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

Medicinal pot's win in 5 states stuns backers (An Oregonian article
whose headline shows the newspaper's tendency to engage in projection
quotes Dave Fratello saying Americans for Medical Rights plans to back
campaigns in Colorado, Florida and Maine in 2000. Phil Lemman, executive
director of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, predicts that the
Legislature will amend the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act. But Oregon's
legislative leaders said they first will monitor the law, which won in 16
of the state's 36 counties.)

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 07:53:35 -0800
To: dpfor@drugsense.org
From: Arthur Livermore 
Subject: DPFOR: Medicinal pot's win in 5 states stuns backers
Sender: owner-dpfor@drugsense.org
Reply-To: dpfor@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/

http://www.oregonlive.com/todaysnews/9811/st110902.html

Medicinal pot's win in 5 states stuns backers

Friends and foes of the marijuana votes start weighing
how to best implement the laws

Monday, November 9, 1998

By Patrick O'Neill
of The Oregonian staff

Supporters of medicinal marijuana are still recovering from
their shock at winning a clean sweep in last week's
elections. At the same time, both supporters and
opponents are trying to figure out what such victories
mean for the future of marijuana, both medicinal and
recreational.

Voters in Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Nevada
approved the use of marijuana as medicine. In Arizona,
voters defeated a measure that would have blocked the
use of medicinal marijuana; in doing so, they approved the
use of drugs including marijuana, heroin and LSD for
medicinal purposes.

"It's amazing, it's amazing," said Dave Fratello, spokesman
for the Los Angeles-based Americans for Medical Rights,
the organization that gave technical and financial assistance
to backers of each state initiative. "I wasn't counting on
winning everything. . . . I've been nervous. In Nevada and
Washington, the newspaper polls showed us lower than
we needed to be.

"I think this is surprising a lot of people. It's going to take
a little while to sink in. The majority of voters in all parts of
America support this," Fratello said. "It's not just a fluke in
California or any of the states that passed it. It has
enormous implications for how the issue should be
addressed politically."

Americans for Medical Rights plans to back campaigns in
Colorado, Florida and Maine in 2000, he said.

Fratello said the range of options includes direct action by
Congress to push for reclassifying marijuana as a
beneficial drug and action by the federal Drug
Enforcement Administration and the Food and Drug
Administration to change their anti-marijuana regulations.

"The DEA got the biggest black eye out of these votes,"
he said. "That single agency has done more than any other
in the last 20 years to hold up research on medicinal
marijuana."

Study assessing medical value

The Institute of Medicine, the policy arm of the National
Academy of Sciences, has undertaken the most
comprehensive study to date of marijuana's usefulness as
a medicine. The study, being done at the request of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, is to assess what
is known and not known about the medical effects of the
drug. Results of the study are to be released sometime in
December.

Fratello, whose organization is heavily financed by
billionaire financier George Soros, said he thinks the votes
will put enormous pressure on Congress to legalize
marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Masquerades of compassion?

Don't be too sure about that, admonished Sen. Gordon
Smith, R-Ore., a vocal opponent of medicinal marijuana.
Smith said he wasn't particularly surprised by the vote
results.

"I don't think its surprising when you think how much
money was spent masquerading this issue in the clothes of
compassion," he said.

If Congress wants to change national policy on marijuana,
he said, "it will do it without my vote. I may be politically
incorrect, but I feel very strongly that these kinds of drugs
rob us of our free agency, of our future, of our ideals --
and that we should find every other way to promote
compassion and comfort and care."

Smith said he doesn't "fault the people who voted for this
with a heart full of compassion -- I have the same heart. I
just question their means."

What Oregon's law does

The Oregon measure requires the state Health Division to
issue registration cards to patients whose doctors
recommend marijuana as a treatment for conditions that
include nausea, wasting, muscle spasms and pain brought
on by debilitating diseases, including AIDS, cancer and
multiple sclerosis.

Under the law, a patient or caregiver could own as many
as seven marijuana plants, plus 1 ounce of usable
marijuana for each plant. The law doesn't specify where a
sick person might obtain the plants. Selling marijuana
would still be against the law. Backers of the law say
those who now grow plants illegally for medicinal
purposes probably will give plants away when the law
takes effect.

Although the Health Division won't have the registration
system in place until May 1, the law can be used as a
defense in court when it goes into effect on Dec. 3.

Phil Lemman, executive director of the Oregon Criminal
Justice Commission, predicts that the Legislature will
amend the Oregon law.

"There will be some move in the Legislature to tighten up
some of this stuff -- limiting (medical) conditions or
requiring that patients exhaust other avenues of treatment,"
he said.

Legislative maneuvers

But Oregon's legislative leaders said they first will monitor
the law, which won in 16 of the state's 36 counties.

"I'm disappointed that this has occurred," said Sen. Brady
Adams, R-Grants Pass, state Senate president. "I
personally did not support it. But the voters have spoken."

Adams said he probably will assign responsibility of
monitoring the law to health and human services or
judiciary committees. If it becomes apparent that the law
should be amended, Adams said, the Legislature would
conduct hearings into the issue.

"I think it's important that the Legislature be respectful of
the results of the ballot box, no matter how strongly we
might feel about a particular issue," he said. "Those in
leadership positions have the responsibility to implement
it."

Rep. Lynn Lundquist, R-Powell Butte, the House
speaker, said he, too, opposed the measure but doubts
that the Legislature will try to change it.

"The Legislature will look at it and see if there are any
problems with it," he said. "And if there are, we'll try to fix
them." Lundquist said, however, that the "mood of the
Legislature is to simply help implement the legislation."

