally autographed copy of
this exciting new book from Random House by author Mike
Gray.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. SWEEP!!!
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/066.html#sweep
2. District of Columbia: Silencing the Voice of the Voters
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/066.html#dcvote
3. Arizona: Restoring the Will of the Voters
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/066.html#arizona
4. Colorado: Ballot Status Uncertain, Voters Certain
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/066.html#colorado
5. Oregon Perspective
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/066.html#oregon
6. Report Finds Injection-Related AIDS Ravaging African
American and Latino Communities -- Police Presence a
Factor in Disease's Disproportionate Impact
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/066.html#emergency
7. Supreme Court Hears Car Search Case
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/066.html#court
8. DRCNet Launching STOPTHEDRUGWAR.ORG Web Site
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/066.html#newsite
9. DRCNet Launches New "Activism" Online Discussion Group
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/066.html#drc-active
10. High School Honor Student Expelled for Sipping Sangria
at Internship Party
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/066.html#expelled
11. EDITORIAL: Message Sent
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/066.html#editorial
12. A Message from DRCNet to You
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/066.html#message
***
1. SWEEP!!!
Election Day 1998 turned into a stunning sweep for advocates
of drug policy reform as voters in Alaska, Washington,
Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona and Washington, DC
rejected the extremist rhetoric of national officials.
While many of the newly passed laws still face uncertain
futures in the face of federal law and congressional
disapproval, the impact of the votes is sure to be dramatic.
In Oregon, a medical marijuana initiative passed while a
bill which would have enhanced penalties for personal
possession of marijuana was soundly defeated. In Alaska and
Washington State, medical marijuana initiatives won handily.
In Nevada, voters approved an amendment to the state
constitution legalizing the medicinal use of marijuana.
That amendment will be on the ballot again in 2000 as voters
must approve constitutional measures in consecutive
elections. In Colorado, an on-again off-again initiative
was ruled invalid by a state appeals court just days before
the election, after two disputed counts by the Secretary of
State's office found petition signatures insufficient to
qualify for the ballot (see below); but voters registered
their support nonetheless, giving the initiative nearly 60%
of the vote. The following several articles discuss some of
the more complex votes and situations surrounding this
year's drug policy votes, and additional info is available
on our web site at http://www.drcnet.org/election98/.
***
2. District of Columbia: Silencing the Voice of the Voters
In Washington, DC, a last-minute addition to the DC
Appropriations Bill, submitted by Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA),
forbade the use of district monies for the certification,
not the counting, as erroneously reported in the Washington
Post this week, of the medical marijuana vote. The
initiative was a grass-roots effort with strong backing and
support by ACTUP DC and the Marijuana Policy Project.
On Tuesday (Election Day) the District of Columbia Board of
Elections and Ethics issued a release which said that "under
pressure and mandate from Congress," they would not release
the results of the vote on I-59. "While the votes on
Initiative Measure 59 will be counted," it said, "the Board
has been instructed by Congress that the DC Appropriations
Act, 1999, prevents the Board from making the results of the
tabulation available to the public."
Ken McGhie, Counsel to the Board, told The Week Online,
"Over the past week, there have been concerns, expressed by
the Congress, as to whether or not the Board could count and
announce the results in light of the Barr Amendment. The
Board and the Corporation Council decided that they could
justify counting the ballots, since they were already
printed with I-59 on them among the other races, and the
computer was already programmed to count everything on the
ballot. But we were concerned that announcing the result
would be viewed as an attempt to defy the will of Congress.
We felt it would be more prudent to wait for some direction
from the court."
The Board, McGhie said, would file a motion for declaratory
judgement later this week, along with a request for
expedited consideration.
When asked if he knew of any precedent for the results of an
American election being kept from the people on orders from
the Congress, McGhie siad "none that I've been able to
find."
The ACLU announced that in addition to the lawsuit filed
this week to get the results of the election certified, they
would be filing a Freedom of Information Act request to get
the results of the election released to the public.
Exit polling, conducted by Americans for Medical Rights,
found that 69% of voters cast ballots in favor of the
initiative.
