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

War On Drugs Has Failed (The Province, in Vancouver, British Columbia,
says Canadian and US civic officials at a conference in Seattle agreed
that the war on some drug users has been a dismal failure and new tactics
are needed. However, Seattle Mayor Paul Schell probably spoke for a lot
of derelict public officials when said he didn't wish to "inflame
the situation" by suggesting that drug use be decriminalized.)

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:41:38 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US WA: War On Drugs Has Failed
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Pat Dolan
Pubdate: 12 Nov 1998
Source: The Province (B.C. Can)
Section: p.A25
Contact: provedpg@pacpress.southam.ca
Website: http://vancouverprovince.com
Copyright: Pacific Press 1998

WAR ON DRUGS HAS FAILED

The War On Drugs Has Failed, Mayors' Meeting Told

Seattle -- The war on drugs has been a dismal failure and new tactics are
needed, Canadian and U.S. civic officials agree.

"We can't afford the police, we can't afford the gaol time and we can't
afford the costs," Seattle Mayor Paul Schell told a Cascadia Mayors'
Council conference that included Vancouver Mayor Philip Owen.

Schell added he didn't wish to "inflame the situation" by suggesting that
drug use be decriminalized.

Owen told the conference that 5,000 addicts in Vancouver spend
approximately $1.5 million Cdn each day to support their habits.

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

Losing The Border War On Drugs (An Associated Press version
in The Herald, in Everett, Washington)

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:47:14 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US WA: Losing The Border War On Drugs
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John Smith
Pubdate: Thu, 12 Nov, 1998
Source: Herald, The (WA)
Contact: letters@heraldnet.com
Website: http://www.heraldnet.com/
Copyright: 1998 The Daily Herald Co.
Author: Associated Press

LOSING THE BORDER WAR ON DRUGS

U.S., Canadian mayors demand a new approach

(AP) SEATTLE - United States and Canadian city officials are in
agreement that the war on drugs has been a dismal failure on both
sides of the border and new strategies need to be considered.

"We can't afford the police, we can't afford the jail time, and we
can't afford the costs," Seattle Mayor Paul Schell told a Cascadia
Mayors' council here Tuesday, which included Vancouver, British
Columbia, Mayor Philip Owen.

But Schell added he didn't want to "inflame the situation" by
suggesting that drug use be decriminalized.

Before becoming mayor last year, Schell was an advocate of Western
Europe-style open borders between the U.S. and Canada. but the drug
trafficking along the I-5 corridor has posed a major obstacle.

Owen estimated about 5,000 addicts in Vancouver spend some $1.5
million (Canadian) each day to support their habit. He noted that
British Columbia grows high quality marijuana, much of which is
smuggled across the border.

Some of it is exchanged for heroin, which is smuggled back into
Canada, he said.

Owen noted that the treatment of drug users in British Columbia has
been shortchanged while money is poured in law enforcement.

He said he is developing a "holistic approach, a continuum of care"
toward the drug problem. The strategy would include teaching children
about drug dangers from their earliest schooling and expanding
treatment for addicts who want to kick the habit, he said.

But he said Vancouver was not ready to adopt Switzerland's model of
heroin maintenance, whereby addicts are supplied with the drug so the
business is kept out of criminals' hands.

Vancouver will be tougher with major traffickers, giving them
mandatory 25-years-to-life terms, he said.

On the issue of guns and crime, also main topics of discussion at the
conference, several U.S. officials voiced envy of their counterparts
in Canada, where gun laws are much stricter.

"You don't have to go to Asia to experience a lower crime rate," said
Bellingham Police Chief Don Pierce. "Just cross the border."

Schell wondered whether U.S. mayors might take the lead in
distributing gun locks to cut down on misuse of firearms by children.

But Portland Police chief Charles Moose said gun locks should be
provided by gun manufacturers, not cities' general funds. He suggested
Northwest cities join New Orleans, which has sued gun manufacturers to
recover costs of gun-related violence.

The Cascadia Mayors' Council is the latest step in an eight-year
effort by government officials, business groups and regional think
tanks to promote cross-border cooperation.

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

Stinging The Defense (A staff editorial in The Orange County Register
notes Marvin Chavez's trial on 10 counts of marijuana sales - or, depending
on your point of view - of trying to implement Proposition 215 - resumes
today, although Superior Court Judge Thomas Borris has already ruled that
the defense may not use a Prop. 215 defense on the first two charges.
On four other charges the defense will argue that police engaged in illegal
entrapment.)

Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:29:41 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Editorial: Stinging The Defense
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: 12 Nov 1998

STINGING THE DEFENSE

The Chavez Trial

Marvin Chavez's trial on 10 counts of marijuana sales - or, depending on how
you view matters, of trying to implement Proposition 215, whereby voters
gave patients with physicians' recommendations the right to use marijuana -
resumes today, with an evidentiary hearing and more prosecution witnesses.

Superior Court Judge Thomas Borris has ruled that the defense may not use a
Prop. 215 defense on the first two charges, which involve chronic back pain
patient Greg Hoffer, because the judge was not convinced there was enough
evidence that Mr. Chavez was Mr. Hoffer's "primary caregiver." He had
previously decided not to allow a 215 defense on three charges involving
Jerry Pollard, because Mr. Pollard was a caregiver for another patient (now
deceased), and Judge Borris believes transactions among caregivers (real or
alleged) are not covered by the law.

The defense is still trying to establish a caregiver relationship between
Mr. Chavez and Shirley Reaves of Chico. So the concept of "primary
caregiver," imprecisely defined in the proposition and still up in the air
as far as the courts are concerned, continues to be a central issue.