Federal prohibitions still apply

Even though the measures legalize medicinal marijuana
under state law, U.S. Department of Justice officials are
quick to point out that possession, cultivation and
distribution of the drug still violate federal law.

Gregory King, a Justice Department spokesman in
Washington, D.C., said the newly passed initiatives have
"no impact" on federal anti-marijuana laws.

In theory at least, federal agents could swoop down on
sick Oregonians who are growing marijuana legally under
state law and prosecute them for breaking federal law.

King said that's not likely to happen. Federal agents
haven't arrested individual medicinal marijuana users in
California, where medical use of the drug has been legal
for two years. There, the federal government has not
prosecuted anyone for possessing or growing small
amounts of medicinal marijuana, though it has shut down
marijuana clubs.

Michael Schrunk, Multnomah Countys district attorney,
said that with passage of the Oregon law, police will have
to investigate each marijuana possession case more
thoroughly.

Before deciding to prosecute a case, he said, "We'll have
to come up with evidence that the law isn't applicable. It's
going to take a case-by-case analysis. We're not going to
come out with a policy that says there will be no more
marijuana prosecution."

The district attorney said he's anxious to see how defense
attorneys will use the law.

"My suspicion is that it (the law) is going to become a tool
of advocacy in prosecutions and that it will be raised no
matter what the original contemplated use (of the
marijuana) is."

Michelle Burrows, a Portland attorney who defends
clients in marijuana cases, said she wouldn't use an
inappropriate defense because of the threat of censure.

But as for raising the issue of medical necessity as a
defense, she said, "Any good defense attorney is going to
look for any defense that's available."

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

Truck drivers now supervising inmate deliveries in cost-cutting plan
(The Associated Press says the Oregon Department of Corrections,
in order to save money, now allows inmates who help deliver laundry
to hospitals, schools and nursing homes to be supervised by truck drivers
instead of corrections officers.)

From: "sburbank" (sburbank@orednet.org)
To: (dpfor@drugsense.org)
Subject: Re: DPFOR: Truck drivers now supervising
inmate deliveries incost-cutting plan
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 07:02:29 -0800
Sender: owner-dpfor@drugsense.org
Reply-To: dpfor@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/

I couldn't believe it when I read this last night. They are more worried
about the guards not being able to drive the truck because they are not
properly trained, then they are about the drivers, who are not trained as
guards. I wonder which is more predictable, the trucks or the prisoners.
Are they saying that the guards can't be trained as drivers?

If these prisoners are as harmless as this implies, why are they in prison
in the first place.

Oh ya, I forgot. Probably prisoners of the drug war.

Sandee

***

Cc: editor@mapinc.org; dpfor@drugsense.org
Subject: DPFOR: Truck drivers now supervising
inmate deliveries incost-cutting plan
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 11:53 PM

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

Truck drivers now supervising inmate deliveries in cost-cutting plan

The Associated Press
11/10/98 4:05 AM

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- In a cost-cutting move, inmates who help deliver
laundry to hospitals, schools and nursing homes now are supervised by truck
drivers instead of corrections officers, prison officials have confirmed.

Starting this month, as many as 10 inmates a day will be let out of
minimum-custody prisons in Salem, supervised by truck drivers who run routes
from the Oregon State Penitentiary's laundry.

Those inmates had been guarded by certified corrections officers who also
operated the trucks.

"They made a business decision to try to operate cheaper," said Gary
Harkins, president of the Association of Oregon Correctional Employees.

"But we are sworn to let the public know when their safety is at risk. If
we're going to have felons out in the community, they should be supervised
by staff that is trained to deal with them."

David S. Cook, Department of Corrections director, confirmed that the move
was intended to cut costs but said there is no additional safety risk
because the drivers have been trained.

"If we thought this was an unsafe practice, we would not be doing it," Cook
said. "We have a lot of history that says if (truck drivers) are properly
trained, they can do this job safely, and we can have the kind of outcome we
have when corrections officers are driving."

Cook said the move was prompted after several accidents involving the
laundry delivery trucks. He said the shift to professional drivers was
intended to reduce the cost of damaged vehicles and save money on
corrections officer salaries.

"It's a trade-off," Cook said. "We're making the best of a situation by
choosing to downsize the risk of people who don't drive professionally and
having truck drivers supervising inmates."

Harkins said the change would save the corrections department about $2,000 a
month.

"That's not a lot of money when you think about the increased risk out
there," said Harkins, who does not believe the truck drivers have been
properly trained to deal with inmates.

"They have no security skills," he said. "If the inmates were to start a
fight or run off, the only thing the truck drivers are told to do is call
9-1-1. They're not trained to break up fights. They are told to back away
and go get some help. A corrections officer is trained to intervene and deal
with the problem right then and there."

The truck drivers and other corrections employees who are called upon to
supervise inmate activities receive 88 hours of training, corrections
officials said.

Even so, the change has prompted the Association of Oregon Correctional
Employees to send warning letters this week to customers of Mill Creek
Laundry, the prison system's largest commercial laundry.

Customers include Oregon State University, OHSU Hospital, the Salem Clinic,
Oregon State Hospital in Salem and Portland, and two school districts.

"The (corrections department) classifies these inmates as minimum custody
inmates," the letter reads. "They are still felons with convictions ranging
from murder, molestation, rape assault to other sex crimes and drug
offenses."

But Cook said the inmates chosen for such assignments have proven records of
good behavior, and many are nearing release. He said other minimum security
inmates are working outside prison walls and are supervised by people other
than corrections officers.