Arthur Spitzer of the ACLU, National Capital District, told
The Week Online that the ACLU had already filed suit to
force the certification of the vote on First Amendment
grounds. "Our position is that while the Constitution puts
the District under Congressional control, and the Congress
could, for example, tell the district that they cannot use
voter initiatives at all, they cannot pick and choose which
are okay and which are not. The Barr amendment said that
District monies could not be used for an initiative which
would lower penalties for marijuana, but it doesn't say, for
example, that the district cannot certify an initiative to
increase penalties for marijuana. That's like saying, 'you
can vote for a Republican, but not a Democrat.' Congress
cannot pass laws, in the District or anywhere else, that
violate the First Amendment."
On the day after the election, the ACLU also filed a Freedom
of Information Act request to have the results of the vote
released to the public. "There are several statutory
defenses to such a request, for instance the government is
not required to release personal files, or details of an
ongoing criminal investigation," Spitzer said. "But we are
confident that the results of a public election will not fit
under any of those exceptions. Assuming that is so, they
have ten days to release the information. But we have also
reminded them that they are free to release the information
sooner, and we're hoping that they will do so."
Alice Miller of the DC Board of Elections and Ethics told
The Week Online, "We were stuck between a rock and a hard
place, to tell you the truth. On the one hand, it's the
Board's responsibility to announce and certify the results
of elections, but on the other, there was the Barr
amendment, which seemed to override that responsibility.
Right now, we're just waiting for some direction from the
federal court as to what we should do."
***
3. Arizona: Restoring the Will of the Voters
In Arizona, voters reinstated a proposition that was gutted
by the legislature after it was first approved at the ballot
box in 1996. Originally Proposition 200, the initiative
gave physicians the right to prescribe any drug, as long as
they could show a second opinion and some medical evidence
that it would benefit patients. Prop. 200 also eliminated
jail sentences for persons convicted of first-time non-
violent drug offenses.
After the legislature gutted the new law, The People Have
Spoken, a group dedicated to preserving the reforms that
Arizonans had voted for, gathered over 200,000 signatures to
put the legislature's changes on the ballot in '98. These
changes to Prop. 200 were rejected this week, thus restoring
the broadest reform measure in the nation to its original
terms. A companion initiative, 105, was also passed this
week. Prop. 105 mandates that the legislature now needs a
3/4 majority in order to make changes to voter-approved
initiatives.
***
4. Colorado: Ballot Status Uncertain, Voters Certain
A state court ruling just days before the election
eliminated Colorado's medical marijuana initiative from the
ballot. However, as the ballots had already been printed,
many voters pulled the lever anyway. CBS News reported on
election night that 59% of voters approved the measure,
although the issue was locked out in certain districts,
thereby making an official count impossible.
There is an ongoing appeal in Colorado regarding alleged
mismanagement of both signature counts by the Secretary of
State, leading to the disqualification of the initiative.
If proponents can show that the measure was wrongfully
disqualified, it would then automatically be placed on the
ballot in 2000, and it's possible that damages could be
awarded. The Week Online will keep you up to date as this
story progresses.
***
5. Oregon Perspective
- Bear Wilner
(Editor's Note: Bear Wilner, flush with the heady glow of
victory, sends us his observations on the elections from his
perch in Eugene. This week, we're letting him wax
editorial... being that we're all in such a good mood.
Thanks again, Bear, for keeping us abreast as the campaigns
unfolded in the Beaver state.)
The election of 1996 was the most important in the history
of US drug policy reform to date. We must continue to give
credit to the tremendously revitalizing impact of the
passages of California's Proposition 215 and Arizona's
Proposition 200. Yes, they built on decades of activism and
countless hours of hard work, but their demonstration of
massive popular support for change was what dealt the
deathblow to so many years of Drug War status quo.
Still, hard beset as they were by federal and state
officials hostile to any weakening of the prohibitionist
edifice, California's and Arizona's new situations were
close to succumbing in recent months. Now, with the
universal ballot-box victory of the reform legislative
positions that were up for a vote and with the election of a
number of more reform-minded candidates across the nation,
California and Arizona will never again be forced to stand
alone on this issue. I am deeply proud to be able to
announce that the state of Oregon has joined the rest of the
US jurisdictions that have signaled their intent to begin
moving toward a new approach to drug law -- and not a moment
too soon.