Regarding the four remaining charges arising from Mr. Chavez's furnishing
small amounts of marijuana to undercover law-enforcement operatives, the
prosecution is expected to argue that this was a standard drug dealer case,
and the defense will argue that the way the police handled the case
constituted illegal entrapment.

However the case turns out, it could help to set guidelines for patients
who have a legal right to possess and use marijuana under the California
law, but don't know how to acquire it. Whether the outcome of this trial
and other actions will spur state or local officials to set up clearer
protocols for implementing Prop. 215 is an open question.

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

SCU law professor tackles another high-profile issue (A San Jose Mercury News
feature article focuses on Gerald Uelmen, the Santa Clara University
law professor who is helping the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative appeal
a federal shutdown order, and also aiding in the defense of Peter Baez,
the co-founder of a San Jose medical marijuana dispensary.)

From: Remembers@webtv.net (Genie Brittingham)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:03:49 -0800 (PST)
To: she-who-remembers@makelist.com
Subject: DPFCA: PETER BAEZ
Sender: owner-dpfca@drugsense.org
Reply-To: dpfca@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/

From: klipsche@garlic.com (PETER BAEZ)
Date: Fri, Nov 13, 1998
Subject: PETER BAEZ

Published Thursday, November 12, 1998
in the San Jose Mercury News

SCU law professor tackles another high-profile issue

BY BRANDON BAILEY
Mercury News Staff Writer

For his role on O.J. Simpson's controversial criminal defense team,
Santa Clara University law Professor Gerald Uelmen drew a measure of
national attention -- and a handful of letters from alumni who thought
he brought disgrace on the school. Wait 'til they hear he's joined the
battle over medicinal marijuana.``I love a good fight,´´ says
Uelmen, 58.

In the next few weeks, the generally soft-spoken professor will be
helping the Oakland cannabis cooperative appeal a federal shutdown
order. He'll also try to persuade a Santa Clara County judge to throw
out criminal charges that local prosecutors brought against San Jose
medicinal marijuana club co-founder Peter Baez.

Last week, voters approved ballot measures allowing marijuana-smoking
for medicinal purposes in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and the state
of Washington.

But even though California voters approved a similar initiative two years
ago, the issue is still a legal minefield. The Oakland case in particular is
part of a federal action that could determine the future of medicinal
marijuana in this country.

``From my perspective, it was going to be a cutting-edge, intellectually
challenging case,´´ Uelmen says of his decision to help marijuana club
operators resist the federal crack-down. On top of that, he added during
an interview at his modest university office, ``I had a lot of sympathy with
what they were trying to do.''

Known as `The Cobra´ Uelmen´s office is decorated with books, papers
and cobra statuettes. ``The Cobra´´ was Uelmen´s nickname when he was a
federal gang-buster decades ago, prosecuting organized crime and gambling
cases. These days, he´s better known as a liberal academic and advocate for
the defense. As a professor and former dean of the Santa Clara University
law school, Uelmen has published both scholarly texts and newspaper
commentaries on constitutional issues and the state Supreme Court.

He's defended affirmative action and criticized the death penalty. But the
cause that brought him to national attention, at least for a short while, was
the televised O.J. Simpson trial that millions watched with bizarre
fascination. For some critics, the Simpson trial fit all the stereotypes
of a legal system subverted by money, race and grandstanding. Uelmen,
who concentrated on issues of evidence and constitutional law, was
usually overshadowed by more flamboyant members of the so-called ``Dream
Team´´ defense. Yet some of the notoriety stuck. Even today, some of
Uelmen´s students shake their heads sheepishly when the case comes up.

But despite a few alumni complaints, students and colleagues say they
endorse his off-campus forays. ``The university supports faculty
engagement in major issues confronting society,´´ said Provost
Stephen Privett. He added: ``Jerry is passionately committed to the
advocacy system. He´s going to make the system prove itself.´´

Though Uelmen clearly relished the legal battles in the Simpson case, he
says that wasn't the only benefit. Since the trial ended, he's published
both a personal memoir and a textbook -- ``The O.J. Files: Evidentiary
Issues in a Tactical Context.´´ It´s easier to teach rules of
evidence, Uelmen says, when students are already familiar with the case.

``Being out in the courtroom,´´ he adds, ``makes me a better law
professor.´´

Proud to be involved

His latest opportunity came early this year, when the attorney for a Santa
Cruz medicinal marijuana club invited him to help fight the federal
government's effort to shut the program down.

``I´m really proud to represent people like this,´´ Uelmen told a group of
SCU students who gathered to hear him discuss both cases during a lunchtime
session on public interest law.

``They´re the kind of heroes who bring change in society, by being
willing to get out in front of an issue.´´ Many involved in the
medicinal marijuana issue say they´re motivated by personal experience
with friends or relatives who have suffered from cancer or AIDS. That's
not the case with Uelmen. But as a longtime critic of other federal drug
policies -- such as the unequal prison sentences handed out for crimes
involving crack and powder cocaine -- Uelmen said he's been skeptical of
the government's unwillingness to tolerate marijuana use for medicinal
reasons. He contends that federal policies are too often driven by
politicians' fear of doing anything that could be labeled as ``soft on
drugs.´´

By enacting Proposition 215 in 1996, California voters approved the use
of marijuana by patients with a doctor's recommendation. But the Clinton
administration says distributing marijuana is still a crime under federal
law. The government filed suit in March to shut down distribution centers
in Oakland, Santa Cruz and three other cities.