(c)1998 Oregon Live LLC

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

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

The Chavez Trial (The Orange County Register covers the trial of Marvin
Chavez, the medical marijuana patient and founder of the Orange County
Patient Doctor Nurse Support Group, on trafficking charges. Judge Thomas
J. Borris allowed jurors to hear references to Prop. 215, the medical
marijuana initiative voters passed in 1996, but will not make a final ruling
as to what laws the jury will be allowed to consider as relevant to the
charges until the end of the case.)

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 18:12:04 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: The Chavez Trial
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: 10 Nov 1998

THE CHAVEZ TRIAL

The trial of Marvin Chavez on marijuana sales and transportation charges
began on schedule yesterday in Judge Thomas J. Borris courtroom in
Westminster. Amid numerous questions, sparring by the attorneys for both
sides and occasional conferences in the judge's chambers, the prosecution
and defense gave their opening arguments to the jury and the first
witnesses were called.

Most compelling, the judge allowed jurors to hear references to Prop. 215,
the medical marijuana initiative voters passed in 1996 - a change from an
earlier judge's decision.

Judge Borris, however, will not make a final ruling as to what laws the
jury will be allowed to consider as relevant to the charges until the end
of the case. But if jurors are permitted to weigh the issue of medical
marijuana and Prop. 215 (now Section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety
Code), not only Mr. Chavez but the entire issue will receive consideration
beyond that of previous court proceedings.

Deputy District Attorney Carl Armbrust told the jury the case was simple.
His office has evidence of nine instances when Marvin Chavez sold marijuana
to individuals and undercover officers and one instance when Mr. Chavez
sent marijuana through the mail. Selling or mailing marijuana is against
the law, and the evidence will show that Mr. Chavez did it.

Defense Attorney James Silva told the jury the case would be much more
interesting than that. The jury would be told about Mr. Chavez's rare
medical condition, about the relief he got from smoking marijuana, with
fewer side-effects than from prescription medications, and how Mr. Chavez
had helped to form the Orange County Patient Doctor Nurse Support Group to
help patients learn more about marijuana and work out ways to acquire it.

The defense said it didn't plan to contest allegations that Mr. Chavez had
supplied marijuana to Thomas Jerry Pollard, for a friend of his now dead of
cancer, or Glen Hoffer, but would explain that the circumstances
represented a bona fide effort to operate within the law, Prop. 215.

Mr. Pollard testified under a grant of immunity. Mr. Armbrust asked him if
Mr. Chavez had furnished marijuana to him or to his friend and if Mr.
Chavez or his associate, David Herrick, had received money, on more than
one occasion. Mr. Pollard acknowledged that had been the case, but said the
money was a donation.

The defense asked what Mr. Pollard's relationship had been to his friend
and whether the friend's doctor had recommended marijuana, which Mr.Pollard
said was the case. The fact that Mr. Pollard and his friends had to
identify themselves, fill out forms, get their photos taken and be issued
membership cards before marijuana was furnished was discussed. Mr. Pollard
said he was told the donations were to keep the club going and that he had
received marijuana on several occasions without making a donation.

The next witness was David Reyes, an undercover officer with the Garden
Grove Police Department. He said he was first brought into the case to
investigate a Jack Schanchter, described as an associate of Mr. Chavez, and
eventually posed as the nephew and caretaker of another undercover officer
who told Mr. Chavez of back pain and furnished a false doctor's letter.

At an evidentiary hearing, out of the presence of the jury, the court heard
from a Dr. Del Dalton, a pain management specialist who furnished a
physician's recommendation to many of the members of Mr. Chavez's support
group and others, and from Mr. Hoffer, who had received a recommendation
and joined Mr. Chavez's organization. The attorneys explored to what extent
Mr. Chavez functioned as Mr. Hoffer's caregiver. The hearing, to determine
ground rules under which Dr. Dalton and Mr. Hoffer could appear before the
jury, will continue this morning.

This case has the potential to begin what is likely to be a difficult
process of furnishing ground rules to determine how Section 11362.5 will be
implemented and under what circumstances patients who have a legal right to
possess and use marijuana may actually acquire it. We will continue to
follow it.

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

Pot Club's Owner Cites Prop 215 (A second article in The Orange County
Register on the same trial says Superior Court Judge Thomas Borris has
already tentatively ruled that Chavez is legally a caregiver under Prop. 215,
but only for two of the 10 sale or transportation charges he faces.)

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 18:18:04 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: MMJ: Pot Club's Owner Cites Prop 215
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: 10 Nov 1998
Author: John McDonald-OCR

POT CLUB'S OWNER CITES PROP 215

Courts: If the judge allows the defence in the medical-marijuana co-op
founder's trial. It would be a first.

The marijuana-sale trial of Orange County Cannabis Co-Op founder Marvin
Chavez opened with testimony from a physician on why Chavez should be
allowed to defend himself under provisions of Proposition 215, which allows
for medical use of the drug.

If permitted, the defense would be the first in California under the 1996
measure.

Superior Court Judge Thomas Borris has already tentatively ruled that
Chavez is legally a caregiver under Prop. 215, but only for two of the 10
sale or transportation charges he faces.

Borris has also allowed defense lawyers James Silva and J. David Nick to
ask prosecution witnesses about their medical reasons for buying pot from
Chavez.

The physician said he referred about 250 patients to the co-op.

"Under Prop. 215 I can only recommend it (marijuana use)," said De. Del
Dalton, an anesthesiologist from Laguna Niguel. "What I'd like to do is
prescribe it on a milligrams-per-day basis. Right now there is no way to do
that."

Deputy District Attorney Carl Armbrust maintains that sale of marijuana is
not sanctioned by Prop. 215.

The first witness to testify before the jury was Fountain Valley landscaper
Thomas Pollard. Pollard described how an old friend, who had been best man
at his wedding, was terminally stricken with cancer.