Final results have been delayed by the count of many hundred
thousand absentee ballots, but it is clear that Oregonians
rejected Measure 57, which would have recriminalized the
possession of under an ounce of cannabis, by an even larger
margin than they passed Measure 67, which will allow
severely ill Oregonians and their caretakers to grow and
possess cannabis in order to alleviate their symptoms. Even
a last-minute infusion of money could not salvage the poorly
run anti-reform campaigns; this election was about decency,
not dollars, and voters were acting on a real understanding
of the issues at stake. Nevertheless, the same governor and
essentially the same state legislature will continue in
office with the new year. For that reason, Oregon reformers
must continue to work, to organize, and to remain vigilant
against any tampering with the people's will.
The state's largest newspaper, the Portland Oregonian, which
had printed a blistering anti-67 editorial as well as
voicing support for 57, has begun urging lawmakers to tinker
in the guts of the medical-cannabis legislation even before
it has gone into full effect. With its editorial board
expressing their fear of "the prospect of a plague of pony-
tailed doctors prescribing reefer for the blues," the
Oregonian's language is a far cry from the kind of balanced
journalism to be found in Phoenix's normally quite
conservative Arizona Republic (http://www.azcentral.com) two
days after the election. Oregon activists were expecting
this sort of sore-loser response, though, and had already
begun planning their campaign in support of the newly
approved Oregon Medical Marijuana Act well in advance of
November 3rd. The sorts of extra-constitutional legerdemain
that the likes of outgoing California Attorney General Dan
Lungren loved to practice in response to the people's
mandates are not foreseen as having much impact here in
fiercely independent-minded Oregon.
***
6. Report Finds Injection-Related AIDS Ravaging African
American and Latino Communities -- Police Presence a
Factor in Disease's Disproportionate Impact
A report released last weekend by the Dogwood Center, Health
Emergency 1999, found that injection-related AIDS and other
diseases have continued to take an enormous toll in the
African American and Latino communities. Further, Health
Emergency found that the likelihood of an African American
or Latino injection drug user is several times more likely
to catch HIV/AIDS than a white injection drug user --
illustrating how drug enforcement drives up the spread of
HIV by encouraging users in heavily policed communities to
dispose of syringes quickly to avoid discovery and arrest.
In all cases, the risk of catching HIV or other deadly
diseases from a shared syringe is several times greater than
the likelihood of dying from an overdose.
Health Emergency 99 was introduced by former US Surgeon
General Dr. Joycelyn Elders, at the US Conference on AIDS in
Dallas last weekend. The full text of the report can be
found online at http://www.drcnet.org/healthemergency/.
***
7. Supreme Court Hears Car Search Case
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week (11/3) in the
case of a Patrick Knowles, whose car was searched by
officers in Iowa, against his wishes, incident to a speeding
ticket. Officer Ronald Cook, who conducted the search,
testified at trial that other than speeding he had no reason
to suspect Knowles of illegal activity.
The search, however, turned up a pipe and a small amount of
marijuana, and Knowles was arrested.
The Iowa Supreme Court found that Iowa law allows for a
search in any instance where the officer could have made an
arrest, and state law allows for an arrest in the case of
speeding. The US Supreme Court, however, ruled in 1973 that
police can search people upon arrest, citing a need to
disarm the arrestee and preserve evidence.
At argument, the Justices seemed wary of allowing such a
broad interpretation of the right to search. At one point,
Justice Scalia asked the attorney for the state of Iowa
whether an officer could stop someone, arrest them, search
them and then release them. When the attorney answered in
the affirmative, Scalia responded "Wow."
Justice Kennedy noted that while an officer is permitted to
conduct a search incident to an arrest, "you want to turn it
around and have an arrest incident to a search. It seems to
me that would be an abuse of authority."
A decision on the case is not expected until early next
year.
***
8. DRCNet Launching STOPTHEDRUGWAR.ORG Web Site
This afternoon, DRCNet will be launching the first sections
of what will be a unique, major new reform web site. The
stopthedrugwar.org web site will be more than a DRCNet web
site, but a gateway to both the issues and the movement,
designed to inform people about the consequences of current
drug policy, while connecting them with the groups that are
working in their areas of interest and other resources and
opportunities for involvement.
When fully developed, stopthedrugwar.org will point visitors
to organizations and resources in their states as well as in
their issues. Today we are presenting the first of our
issue overviews, giving readers an introduction to topics
such as chronic pain, drug-related AIDS, medical marijuana,
kids in the drug war, and more, and ask for your feedback.
Check it out at http://www.stopthedrugwar.org and let us
know what you think.