South Bay officials, meanwhile, had pledged to work with Peter Baez and Jesse
Garcia when they opened a medicinal marijuana clinic in San Jose. But
relations soured when Santa Clara County authorities charged Baez with
selling marijuana to patients without a doctor's recommendation, running a
drug house and committing grand theft. Uelmen joined the lawyers representing
the Oakland center after the Santa Cruz club decided to close. A short time
later, a university colleague approached him on behalf of folk singer Joan
Baez, who was looking for legal counsel to help her cousin Peter.

Following the Simpson model, Uelmen has again joined forces with some
high-powered courtroom gladiators. In the Oakland case, he and marijuana club
attorney Robert Raich have teamed with James Brosnahan, a leading San
Francisco litigator. For the Baez case, Uelmen recruited Thomas Nolan of
Palo Alto, one of the top-ranked defense lawyers in the South Bay. While
some of his expenses are covered by grants and donations, Uelmen said
he's charging ``substantially less´´ than his usual rate of $350 an
hour.

Complementary skills

Veteran attorneys say it makes sense for Uelmen to work with
experienced trial lawyers, whose practical skills complement
his knowledge of legal precedents and theory. But the lineups in both
cases have already prompted derisive references to so-called ``Dream
Teams.´´ After the Baez team missed a routine court appearance last
month, thanks to a scheduling mix-up, Assistant District Attorney Karyn
Sinunu quipped: ``I think the Dream Team fell asleep.´´ Still, she
praised both Uelmen and Nolan, while saying she has no doubt her office
will prove Baez violated the law. Her biggest worry, Sinunu said, is
that jurors will be tempted to acquit Baez out of sympathy for the
defendant and the social issues behind the case. While Uelmen agrees
Baez and his clients have a sympathetic story, he contends the defense
will show Baez acted lawfully under Proposition 215. The trial, on
December 4th at 1:30pm could have some fireworks, if the defense is
unsuccessful in getting the case thrown out of court next month. Uelmen
said he may subpoena Mayor Susan Hammer, former Police Chief Lou
Cobarruviaz and other city officials to testify about the city's policy
toward cannabis clubs.

Unusual approach

In the Oakland case, meanwhile, the defense team has already tried a
novel tactic. Citing a legal provision that lets narcotics officers
handle drugs as part of their duties, the attorneys asked city officials
to deputize marijuana club workers as ``officers of the city.´´ The
city council supported the move, but federal Judge Charles Breyer said
he wasn´t persuaded. Last month, Breyer ordered the Oakland club to
shut down. Uelmen and his co-counsels are now drafting papers for the
court of appeal. Though he acknowledged their arguments are untested and
``creative,´´ Uelmen said he hopes they will persuade the court to
carve out some new guidelines that would allow medicinal marijuana
centers to operate on at least a limited basis ``We´re certainly
fighting an uphill battle,´´ he conceded. But that seems to be OK
with him.

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

Smoke From The West - Five States Now Demand Medicinal Marijuana
(The Sacramento Bee says the favorable votes for medical marijuana this month
in Arizona, Alaska, Washington, Oregon and Nevada make a "congressional
confrontation" seem unavoidable.)

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:45:03 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: EDITORIAL: Smoke From The West: Five States Now Demand
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Copyright: 1998 The Sacramento Bee
Contact: opinion@sacbee.com
Website: http://www.sacbee.com/
Pubdate: 12 Nov 1998

SMOKE FROM THE WEST: FIVE STATES NOW DEMAND MEDICINAL MARIJUANA

A congressional confrontation seems unavoidable between the long-standing
federal law that finds no medicinal purpose for marijuana and five Western
states that strongly disagree. Joining California's existing medicinal
marijuana law, voters this month in Arizona voiced (again) their support of
restricted use of medicinal marijuana. So did the voters of Alaska,
Washington, Oregon and Nevada. While the Clinton administration would
prefer to ignore this trend, voter acceptance of medicinal marijuana is
billowing.

As a growing pile of court cases in California has made abundantly clear,
state laws legalizing medicinal marijuana are no match against existing
federal laws that provide no leeway for such use. Communities sympathetic
to medicinal marijuana have tried seemingly every loophole possible, such
as Oakland's attempt at designating operators of a cannabis club with the
same "agent" status as narcotics officers who are allowed to handle
marijuana. None of the fancy legal footwork has succeeded.

That leaves Washington with no good choices. It can continue the awkward
status quo under the rationale that marijuana's alleged medicinal benefits
are unproven. The federal government is beginning to fund more studies.
Until there is more solid data to substantiate claims that marijuana, for
example, helps to relieve pain or enhance appetite, marijuana is not medicine.

The status quo, however, becomes more unacceptable the more the public
prefers a policy of providing access to marijuana to the seriously ill,
particularly the dying, if these patients feel they receive some benefit.
States already regulate the practice of medicine by licensing physicians
and other health care providers. Why shouldn't states be allowed to
regulate the use of medicinal marijuana as well? That is the question
Washington now faces.

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

Tobacco-Tax Backers Claim Victory (The San Jose Mercury News says propoents
of California's Proposition 10, which raises cigarette taxes 50 cents a pack
beginning Jan. 1, declared victory Wednesday and began anticipating their spoils.
At the same time, it was reported that tobacco firms had tentatively agreed
to raise the price of a pack 35 cents nationally as part of a $200 billion
deal to settle lawsuits against them, meaning the average $2.55 cost
of a pack of cigarettes in California could soon hit $3.40.)

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:17:31 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Tobacco-Tax Backers Claim Victory
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Marcus/Mermelstein Family (mmfamily@ix.netcom.com)
Pubdate: 12 Nov 1998
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
Copyright: 1998 Mercury Center
Author: Steve Johnson

TOBACCO-TAX BACKERS CLAIM VICTORY

Cigarettes could cost $3.40 a pack as result of Proposition 10, industry
agreement

Wednesday wasn't a good day for smokers like Mary Palacios of San Jose, but
child advocates were cheering.