"The marijuana was not helping his condition but it was making him feel a
lot better" by relieving the pain from chemotherapy, Pollard testified.

Pollard testified earlier this year at the trial of co-op officer David
Herrick, but was barred from describing his friend's medical need for
marijuana.

Herrick, a retired San Bernardino County deputy sheriff, lost his bid to
use a Prop. 215 defense, and was convicted and sentenced to four years in
prison.

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

Letter to Gray Davis (A letter to the Governor-elect of California
from California NORML asks the Democratic victor to support efforts
to fulfill the mandate of Proposition 215 to assure "safe and affordable"
access to medical marijuana for all patients in need; to consider measures
to reduce the number of marijuana prisoners, which increased 1,200 percent
during 16 years of Republican misrule with no change in marijuana use rates;
and to support decriminalizing cultivation of small amounts of cannabis
for personal use, as recommended by the state Research Advisory Panel
in 1990.)

Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 22:06:58 -0800
To: dpfca@drugsense.org, natlnorml@aol.com
From: canorml@igc.apc.org (Dale Gieringer)
Subject: DPFCA: Letter to Gray Davis
Sender: owner-dpfca@drugsense.org
Reply-To: dpfca@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/

Nov. 10, 1998

Gov.-Elect Gray Davis
980 - 9th St. #1800
Sacramento CA 95814

Dear Gov.-Elect Davis:

Congratulations on your election! We are glad that Californians
have chosen a governor committed to moderate progress, rather than divisive
obstructionism.

We are also glad that voters in seven states approved nine out of
nine drug reform initiatives to legalize medical use of marijuana and
eliminate prison sentences for minor drug offenders.

We hope you will support efforts to fulfill the mandate of
Proposition 215 to assure "safe and affordable" access to medical marijuana
for all patients in medical need. The recent closure of medical cannabis
dispensaries in Oakland and San Francisco has left thousands of Bay Area
medical marijuana patients without safe and reliable sources of medicine.
The interests of public health and safety militate for establishing a legal
distribution system. Insofar as it is likely to require several years for
the federal government to establish a fully legalized distribution system
through pharmacies, the best interim solution may be to allow for locally
regulated, non-profit medical patients' cooperatives.

We hope you will also consider measures to reduce California's
excessive number of marijuana prisoners. Sixteen years of Republican
misrule have brought a 1,200% increase in the number of marijuana
prisoners; despite this, the use of marijuana remains largely unchanged.
Taxpayers do not want law enforcement resources wasted locking up pot
smokers: last week, Oregonians voted 2 - 1 against recriminalizing
marijuana.

A problem with California's current marijuana laws is that they
treat small-scale home cultivation as a felony. The result is to
encourage otherwise law-abiding users to patronize criminal traffickers
rather than risk arrest for growing their own at home. This perverse
incentive should be eliminated by decriminalizing personal use cultivation,
as recommended by the state Research Advisory Panel in 1990. This policy
has been successfully applied in Australia, where it has been found to
decrease the costs of enforcement without increasing the use of marijuana.

We urge you to undertake a careful review of the drug enforcement
policies of your predecessors. We believe an impartial analysis will show
that they have done more to create crime than reduce it.

Sincerely,

Dale H. Gieringer, Ph.D.
Coordinator


cc: Sen. John Vasconcellos
Sen. John Burton
Assy. Carole Migden
Assy. Antonio Villaraigosa


***

Dale Gieringer (415) 563-5858 // canorml@igc.apc.org
2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114

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

Justices Let Two Sue Irvine Police (The Orange County Register
says the US Supreme Court reinstated the lawsuit by two Orange County men
against police in Irvine, California, on the grounds that officers illegally
obtained their blood samples after arresting them on suspicion of drunken
driving. Attorney Jeffrey Wertheimer, who represents the city of Irvine,
said the court's decision would not change police DUI policies.)

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:31:20 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Justices Let Two Sue Irvine Police
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: 10 Nov. 1998
Author: Susan Kelleher-OCR

JUSTICES LET TWO SUE IRVINE POLICE

Law: Supreme Court reinstates case filed by men who say officers illegally
took blood samples for DUI tests.

The U.S. Supreme Court gave two Orange County men the green light to
sue Irvine police on the grounds that officers illegally obtained
blood samples from the men after arresting them on suspicion of
drunken driving.

Mauricio Baez Fernandez and Jeffrey Capler accuse police of forcing
them to undergo blood tests to measure alcohol levels, though they
requested breath tests instead. The men could not be reached for comment.

The court's decision is "a vindication of individual liberty and
stands for the proposition that no one is above the law, not even the
police," said attorney Barry T. Simons, who filed the federal suit in
1996 and is seeking to have it certified as a class-action suit.

The suit, which seeks unspecified damages and a court order banning
the alleged abuse of blood tests, says police violated state law and
the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable
search and seizure.

A federal judge dismissed the suit when it was filed, but it was
reinstated in May by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The city
appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which denied the appeal Monday.

Attorney Jeffrey Wertheimer, who represents the city of Irvine, said
the court's decision would not change police DUI policies because
officers always read a list of testing options and allow suspects to
pick one. When they don't choose, he said, police usually select blood
tests. Police followed that policy in the cases brought to the Supreme
Court, he said

People suspected of drunken driving must allow police to measure their
blood-alcohol content.

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

Marijuana Vote Secret Pending Dec. 18 Hearing (The Washington Post
says US District Judge Richard W. Roberts refused yesterday to order
the immediate release of results from last week's vote on a medical marijuana
initiative in the District of Columbia in order to take a comprehensive look
at the legal issues.)