We anticipate that stopthedrugwar.org will become our
principal means for promoting DRCNet and bringing new people
into the movement. You can help! Stick a link or banner on
your web site, write about it in your newsletter, put a
bumper sticker on your car or other visible locations.
(Bumper stickers sent free to all making donations, and upon
request to those who have made donations in the past or who
can't afford to donate. E-mail your requests to
bumpersticker@drcnet.org -- normally we just send one, but
if you have a use for more, tell us what you will be doing
with them, and we'll consider your request.)
Note that stopthedrugwar.org will not supersede our current
web sites, drcnet.org and druglibrary.org, but will play a
new and different role. Stopthedrugwar.org is being built
as a "gateway to the movement"; drcnet.org will continue to
be "DRCNet Central" while druglibrary.org will continue to
be "Information Central".
***
9. DRCNet Launches New "Activism" Online Discussion Group
The drug policy reform movement is on the fringes no more.
So now, more than ever, it is time to DO SOMETHING! Toward
this end, DRCNet proudly announces DRC-Action. DRC-Action
is an open email discussion list for people who need or want
to share support and ideas on WHAT TO DO to begin having a
real impact through realistic strategies. The focus of the
list will be primarily on local and statewide action, with
an eye toward educating and involving key players and
constituencies in the struggle to end the war.
The list will not be moderated, but in the interest of
making it as productive as possible, DRCNet will be quick to
remind those who clutter participants' boxes with non-action
related materials or posts. DRCNet will also be inviting
several movement professionals and effective activists from
various parts of the country to participate and to lend
their ideas and expertise, and we believe that the resulting
discussion will be both interesting and useful for all
involved.
So, if you've been waiting for some guidance, ideas or a
support system to help you to make concrete and meaningful
progress, please subscribe to DRC-Action today. The
movement, and your country, needs you now! See you there.
To subscribe, send e-mail to listproc@drcnet.org with the
words: "subscribe drc-action your name" in the body (not the
subject) of the message. (Leave out the quotes and
substitute your own name where it says "your name".) You
will receive a confirmation message if you have successfully
joined. The address for posting is drc-action@drcnet.org,
and only subscribers will be able to post.
***
10. High School Honor Student Expelled for Sipping Sangria
at Internship Party
Jennifer Coonce, 17, a National Honor Society member, has
been suspended for ten days, and barred from her high school
campus for the remainder of her senior year, for taking two
sips of sangria at a party in the offices of a design firm
for whom Coonce had just begun interning. She will take
classes from home over an independent teleconference system
to complete her high school degree, and will lose both her
Honor Society membership and her advanced placement credit,
as the necessary classes are not offered through the
teleconference program.
Ironically, it was Coonce's mother who alerted the school to
the fact that her daughter had sipped the wine out of
concern that the company, Interiors by Terry D, a design
firm, had inappropriately offered the wine to her daughter
at a going-away party for another employee.
***
11. EDITORIAL: Message Sent
In the hours and days after the election, the mainstream
media was, predictably, teeming with analysis and debate,
provided by the usual voices, on what, exactly, it all
meant. Democrats, to be sure, bucked both Clinton's lack of
self control and the historical trends by gaining, rather
than losing seats in the house in the sixth year of their
president's administration. And Republicans had
accomplished what they had not done in seventy years,
keeping control of both houses for three straight election
cycles.
Was the election a referendum on impeachment? On the
religious right? Was it the Democrats' ability to get out
the African American vote? Was it Social Security? Health
care? The Budget?
Over and over, on op-ed pages, radio talk shows, and on a
dozen or more 24-hour news and political TV stations, the
debate roared: What were the voters saying? What was the
trend? What did it all mean?
The pundits and prognosticators, bought and paid for by the
corporate media, are very comfortable discussing politics
around the edges. They are good at debating the often
meager differences between the major parties, offering their
opinions on the well-rehearsed theatrics that pass for
political dialogue, and making predictions based on polls
made up of questions devoid of nuance or context asked of
the small percentage of voters who will still take the time
to speak to a pollster.
But present the "experts" with the unfamiliar, with a
scenario that does not fit into their experience, confront
the editors, the anchors, the talking heads with a sign of
change so dramatic that it portends a seismic shift in the
political reality, and you've lost them. Unable to make it
fit, they will chalk it up as an anomaly and move on to more
comfortable material.