Citing a commanding lead in a tally of absentee ballots, supporters of
Proposition 10 -- which raises cigarette taxes 50 cents a pack beginning
Jan. 1 -- declared victory while the tobacco-industry-backed opposition
conceded defeat.

At the same time, it was reported that tobacco firms had tentatively agreed
to raise the price of a pack 35 cents nationally as part of a $200 billion
deal to settle lawsuits against them.

Altogether, the average $2.55 cost of a pack of cigarettes in California
could soon hit $3.40.

``That's too much money to be paying for cigarettes,'' said the 73-year-old
Palacios. ``I don't smoke that much, but my husband does. He's already sick
about it.''

On the other hand, tobacco critics and child advocates hailed two big
benefits. As the cost of cigarettes rise, studies indicate, smokers --
particularly the young -- tend to quit. Moreover, Proposition 10 is
expected to raise up to $750 million a year statewide -- and nearly $38
million a year in Santa Clara County -- for a variety of programs aimed at
youngsters under 6.

``When you have those kinds of funds you have an opportunity in this county
to really take care of children,'' said Kay Walker, chief executive officer
of Via Rehabilitation Services in Santa Clara, which helps kids and adults
with disabilities. ``It's a tremendous opportunity.''

No one was happier than filmmaker and actor Rob Reiner, Proposition 10's
chairman and chief proponent -- especially since he raised only about $7
million compared with the $29 million that tobacco interests contributed to
defeat it.

``This is a great day for the children of California,'' he said in a
prepared statement. ``California voters saw through Big Tobacco's smoke
screen and voted to improve the future of California's children rather than
protecting tobacco company profits.''

In conceding defeat, Matt Taggart, a spokesman for the Committee Against
Unfair Taxes, No On Proposition 10, issued a statement characterizing the
race as ``one of the closest statewide initiative campaign'' efforts ever.
``The voters have sent a clear message that they are weary of the cynical
use of anti-tobacco rhetoric to advance their self-interest causes.''

Lead has grown

The secretary of state's office has until Dec. 1 to officially certify the
election result. As of Wednesday, about 530,000 absentee and provisional
ballots had been counted with about 200,000 more to go. But with more than
7.6 million ballots cast, Proposition 10's slender lead has grown from
about 13,000 on election night to about 57,000.

The initiative sets up a statewide commission and up to 58 county
commissions to determine which early childhood development programs should
get the money.

The statewide body -- dubbed the California Children and Families First
Commission -- will divvy up 20 percent of the revenue, based on a formula
that allocates specific amounts to such things as child care, children's
health services and discouraging pregnant women from smoking. Its seven
voting members will be chosen by the governor, the speaker of the Assembly
and the chairman of the Senate Rules Committee.

How to spend the rest

The proposition is less clear about how to spend the remaining 80 percent.
That money will be parceled out by the county commissions, which will
consist of at least five but not more than nine members appointed by county
boards of supervisors. One commission member will be a supervisor, and the
rest made up of such people as local school representatives, health
officials and child-care experts.

Mike Roos, Proposition 10's campaign director, said one of the first things
likely to happen under the measure is that the state's Board of
Equalization will begin to calculate how much each county should get. That
will depend on the number of children born in each area, based on the most
recent reporting period. Once that is determined, Roos expects money to
begin flowing through the county commissions in late 1999 or early 2000.

Some officials in Santa Clara County already have urged that a portion be
spent on child care -- particularly for low-income residents. Walker's
organization also would like to obtain some of the money to screen young
children in existing subsidized child-care programs for language and other
learning disabilities. That way, children with problems can be identified
and given help at an early age, she said.

Sparky Harlan, executive director of the Bill Wilson Center in Santa Clara,
which provides youth and family services, thinks her center's program to
help pregnant teens also might qualify for some of the tobacco tax money.
``We have about 30 teens and their children in that program, so I think we
probably might be looking at something for that population.''

And Andrew Weisser, an official with the American Lung Association of
California, said he hopes counties will set up programs designed to educate
people about the dangers of smoking and encourage those who already smoke
to quit. Even without such programs, the association has estimated that
Proposition 10's 50-cent-per-pack increase will result in a 25 percent drop
in the number of young people in the state who smoke.

Smokers' opinions

Smokers questioned Wednesday about Proposition 10's effect on them offered
conflicting opinions.

``It doesn't really bother me,'' said 25-year-old Kwame Fitts of San Jose.
``It's only 50 cents. . . . I don't know anybody who smokes cigarettes who
will stop because of that.''

But Javier Vasquez, 40, of San Jose, seemed rattled by the news about
Proposition 10's apparent victory. And he wasn't too happy about the other
35-cent price increase being discussed for the tobacco settlement.

After mulling over what the price of a puff is going to cost in the future,
he finally concluded in a voice full of resignation, ``I just better quit.''

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

Get Your Hands Off Those Ballots (Washington Post columnist Steve Twomey
again blasts Congress for prohibiting the release of results for Initiative 59,
the District of Columbia medical marijuana ballot measure. "A city
that sought to settle an issue by the most democratic means possible, a vote
of its people, has been thwarted by 535 men and women who surely view
themselves as the very symbol of liberty." Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr.,
the Georgia Republican who proposed the amendment that aborted Initiative 59,
didn't return a phone call seeking clarification of how Congress might square
the murder of an election with America's image as the model of modern
democracy. But why should Barr call back? He doesn't have to explain himself
to city residents. They're not his constituents.)

Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 10:10:58 -0600
From: "Frank S. World" (compassion23@geocities.com)
Reply-To: compassion23@geocities.com
Organization: Rx Cannabis Now!
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7417/
To: DRCNet Medical Marijuana Forum (medmj@drcnet.org)
Subject: US DC WP MMJ STEVE TWOMEY: Get Your Hands off Those Ballots
Sender: owner-medmj@drcnet.org

Source: Washington Post
Contact:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Pubdate: November 12, 1998

GET YOUR HANDS OFF THOSE BALLOTS

By Steve Twomey

Thursday, November 12, 1998; Page D01

Good morning, and welcome to Democracy Held Hostage, Day 9.

My fellow Americans, who'd have thunk that the results of a free and fair
vote held nine days ago right here in the United States of America, the land
of the free, would be unknown to this day -- would be impounded, in fact --
because Congress canceled the ballot initiative in question? Flat out told
the national capital to kiss its sweet electoral dreams goodbye?

As they say, if you live long enough, you see everything.

"Every single moment this vote is not counted is an injury to you, to me, to
everyone in this room," John M. Ferren, the District's corporation counsel,
told a federal judge on Monday, trying to coax him into ruling that Congress
had committed democracide and to let the city's results go.

Free the District 137,523!

That was the number of city citizens who went to the polls, foolishly
assuming they, too, were Americans who could decide for themselves -- as
Alaskans, Arizonans, Nevadans and state of Washingtonians did last week --
whether doctors ought to be able to recommend the use of marijuana to ease
the pain of serious illness, the issue posed by Initiative 59.

By now, we've long since heard answers from Alaska, Arizona, Nevada and
Washington state (yes, everywhere), but only silence leaks from the
District.

"Nobody heard us," Ferren told the judge, adding in reference to the four
states, "We'd like to be in their company."

It just doesn't get any better than this. In the long and sorry history of
Congress slashing the rights of District residents -- because it can, not
because it's right -- this is the encapsulating moment. A city that sought
to settle an issue by the most democratic means possible, a vote of its
people, has been thwarted by 535 men and women who surely view themselves as
the very symbol of liberty.

And do you hear any screams from beyond the city's confines?

If some junta in some banana republic canceled an election, you can bet that
the networks, the newsweeklies and the big and famous newspapers would be
all over that puppy, reporting the shocking insult to basic human rights.
But Alice P. Miller, the executive director of the Board of Elections and
Ethics, says no out-of-town media heavies have queried her about how 137,523
citizens of this country have had their votes snuffed.

That denial is "an offense to us as human beings," Ferren told the judge.

It started with U.S. Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr., a Georgia Republican perhaps
better known for craving the impeachment of President Lewinsky. Barr
proposed an amendment to stop the District from using money to conduct the
marijuana portion of the Nov. 3 election. Even though Miller says that the
cost of printing, advertising and tabulating Initiative 59 would be less
than $500, the amendment passed.

Barr didn't return a phone call seeking clarification of how Congress might
square the murder of an election with America's image as the very model of
the modern major democracy. But why should Barr call back? He doesn't have
to explain himself to city residents. They're not his constituents. They're
nobody's, at least nobody with formal power on the Hill.

Unfortunately for him, and Congress, final passage of the amendment didn't
come until after the city's ballots were printed, Miller says, so it was too
late to keep citizens from encountering Initiative 59 in the voting booth
and deciding it up or down. But it wasn't too late to stop the release of
the results.

Miller & Co. told the election board computer to skip Initiative 59 as it
disgorged results on Election Night for mayor, council and the other races
Congress somehow forgot to cancel as well. The board felt that not releasing
the results was a neutral act, and it's supposed to be neutral. Besides,
producing a tally could be construed as breaking the law, even though that
would require spending, oh, a dime's worth of paper. Congress might get mad
and do something terrible to the District.

Something additional, I mean.

So no human knows the outcome of the vote, Miller said. Only the computer
does. It sits in a locked, darkened, glass-walled cubicle at the election
board at One Judiciary Square. It isn't talking.

Here's the best part: Congress didn't need the Barr Amendment. Any
initiative passed by District residents must be reviewed by Congress anyway.
Maybe Congress felt that to exercise that power and overturn certified
election results would look ugly. But if there was no election at all, no
cold, clear numbers reflecting the wishes of real humans, it would look
better.

It doesn't.

Ferren and the American Civil Liberties Union argued in court Monday that
Congress has violated the First Amendment by denying District residents the
right to speak freely. That is what an election is: collective speech, the
sum of a community's thoughts about issues and candidates. In the District's
case, Congress can reject that speech after the fact by overturning a law or
an initiative -- an outrage, but legal -- but it shouldn't be able to
prevent the speech from taking place, which is what it did.

Well, U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts wasn't bummed. He refused to
order the results released. He boldly scheduled a hearing.

It'll be Dec. 18. That'll be Democracy Held Hostage, Day 45.

To reach me on the Internet: twomeys@washpost.com

(c) Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

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

Home Rule And Initiative 59 (A letter to the editor of The Washington Post
says the District of Columbia Election Board is mistaken that the
congressional rider in the fiscal 1999 DC budget prevents funding to count
ballots for the medical marijuana initiative. The appearance of Initiative 59
on the ballot is purely an election matter having nothing to do with
implementing the law. It is strictly a matter of voter rights at this point.)

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 07:26:34 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US DC: MMJ: PUB LTE: Home Rule And Initiative 59
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: cohip@levellers.org (Colo. Hemp Init. Project)
Pubdate: 12 Nov 1998
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Copyright: 1998 The Washington Post Company
Author: Steven Kennedy

HOME RULE AND INITIATIVE 59

The Election Board is mistaken that the congressional rider in the fiscal
1999 D.C. budget banning funding for the medical marijuana initiative
prevents counting ballot results. The appearance of Initiative 59 on the
ballot is purely an election matter having nothing to do with implementing
the law. It is strictly a matter of voter rights at this point. If applied
this way, the rider is unconstitutional because it denies voters' rights.