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:12:51 -0700 (MST)
From: "Colo. Hemp Init. Project" (cohip@levellers.org)
To: "Colo. Hemp Init. Project" (cohip@levellers.org)
Subject: D.C. I-59 Vote to Remain Secret (11/10/98)
Washington Post
Tuesday, November 10, 1998; Page D03
Web: http://www.washingtonpost.com

MARIJUANA VOTE SECRET PENDING DEC. 18 HEARING

By Bill Miller Washington Post Staff Writer

A federal judge refused yesterday to order the immediate release of results
from last week's vote on a medical marijuana initiative in the District, a
move that means the outcome will remain a mystery for at least five more
weeks.

Despite protests from D.C. officials, who said residents have a right to
know immediately how they voted, U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts said
he wants to take a comprehensive look at the legal issues stemming from an
act of Congress that has put the future of Initiative 59 on hold.

The ruling was a setback for D.C. officials and leaders of the American
Civil Liberties Union, who went to court to challenge a congressional
amendment that bars the District from spending money on any initiative that
would "legalize or otherwise reduce" penalties for users of marijuana.
Initiative 59 would permit seriously ill people to use marijuana for medical
purposes. Lawyers for the city and the ACLU wanted a temporary restraining
order to learn the results, a first step in a fight to have the election
results certified.

"I am offended that my own vote cannot be counted, and I am sure that
everybody else in this room is offended that their own votes cannot be
counted," D.C. Corporation Counsel John M. Ferren said during a hearing
before Roberts yesterday. Ferren said 137,523 D.C. residents voted, adding,
"Every day we are not having these ballots counted, our rights are
violated."

Lawyers for the D.C. government and ACLU argued that the congressional
action, sponsored by Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R-Ga.), violates the First
Amendment rights of D.C. residents to vote and be heard on an important
issue.

The judge set a hearing for Dec. 18 so that lawyers for the District, the
ACLU and perhaps Congress can prepare briefs and arguments on the issues.
Justice Department lawyers said they needed two weeks to decide whether to
enter the dispute on behalf of Congress, and they urged Roberts not to order
the release of the tally.

Because ballots had been printed by the time Congress passed Barr's
amendment on Oct. 21, the vote still took place. A computer automatically
tallied results, following a preset program, but it didn't output the
Initiative 59 count. D.C. officials said doing so would entail a push of a
button -- and $1.64 in labor.

Voters in five states passed similar initiatives last week. Congress moved
to block the measure in only one place -- the District -- acting in its role
as the final decision-maker on D.C. budget issues.

Ferren said it was "virtually silly" for Congress to act before the election
because Congress has veto power over D.C. legislation. The initiative's
supporters said they want to know the vote now so they can begin a campaign
that would urge Congress to honor the wishes of D.C. residents.

(c) Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

***

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
1) Call the president and your representatives and senators and tell
them you are appalled that they have prevented the votes on I-59 from
being released. Tell them to pass legislation immediately that will allow
the D.C. Board of Elections to spend the $1.64 they estimate it would
cost to release the votes for I-59 and allow the BoE to spend whatever
money is needed to officially certify the passage of I-59.

President Bill Clinton
(202) 456-1111
U.S. House of Representatives
(202) 225-3121
U.S. Senate
(202) 224-3121

Directory of U.S. Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/senator/membmail.html
http://www.earthlaw.org/Activist/senatadd.htm

Directory of U.S. Representatives:
http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/mbrcmtee.htm
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

***

2) Write a letter to the editor of your local newspapers about this
outrageous attempt at election fraud.
Send a copy to cohip@levellers.org and dcsign59@aol.com

To find your local papers, see:
http://www.newspaperlinks.com/
http://dir.yahoo.com/News_and_Media/Newspapers/

For help with writing letters to the editor, see:
http://www.mapinc.com

***

3) Make a donation to help fund the campaign to release and certify I-59.
Stand up for your right to vote!!!

Yes on 59 Campaign
Wayne Turner
409 H Street N.E. - Suite #1
Washington, D.C. 20002-4335
Phone: (202) 547-9404
Fax: (202) 547-9448

***

Initiative 59 Web Page
http://www.actupdc.org

Background on Congress trying to prohibit this D.C. Election:
http://www.levellers.org/dcstat.htm

For more information about the struggle for Home Rule in DC, see:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/freedc.htm
http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/dckill.htm

***

Protect the Patients!

***

ACT UP! FIGHT BACK! FIGHT AIDS!
ACT UP! FIGHT BACK! FIGHT AIDS!
ACT UP! FIGHT BACK! FIGHT AIDS!

***

Distributed by:
Colorado Citizens for Compassionate Cannabis
P.O. Box 729
Nederland, CO 80466
Phone: (303) 448-5640
Email: cohip@levellers.org
Web: http://www.levellers.org/cannabis.html
To get on our mailing list, send an email with the word SUBSCRIBE in the
title.

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

Good News? / Drug Courts (One list subscriber is reticent
about criticizing drug courts. Another says they are a desperate measure
to save prohibition, and a self-evident pointer to the fact that drug
"crimes" are not crimes at all.)

Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 21:53:21 -0500
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: Mike Gogulski (mike-map@cat.net)
Subject: Re: Good News? / Drug Courts
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

Lee Neidow wrote:

>I try to avoid telling anyone what to think. If anyone feels that
>drug courts and rehab efforts are a bad idea, then they should
>enthusiasticly support efforts to build more prisons, because that's
>the only alternative. And they oughta buy blocks of stock in the private
>prison industry, the fastest growing enterprise in the country.

Though I agree that drug court is preferable to criminal court, I disagree
with the thrust of this.