On Election Day 1998, every single ballot measure that would
reform an element of our nation's drug policy passed, and
passed comfortably. In each case, the usual band of drug
warriors, including, most significantly, the federal
government itself -- and a majority of both political
parties -- were vehemently opposed. Yet in each case the
voters ignored them. Whether it was medical marijuana,
decriminalization of personal, recreational marijuana use,
or an end to jail time for non-violent possession of any
drug, the voters supported reform.
In assessing the media's silence on this trend, one should
note that is not as if the drug war is an unimportant or
inexpensive issue. Tens of billions of tax dollars are
spent year after year, while hundreds of thousands of
Americans are forced into a broken justice system. Civil
liberties are eroded, institutions and entire governments
are corrupted, global criminal enterprises are enriched and
empowered and the nation's children are confronted with a
black market that is more than eager to have them as
customers.
Neither was it the case that a single initiative, stealthily
ushered onto a ballot, passed under the noses of an
unsuspecting public. Initiatives passed in places as
diverse as Arizona, Oregon and the District of Columbia,
often after fierce debate and much media coverage. In
addition, California's voters rejected Dan Lungren, widely
known as the state's staunchest opponent of patients' access
to medical marijuana, in his race for governor. And in
Minnesota, the voters shocked the experts by selecting Jesse
Ventura as their governor, a Reform Party candidate who has
publicly stated that the drug war doesn't work.
And yet, in the nation's media, a puzzled silence. Not a
word about the implications for the drug war, certainly our
most disastrous and destructive domestic policy. A policy,
it bears repeating, that both major parties have fallen over
themselves to support. Not a word about what the results
tell us about voters' confidence in their leaders on this
issue, after their leaders ridiculed the reforms and warned
of dire consequences in the event of their passage. Not a
word about what all of this means for the future earnings of
pharmaceutical companies and the prison industry and all the
other big political contributors who reap enormous profits
from the prosecution of various elements of the war. Not a
word about the singular clear trend to come out of the
election of 1998.
Those Americans who were watching with their own, rather
than the pundits' eyes, however, could scarcely have missed
it. Election '98 was a sweep in the most resounding sense
of the word. It showed clearly that the people no longer
trust their government, not either party, on the vital issue
of the Drug War. It was a stunning refutation of the status
quo.
The experts in the mainstream media, for all their air time
and all their knowledge and experience, missed the boat on
the only clear message that was sent from the voters to the
politicos in Election '98. Perhaps they will get it next
time, in 2000, when the victories keep coming and it is the
drug warriors themselves, and not just their policies, that
suffer ignominious defeat. But they will likely be left
only to analyze in the aftermath, as they have already shown
that they are too blind to predict the demise of this
ignoble war.
The results, collectively, indicate in no uncertain terms
that the movement has begun in earnest. That movement
represents, perhaps, far too substantive a change to be
acknowledged or even comprehended by a media elite beholden
to the status quo. Voters, in 1998, sent a message of
freedom and of personal dignity, of their rejection of
absurd and alarmist rhetoric and of their confidence in the
judgment of individuals over the judgment of the state. And
as clear as that message was, it was predictably unfamiliar
to the sorry group of Washington apologists assigned to
explain our political reality to us. But ignoring the signs
does not change their meaning. Nor can it alter the course
of events that they portend.
Adam J. Smith
Associate Director
ajsmith@drcnet.org
***
12. A Message from DRCNet to You
The exciting events of the past week have filled reformers
with energy and hope. Over the next few weeks, we at
DRCNet, and our colleagues at other drug reform groups, will
be charting plans for how to best apply our efforts at this
historic juncture, how to most powerfully move forward from
the Victory of '98 -- how to bring sanity to this important
social issue that touches so many different aspects of our
lives. We hope soon to announce an "action plan" --
hopefully a plan involving many reform groups acting in
coalition -- so keep reading The Week Online and DRCNet
action alerts, to make sure you are informed and can be part
of this historic movement for change. Our time is here,
now, and you are a part of the answer.
Your enthusiasm during DRCNet's lifetime is what has made
the organization thrive. But though we wish it weren't the
case, your support through financial contributions is an
important part of what has made the organization actually
exist. You might not have realized just how important
member support is to this organization, but the following
explanation will explain very specifically how your support
is irreplaceable and necessary to the effort.