If Congress legally can thwart Initiative 59 at the ballot box, it
effectively can deny all democratic processes to the District by forbidding
funds to be used for any elections at all.

The votes for Initiative 59 should be counted, and this witch hunt against
those who use marijuana medicinally must end immediately.

STEVEN KENNEDY

Alameda, Calif.

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

DrugSense Focus Alert No. 88 - the NORML Conference on C-Span II
(DrugSense alerts you to a broadcast likely to be repeated later in the day,
and gives you what you need to send a "thank you" to the network
for featuring the reform event.)

Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 07:03:39 -0800
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: Mark Greer (MGreer@mapinc.org)
Subject: DrugSense FOCUS Alert The NORML Conference on C-Span II
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #88 11/12/98

The NORML Conference on C-Span II

***

To my surprise and delight the NORML conference is being carried live on
C-Span II. It is likely to repeat later today. It's too bad we weren't
aware of this national coverage ahead of time as we could have capitalized
on it more effectively.

I was particularly pleased about this as I took C-Span to task 2 weeks ago
in a letter to C-Span for covering the DEA birthday party which was filled
with propaganda and nonsense while ignoring reform issues. I don't know if
my efforts, NORML's, our extensive media efforts over the last couple of
years, last weeks election or a combination of all were responsible for
this important coverage but suffice it to say that no past such conference
(including DPF's) ever got such national coverage that I know of.

We just keep on getting better!

Please watch and be sure to send a letter of encouragement to C-Span
Contact info below.

***

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, fax etc.)

Please post your letters or report your action to the MAPTalk list if you
are subscribed, or return a copy to this address by simply hitting
REPLY to this FOCUS Alert and pasting your letter in or by E-mailing a copy
directly to MGreer@mapinc.org

***

C.P.A.
400 North Capitol St. NW
Suite 650
Washington DC 20001
E-mail journal@c-span.org
FAX 202 7376226 Show suggestions Fax info to Doug Johnson
202 737-3220 TALK TO SOMEONE

***

From: Ty Trippet (TTrippet@sorosny.org)
To: TLC_ACTIVIST (TLCACT@sorosny.org)
Subject: NORML Conference live on C-SPAN2 Now...
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 11:22:45 -0500
Sender: owner-tlc-activist@server.soros.org

The NORML conference in Washington, DC is being broadcast live until 12:15PM
Eastern Time. It included speeches by Keith Stroup of NORML and Ethan
Nadelmann of The Lindesmith Center.

Currently, the State Initiatives and Referenda on Marijuana panel is airing.
It features Bill Zimmerman and Dave Fratello of Americans for Medical
Rights, Wayne Turner of ACT-UP DC and sponsor of Initiative 59, the medical
marijuana initiative in DC. Dail Gieringer of California NORML is
moderating this panel.

This broadcast will likely repeat tonight or over the weekend. Check
http://www.c-span.org to check exact listings.

Ty Trippet
Director of Communications
The Lindesmith Center
400 West 59th Street
New York,NY 10019
212-548-0604-phone
212-548-4670-fax
mailto:ttrippet@sorosny.org
http://www.lindesmith.org

***

Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 10:34:41 -0800
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: Mark Greer (MGreer@mapinc.org)
Subject: NORML Conference Replays at 5PM ET on Cspan II
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

The NORML conference in DC will Repeat this afternoon on C-Span II at 5:00
PM Eastern time.

Don't miss it. Ethan is _excellent_ as are many of the speakers.

In case you miss it, Rolf Ernst will likely have it on the web via
RealVideo at http://www.legalize-usa

Look under Multimedia likely in the last index in the list. Should be up by
this weekend.

Mark Greer
Executive Director
DrugSense
MGreer@mapinc.org
http://www.drugsense.org
http://www.mapinc.org

***

Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 06:39:31 -0500
To: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.org)
Subject: Done - Rest of the NORML CSPAN coverage online

Go to:

http://www.legalize-usa.org/TOCs/video.htm

Richard Lake

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

States Strike $200 Billion Tobacco Deal (The Arizona Republic version)

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:21:17 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US AZ: States Strike $200 Billion Tobacco Deal
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Marcus/Mermelstein Family (mmfamily@ix.netcom.com)
Pubdate: Thu, 12 Nov 1998
Source: Arizona Republic (AZ)
Contact: Opinions@pni.com
Website: http://www.azcentral.com/news/
Copyright: 1998, The Arizona Republic.

STATES STRIKE $200 BILLION TOBACCO DEAL

WASHINGTON -- Negotiators for states with lawsuits still pending against
Big Tobacco have struck a $200 billion, 30-state settlement and say it as
the best deal they can get after the collapse of a national agreement
earlier this year.

Arizona would receive a minimum of $2.67 billion over the first 25 years of
the agreement, with no restrictions on the money's use.

The settlement agreement also would sharply restrict cigarette advertising,
help curtail youth smoking, and fund research and countermarketing.

The agreement is expected to be announced Monday.

The package, a draft version of which was obtained by ``The Arizona
Republic,'' is a diminished version of the $368 billion national deal
hammered out by state attorneys general in June 1997. Gone are nicotine
regulation by the Food and Drug Administration, whistleblower protections,
industry funding of classes to quit smoking and severe penalties for
failures to reduce youth smoking.

Yet, it's a good deal, and one that Arizona will sign, said Attorney
General Grant Woods, one of the lead negotiators of the failed national
settlement and a key figure in the recent talks.