Drug courts seem to be to have been developed as a desperate measure to
save prohibition. The criminal courts are clearly clogged with drug cases,
and the prisons are overcrowded. The justice system had to adapt to this
huge influx of cases, and so created drug courts.

In a larger sense, drug courts are a self-evident pointer to the fact that
drug "crimes" are not crimes at all, and shouldn't be tried in criminal
courts.

Peace,
Mike

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

US nabs cocaine-laden Colombian air force plane (According to Reuters,
Colombian President Andres Pastrana accepted the resignation of Air Force
chief Gen. Manuel Sandoval late Tuesday after a Colombian air force plane
was seized at a Florida airport with more than 1,600 pounds of cocaine.)

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 09:35:22 -0500
From: Scott Dykstra (rumba2@earthlink.net)
Reply-To: rumba2@earthlink.net
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: US Nabs Columbian Air Force Aircraft w/coke
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

06:51 PM ET 11/10/98

U.S. nabs cocaine-laden Colombian air force plane

(Recasts with air force chief's resignation)

By Tom Brown

BOGOTA, (Reuters) - A Colombian air force plane was seized
at a Florida airport with more than 1,600 pounds of cocaine,
forcing a top-ranking officer to resign in disgrace Tuesday over
an incident that reinforced Colombia's drug-tainted image
abroad.

Government officials said President Andres Pastrana accepted
the resignation of Air Force chief Gen. Manuel Sandoval late
Tuesday after summoning him to the presidential palace to
discuss the incident, the second involving drug-smuggling and
the air force since 1996.

``This has hurt our image, and not just the image of the air
force,'' a grim-faced Sandoval told reporters before entering
the meeting.

U.S. Customs officials and drug agents discovered the
cocaine on Monday in the cargo bay of a Colombian Air Force
C-130 ``Hercules'' transport plane, after it landed at the Fort
Lauderdale International Airport outside Miami.

A customs spokesman said a total of 1,639 pounds of cocaine,
with a wholesale value in the United States of $12.7 million,
were seized.

Sandoval said the plane had been searched by drug-sniffing
dogs before it took off from Bogota's Catam military air base.

The general had told a news conference early Tuesday that as
air force commander he assumed all responsibility and was
willing to leave the post to which he was promoted last August,
two days after President Andres Pastrana was sworn into office.

``I answer for all my men ... In this case, as commander, I
must take responsibility,'' Sandoval said.

Spokesmen for the armed forces said Sandoval would be
replaced, effective Wednesday, by deputy Air Force chief Gen.
Hector Fabio Velasco.

In Miami, the U.S. Customs Service said inspectors examined
three pallets of cargo and five empty pallets on board the
aircraft, which was carrying a crew of six and a family of five
as passengers.

``Inspectors noticed that some of the large metal aircraft
pallets had unusual rivets and smelled of fresh glue,'' it said.
A sniffer dog was brought in and alerted them to the presence of
drugs.

Customs inspectors drilled into the pallets and discovered a
white powder which field tested positive for cocaine. The
inspectors then dismantled the pallets and discovered the
cocaine.

Sandoval said the plane's crew, headed by two lieutenant
colonels, had been detained for questioning about the drug
shipment. But U.S. Customs said later the crew and passengers
were released and that no arrests were made.

In Washington, where Pastrana paid a state visit late last
month, State Department spokesman James Rubin sought to play
down the embarrassment to Colombia and said the aircraft's crew
members were cooperating fully with U.S. investigators.

``This incident need have no effect whatsoever on our views
of President Pastrana's determination to work with us to fight
the export of drugs from Colombia,'' Rubin said.

Colombia is the source of about 80 percent of the world's
cocaine and is an increasingly important supplier of the heroin
sold on U.S. streets.

Just last week, three junior Colombian air force officers
were sentenced to 7-1/2-year prison terms for conspiring to
smuggle nearly nine pounds of heroin to the United States
aboard Colombia's presidential jet.

The heroin was discovered in the nose section of the jet on
Sept. 20, 1996, shortly before it was due to fly then-President
Ernesto Samper to a U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York.

The judge who handed down last week's sentence said there
was evidence of involvement by senior air force personnel in the
drug trade, and referred in his ruling to the existence of a
so-called ``blue drug cartel'' -- a reference to the color of
Colombian air force uniforms.

Sandoval denied any large-scale military involvement in the
drug trade, saying it was unfair to blame an entire institution
for a few bad elements. But he conceded, based on Monday's
evidence, that ``a small number of people are committing crimes
inside the air force.''

Armed Forces chief Gen. Fernando Tapias, who was widely
believed to have ordered Sandoval's removal, said the drug
incident filled the entire military with a sense of ``disbelief,
indignation and moral suffering.''

``All corrupt elements will be extracted and kicked out of
the armed forces,'' Tapias said, vowing to crack down on
trafficking and any other illicit activity in the ranks of
Colombia's military.

REUTERS

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

Colombia Air Force Chief Resigns Over Drug Flap (A different Reuters version)

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 11:11:47 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Colombia: WIRE: Colombia Air Force Chief Resigns Over Drug Flap
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Patrick Henry (resist_tyranny@mapinc.org)
Pubdate: Tue, 10 Nov 1998
Source: Reuters
Copyright: 1998 Reuters Limited

COLOMBIA AIR FORCE CHIEF RESIGNS OVER DRUG FLAP

BOGOTA - Colombia's Air Force chief resigned in disgrace Tuesday after
saying he felt personally responsible for the embarrassment caused by
a huge cocaine shipment found aboard an air force plane seized at a
Florida airport, authorities said.