DRCNet, in the legal sense, is made up of two different
parts -- the DRCNet Foundation, a 501(c)(3) educational
organization, and the Drug Reform Coordination Network, a
501(c)(4) organization that is free to do educational work,
but which exists to allow us to do more grassroots lobbying
than the DRCNet Foundation as a 501(c)(3) can do. Most of
our funding comes in the form of grants and major tax-
deductible gifts to the Foundation, 95% of the expenditures
of which must go to strictly educational activities or work
that supports those activities. And indeed most of our
work, including the writing of most of the articles in The
Week Online and on our web site, is educational.
But what this means that our crucial legislative action
alerts -- and the larger grassroots political projects that
we are contemplating for the near future -- must be financed
and carried out by the Network instead. And the Network's
principal source of income is the many small and mid-size
contributions made by members of DRCNet.
In a real way, then, we are dependent on hundreds or
thousands of you sending in small or large contributions --
be they as low as $5 or $10 or as high as $100 or more -- to
make our legislative work possible. Without your continuing
support, that important part of our work could not continue.
And without the support of many of you who have not yet
contributed membership dues, that work will not be able to
expand to meet the phenomenal opportunities created by the
victories of Election '98.
DRCNet readers are busy people, perhaps never more so than
when reading their e-mail! But if you want to see this
movement grow to meet the challenge of the times, please
take a moment to visit our member registration/donation form
at https://www.drcnet.org/cgi-shl/drcreg.cgi (encryption
protected, recommended for credit card donations), or
http://www.drcnet.org/cgi-shl/drcreg.cgi (no encryption,
fill it out and print it out to send in by mail) -- or just
send your check or money to: DRCNet, 2000 P St., NW, Suite
615, Washington, DC 20036. Consider becoming a monthly
credit card donor! THOSE DONATING $35 OR MORE WILL RECEIVE
A FREE COPY OF SHATTERED LIVES: PORTRAIT'S FROM AMERICA'S
DRUG WAR -- see http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/9-14.html
for more. Note that contributions to DRCNet are not tax-
deductible. (If you prefer to make a tax-deductible
contribution, please send a check or money order made
payable to the DRCNet Foundation, at the same mailing
address.)
Another way to support the organization financially, without
actually having to part with any money yourself, is to
enroll in the eyegive online fundraising program. Just go
to http://www.eyegive.com/html/ssi.cfm?CID=1060 to enroll
with DRCNet as your recipient non-profit (or to read more
about eyegive). DRCNet will immediately earn $2 just for
you signing up, and you can earn us $50, $100 or more, just
by visiting the eyegive home page at http://www.eyegive.com
on a regular basis for just a few seconds each time.
We hope you'll do both, however, for the following three
reasons. One is that when a member sends us a check or a
credit card donation, we can then count that person as a
member, and the number of paying members we have supporting
us is an important measure that we present to our funders on
a monthly basis. The more of you join, the more confidence
they will have to invest in DRCNet, providing the backing
needed to do outreach in the form of mailings, promotion of
stopthedrugwar.org, and more, building the movement to
something much larger than that which we know the today.
The second reason is that if we know who you are and where
you are, we will be able to alert you if there is a special
way that you can advance the effort in your community,
Congressional District or state. The third reason is that
the eyegive earnings come to after three months (which they
need for their auditing purposes), but we have opportunities
at DRCNet that need a little bit more money right now. Two
students who have interned for us already and done great
work are waiting to know if we can hire them part-time for
certain important projects that will contribute greatly to
the movement's objectives. They'll do a little bit as
volunteers anyway, but having to take classes and work other
jobs means their time for DRCNet is limited. Your support
with a donation today will help us bring these bright young
people on board and will be a very efficient use of funds to
achieve results.
Thank you for being a part of DRCNet. Whether you are able
to contribute at this time or not, we are glad to have you
on our list. And stay tuned -- there's been good news this
week, but the best is yet to come!
David Borden
Executive Director
borden@drcnet.org
***
DRCNet
***
JOIN/MAKE A DONATION http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html
DRUG POLICY LIBRARY http://www.druglibrary.org/
REFORMER'S CALENDAR http://www.drcnet.org/calendar.html
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html
DRCNet HOME PAGE http://www.drcnet.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[End]
to the 1998 Daily News index for November 5-11