``When we weigh our two options now -- settlement or go to trial -it's
clear this is the way Arizona should go,'' Woods said. ``We're getting a
lot of things we could never get in a lawsuit.''

A jury could award only money, and probably a lot less than the roughly
$100 million per year the state will receive for the near future under the
agreement, Woods said. The advertising and marketing restrictions,
youth-smoking research, lobbying curbs, document repository and other
details of the settlement could not be won in a trial and would be
difficult to achieve in any settlement arrived at by Arizona on its own, he
said.

Arizona's lawsuit is set for trial in March.

It's still not a done deal. Tobacco companies want a ``critical mass'' of
states to agree to the proposal, particularly the population-heavy states
of California and New York, before they'll sign it. The states are
reviewing the proposal over the weekend.

Woods said there is ``widespread consensus'' among the states in support of
the agreement.

The tobacco companies were more circumspect.

``We are declining to comment on any speculation or reports of any
settlement agreement,'' said Jan Smith, spokeswoman for R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. in North Carolina.

The Clinton White House was pleased with the progress, saying Thursday that
from what it knows of the agreement, it's ``a real step in the right
direction.''

A spokesman said the administration will ``continue to push Congress to
enact comprehensive legislation to substantially reduce youth smoking.''

According to the draft agreement, other provisions would:

Create a national foundation to reduce teen smoking funded by $25 million
per year for 10 years.

Create a national public education fund with $1.45 billion over the next
five years, largely to pay for counter-marketing targeting youth smokers.

Limit tobacco companies to one brand-name (such as Marlboro or Winston)
event sponsorship per year.

Ban ads in stadiums and arenas, outdoor ads larger than a poster, and
cartoon figures. Human figures would be permitted.

Ban distribution and sale of gear -- hats, shirts, etc. -- imprinted with
brand logos after July 1, 1999.

Disband the Council for Tobacco Research, the Tobacco Institute and the
Council for Indoor Air Research, but preserve their records.

Create a user-friendly World Wide Web site stocked with the industry's
smoking and health-related documents.

In Arizona, John Rivers, head of the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare
Association, said health advocates likely will accept the agreement.

``Most of us were chagrined that some zealots in public health community
weren't satisfied and, because of that overzealousness, we have an
agreement that's not as good as the one we had last June,'' he said.

Matt Madonna of the Arizona office of the American Cancer Society said that
he applauds the settlement, but that it's only a beginning.

He said he will monitor the Legislature to try to ensure the money goes for
public health, and he'll comb through the agreement out eement began to
unravel.

By the time legislators were done piling on under pressure from health care
advocates on one side and tobacco farmers on the other, the lead tobacco
bill sponsored by U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., had grown to $516
billion. The industry balked at the onerous provisions and the bankrupting
cost, and that proposal died in June of this year.

``We did our best to do everything we could think of regarding tobacco, and
the Congress and the president were unable to get the job done,'' Woods
said. He said he and other attorneys general will try to get McCain and
other lawmakers to pass legislation to ``fill in the gaps'' between the new
deal and the old one.

McCain was in Asia and could not be reached, according to a spokeswoman.

Since the June proposal died, the legal climate has changed. Big Tobacco
has settled with four states for nearly $40 million total: Mississippi, the
first state to sue to recover costs from treating sick smokers, Florida,
Texas and Minnesota.

The tobacco companies drew the line with Washington state, which was in
poor position to win good terms because of unfavorable pretrial decisions,
and refused to settle. Settlement talks resumed however, when Washington
Attorney General Christine Gregoire joined other state attorneys general in
a renewed effort to get an agreement.

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

Researchers take a serious look at herbal therapies (The Oregonian version)

The Oregonian
letters to editor:
letters@news.oregonian.com
1320 SW Broadway
Portland, OR 97201
Web: http://www.oregonlive.com/

Researchers take a serious look at herbal therapies

* A new study on echinacea exemplifies growing interest in understanding the
effectiveness of alternative therapies

Thursday, November 12, 1998

By Erin Hoover Barnett
of The Oregonian staff

Before you buy that bottle of echinacea to fend off a cold this winter,
consider a new study on the top-selling herbal supplement published today in
the Archives of Family Medicine.

The study showed that extracts from two popular species of this flowering
plant were no better at preventing the common cold than a dummy pill, or
placebo.

The study is part of a growing trend toward determining the effectiveness of
alternative medicine through scientific research. And it illustrates how
much further that research has to go.

This week, the Journal of the American Medical Association and its sister
publications, including the Archives of Family Medicine, are publishing
research on alternative medicine. Their effort acknowledges the need for
reliable information in this vast health care arena in which four of 10
Americans now dabble.

"There is no 'alternative' medicine. Treatments either work, or they don't,"
Dr. George Lundberg, editor of JAMA, said this week in a statement already
being quoted by doctors in Oregon and elsewhere as an emerging attitude
toward the therapies.

Echinacea is one of those bellwether alternative therapies that has gained
vast popularity with the public. Nearly one in five Americans (17 percent)
use herbal therapies, according to a national study published this year. And
echinacea, or coneflower, a native North American plant, has been a
top-selling supplement in health food stores for several years.

Research in Germany -- home of most substantive research on echinacea --
suggests that echinacea increases the number of white blood cells and buoys
the body's ability to gobble up invading organisms.

But scientists are unsure which of the eight species of echinacea might be
most effective, what part of the plant should be used and how high a dosage
is needed.

Echinacea, found in stores' health food sections, comes in pill or tincture
form and contains one, two or more species, often using the root. Or it may
be mixed with other ingredients such as zinc. It even comes as Super
Echinacea, an Herb Pharm supplement out of Williams, Ore., that throws
together echinacea root, flowers, leaves and seeds.