Spokesmen for President Andres Pastrana said he accepted the
resignation of Gen. Manuel Sandoval, shortly after summoning him to
the presidential palace to discuss the international incident
involving about 1,400 pounds (640 kg) of cocaine.

U.S. Customs officials and drug agents discovered the cocaine Monday
in the cargo bay of a Colombian Air Force C-130 ''Hercules'' transport
plane, after it landed at the Fort Lauderdale International Airport
outside Miami.

A grim-faced Sandoval had told a news conference early Tuesday that as
air force commander he assumed all responsibility and had offered to
step down from the post to which he was promoted last August, two days
after Pastrana was sworn into office.

"This has hurt our image, and not just the image of the air force,''
he said.

"I answer for all my men... In this case, as commander, I must take
responsibility,'' Sandoval said.

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

Customs Agents Find Cocaine On Colombian Air Force Plane (The CNN version)

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:05:21 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Customs Agents Find Cocaine On Colombian Air Force Plane
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Jim Galasyn
Source: CNN (US)
Contact: cnn.feedback@cnn.com
Website: http://www.cnn.com/
Copyright: 1998 Cable News Network, Inc. A Time Warner Company
Pubdate: 10 Nov 1998

CUSTOMS AGENTS FIND COCAINE ON COLOMBIAN AIR FORCE PLANE

FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida (CNN) -- U.S. Customs Service agents held a
Colombian Air Force cargo plane in Florida Tuesday, while investigators
tried to determine why 1,639 pounds of cocaine was hidden on board. Customs
agents were conducting a routine search of the plane Monday when they
noticed unusual rivets and the smell of fresh glue on several metal cargo
pallets on the C-130 transport. That prompted them to bring drug-sniffing
dogs on board. Based on the dogs' reactions, the agents drilled holes in
four pallets and found the cocaine inside.

Customs officials estimate that if drug dealers sold the 1,639 pounds
wholesale in south Florida, it could have brought $12.7 million.

The six crew members and a family of five on board were questioned and
released Tuesday. No direct evidence could be found connecting them with
the drugs. No one has been arrested. The passengers and crew were
cooperating with the investigation, according to the State Department.

U.S. Customs Commissioner Raymond Kelly called the incident "disturbing"
but said his agency is getting cooperation from the Colombian government.

U.S. State Department Spokesman James Rubin said Tuesday, "The Colombian
government has been notified and has been fully cooperating with this
investigation from the start. ... This incident need have no effect
whatsoever on our views of President (Andres) Pastrana's determination to
work with us to fight the importation -- export of drugs from Colombia."

General offers resignation Colombia's Air Force Chief Gen. Manuel Sandoval
offered his resignation over the incident, but he denied the Air Force was
systematically involved in drug trafficking.

"In this case, as commander, I assume the responsibility," he said. "I have
submitted my resignation to the president of the republic."

Three junior Air Force officers were sentenced last week in Colombia to
prison terms for a 1996 incident in which 4 kilograms of heroin was found
aboard Colombia's presidential jet shortly before it was to fly former
President Ernesto Samper to New York for a meeting of the U.N. General
Assembly.

The judge who handed down the sentence said there was evidence of
involvement by senior Air Force officers in drug trafficking and referred
to the existence of a "blue cartel," a reference to the color of Colombian
Air Force uniforms.

Colombia is the world's leading cocaine producer and an increasingly
important supplier of the heroin sold on U.S. streets. The United States is
the world's largest market for illicit drugs.

The cargo plane makes several trips to Fort Lauderdale each month from
Colombia to pick up supplies and has been searched before, Customs
officials said. This is the first time drugs have been found.

A State Department official said the flight was carrying equipment for
repair in the United States, including an aircraft engine and three small
crates with aircraft parts.

Reuters contributed to this report.

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

The Politics Of Prescribed Prohibition (An excellent op-ed
in The Canberra Times, in Australia, notes the scientific and scholarly
evidence we have about drugs and drug use are routinely overlooked in favour
of policies based on ideas that are the intellectual and academic equivalent
of a belief in witchcraft. The overwhelming bulk of scientific and scholarly
evidence suggests that prohibition has greatly exacerbated the problems
associated with drugs, drug use and drug users. Even so there are still those
who try to argue that reliance on prohibition has prevented an explosion in
availability and usage, and that any change in policy would send out
the wrong message. There is no evidence to support this. Indeed,
what evidence there is suggests the exact opposite.)

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:30:59 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Australia: OPED: The Politics Of Prescribed Prohibition
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: kenbo01@ozemail.com.au (Ken Russell)
Pubdate: Tue, 10 Nov 1998
Source: Canberra Times (Australia)
Page: 7-8
Contact: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au
Website: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/
Author: Michael Booth (mjb@comserver.canberra.edu.au)

THE POLITICS OF PRESCRIBED PROHIBITION

The evidence about drug use is often overlooked when it comes to
making decisions about drug control, as MICHAEL BOOTH reports.

GOOD politics, it is often said, is about good policy, and, good
policy often depends upon our scientific knowledge of the relevant
issues.

One area where this adage definitely does not apply is drug policy.
Here, unfortunately, the scientific and scholarly evidence we have
about drugs and drug use are routinely overlooked in favour of
policies based on ideas that are the intellectual and academic
equivalent of a belief in witchcraft.

It is difficult for many people to understand why another human might
smoke tobacco, drink alcohol, or inject substances to the point where
their wealth, health, or indeed their life itself is placed at risk.
Regardless of what motivates people to use drugs, however, we do in
fact know a surprising amount about the people who use different
drugs, the drugs they use, and the ways they use them.

The evidence tells us that the overwhelming majority of humans are
drug users of one sort of another. Almost everybody consumes some sort
of mood-altering drug, whether it is chocolate, tea or coffee,
alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, opiates, stimulants, hallucinogens or a
substance prescribed for them by a medical practitioner.

The true deviants (statistically speaking), are those who never
consume any mood-altering substance at all. Indeed, there has probably
never been a human culture without some form of intoxicating substance
available to its inhabitants.

The same evidence also tells us that for the overwhelming majority of
people, their drug use, whether illegal or legal, medical or
non-medical, will remain a relatively harmless activity with few or no
adverse consequences. Indeed, for many people drug use will be
something from which they derive considerable benefits, both real and
perceived.

We also know that drug use is largely an activity for young people.
The years of experimentation and exploration are largely restricted to
the teenage years and the early 20s. If people get to their mid-20s
without trying a drug then they will most likely go through the rest
of their lives without ever trying it.

Of people who do try a particular drug, only a minority will go on to
become regular users, and an even smaller proportion, will develop any
kind of dependence on a drug. Even dependent users retain the capacity
to control and modify their drug taking in response to a variety of
factors, the most powerful one of which appears to be age. By the time
most dependent drug users reach their mid 30s they will modify and
reduce their drug use of their own accord, and the rate at which they
do this appears to be largely independent of the external conditions
in which they are living.

Opiate dependent people appear to give up the drug at approximately
the same rate whether they are in a rehabilitation program, in prison,
or left to their own devices with a regular and assured supply. The
proportion of ex-smokers in a population increases as the population
ages. As some authorities have put it, there appear to be natural
levels of drug-use among people that are largely independent of the
legal, economic, political and cultural conditions that have
determined how and where drugs are grown, marketed and
distributed.

This is not to argue that these factors are unimportant - merely that
there are probably natural limits below which is almost certainly
impossible to reduce drug use, regardless of the persuasive or
coercive efforts on the part of the state.

The evidence also tells us about the various attempts by governments
and states to control and restrict drug use. As late as 1900, all the
drugs that we are now called to have zero-tolerance for were perfectly
legal.

Attempts to restrict and control drugs were motivated by baser
political motives. Historical studies have dispelled the myth that
some drugs were banned because of the damage caused by them. Rather
the ban on some drugs emerged as the bastard child of social reform,
the temperance movement, religious fundamentalism, out and out racism
and the real politik of international diplomacy in the age of Empires.

The early treaties aimed at curbing the opium trade, for instance,
were motivated by as much by international pressure to curb the
influence of the British in Asia as they were by the domestic need to
exclude the cultural group most associated with opium - the Chinese.
The bans on cannabis were first implemented in American states where
large Hispanic populations lived and worked. The laws against cocaine
can be traced in large part to fears of African-Americans in the
southern states of America.

Under the international auspices of the United States in particular,
the world has become locked into an approach to drugs that is
dominated by prohibition. This has been particularly evident in the
years since the World War II, when America's undisputed superpower
status enabled it to impose its prohibitionist domestic policies on
the rest of the world as well. As a result of US influence, the world
is now confronted by a towering wall of prohibition that is, to all
intents and purposes, unassailable.

We know that the availability and cost of illicit drugs do not appear
to have been restricted by the world-wide legal prohibitions on
manufacture, distribution, and consumption. On the contrary, all the
available evidence about illicit drugs informs us that weaker and
dilute forms of drug have been replaced by ever concentrated varieties
- opium by heroin, cocoa by cocaine and then crack, marijuana leaf by
seedless buds.

This is not new. During the prohibition of alcohol in America in the
1920s and 1980s, distilled spirits replaced beer and wine.

At the same time as the potency of illicit drugs has increased, real
prices have fallen, and ever increasing quantities are being produced
and distributed. And this while ever increasing resources have been
committed to enforcing the prohibition.

The record of 80 or so years of prohibition as the major tool for
governments to control and regulate drug use has been an abject
failure. The overwhelming bulk of scientific and scholarly evidence
suggests that prohibition has greatly exacerbated the problems
associated with drugs, drug use and drug users.

Even so there are still those who try to argue that reliance on
prohibition has prevented an explosion in availability and usage, and
that any change in policy would send out the wrong message.

There is no evidence to support this. Indeed, what evidence there is
suggests the exact opposite.

The Dutch experience shows that possession and small-scale trafficking
of cannabis can be effectively ignored. Indeed it can be tolerated,
permitted, and taxed without society failing apart in a cloud of
marijuana smoke. The Dutch have lower levels of cannabis use among
their citizens than countries where the ban on possession and
small-scale trafficking is much more heavily enforced.

Those people who think about drug policies must deal with one basic
question: Do they agree that the overwhelming bulk of scientific and
scholarly evidence suggests that our current approach to drugs is
unscientific and inadequate?

There are only two possible answers to this question. One is that they
do agree with the scientific and scholarly evidence, in which case
they should withdraw their opposition to any change in policy. The
other is that they really believe that the scientific and scholarly
evidence does not matter.

Just why drug policy should be exempt from the normal criteria of
evidence and best practice is seldom addressed by people in favour of
the status quo and policies based on prohibition, but the fact is that
every other area of contemporary life - the economy, agriculture, law,
medicine relies on scientific and scholarly evidence. It is time that
drug policy was similarly reliant.

Michael Booth is an associate lecturer in the Faculty of Communication
at the University of Canborra. He has worked for the Alcohol and Drug
Foundation, Australia, the Drug Referral and Information Centre, and
served on the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations. He is
currently attempting to become an ex-user of tobacco.

mjb@comserver.canberra.edu.au

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

[End]