The Archives of Family Medicine study is an attempt to begin sorting out
what works and what doesn't.

A team of medical doctors in Germany conducted the double-blind,
placebo-controlled, randomized study with 289 healthy participants.

The study used two species of echinacea -- Echinacea angustifolia and
Echinacea purpurea. One group of participants took the angustifolia, one
group took the purpurea, and a third group took a placebo. The study found that:

* The average time it took participants to get an upper-respiratory
infection was similar among the three groups: 66 days for the first group,
69 days for the second and 65 days for the placebo group.

* There were no significant differences among the groups in the number,
severity or duration of upper-respiratory tract infections.

* A higher percentage of participants -- but not significantly higher -- got
infections in the placebo group. In the placebo group, 36.7 percent got
sick, compared with 32 percent in the angustifolia group and 29.3 percent in
the purpurea group.

The study's authors emphasized the need to do more research on echinacea.

Indeed, more studies are under way.

Researchers at the National College of Naturopathic Medicine in Portland and
Oregon Health Sciences University will finish a two-year study in 1999 of
echinacea's ability to prevent colds in about 300 student participants.

Their study combines the two species of echinacea -- angustifolia and
purpurea -- a preparation often sold in health food stores. The study
measures that combination against a second mixture of several different
herbs and a placebo.

"We have very little information on which to base any sort of strategy,"
said Dr. Bruce Goldberg, an associate professor of family medicine at OHSU
and a co-investigator on the study. "We don't know what dose, what
preparation, for how long, whether there might be some populations of
individuals who benefit from this and others who don't."

Goldberg cautioned against putting too much weight on today's study out of
Germany. He said the key will be having multiple, well-designed studies from
which to draw conclusions.

More studies on alternative medicine appear to be on the horizon in the
United States.

The omnibus spending bill that Congress approved last month gave the
National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine a big shot in
the arm -- increasing its annual budget from $20 million to $50 million.

The office has delivered little completed research on alternative therapies
in its six years of existence. That is expected to change with the bigger
budget and a redesignation as the National Center for Complementary and
Alternative Medicine.

Dr. Tom Hoggard, a Portland family practice physician and president of the
Oregon Medical Association, supports the trend toward additional research.

"All medical doctors want to do what's right, and we want to prescribe
things that work, and we want to say if something doesn't work," Hoggard said.

He estimated that about a quarter of the patients at his practice use
alternative therapies in conjunction with standard medicine. Hoggard has
looked into research on echinacea and St. John's Wort and tells his patients
that more research is needed. But he feels comfortable recommending both of
these herbal supplements for appropriate patients.

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

Marijuana for Christmas? (List subscriber Dave Ford publicizes a special deal
on his widely praised book, "Marijuana - Not Guilty As Charged.")

From: "Dave Ford" (drford@vom.com)
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: MARIJUANA FOR CHRISTMAS??!
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:27:08 -0800
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

SPECIAL CHRISTMAS OFFER!

My hardback book, MARIJUANA: NOT GUILTY AS CHARGED, is doing extremely
well.

It's received numerous positive reviews and endorsements. The most recent
from a German magazine. (The blistering foreword against the federal
government is written by Dr. Tod H. Mikuriya, M.D., is magnificent! Tod is
recognized as one of the world's foremost medical mj authorities. He calls
the book "brilliant")

Author William Chapin, whose book WASTED, was nominated for a Pulitzer
prize, wrote:

When I wrote WASTED (McGraw-Hill), the story of my son's drug addiction, I
thought marijuana was a stepping-stone to heavier drugs. I'm now convinced
that pot had nothing to do with it. MARIJUANA: NOT GUILTY AS CHARGED is a
valuable and honest book---a "must read" for anyone who wants to know the
truth. David Ford also presents ample evidence that marijuana IS medicine.
It's a compelling book, and it often reads like a spicy novel. - William
Chapin, Author

Great Christmas present for you, and friends! The book sells nationally for
$24.95, plus tax (CA) = $26.82. With shipping, about $29.95.
If you write directly to the publisher, your cost INCLUDING SHIPPING, is
ONLY $20. TOTAL. Either check or money order is OK. Send to:

Good Press,
PO Box 1771
Sonoma, CA 95476

Happy holidays,
Dave Ford

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

Reviews of "The Fix," by Michael Massing (A list subscriber posts several
critiques gleaned from amazon.com, the online bookseller. "The Fix" makes
a case for the return of the community-based drug treatment clinic model
that was a cornerstone of US drug policy under President Nixon.)

Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:07:25 -0800
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: Gerald Sutliff (gsutliff@dnai.com)
Subject: Reviews of The Fix by Michael Massing
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

Dear Talkers,

These reviews of "The Fix" by Michael Massing were harvested from Amazon.com:

"When, back in 1988, the New York Review of Books sent
me to Columbia to write about the Latin American cocaine trade," notes
Michael Massing, a contributing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review
and 1992 recipient of a MacArthur "genius" grant, "I had little notion that
the issue of drugs would engross me for so many years." The "War on Drugs,"
arguably, has been the United States' most futile and expensive social
campaign. In 1998, the federal drug budget was more than $17 billion--over
ten times its 1981 allocation--and yet the corresponding population of drug
offenders in the nation's state and federal prisons has increased tenfold
within that same period. What to do?

The Fix makes a case for the return of the community-based drug treatment
clinic model that was a cornerstone of U.S. drug policy under Richard
Nixon. While Nixon's personal distaste for illegal drugs may have been most
evident in his decision to ignore evidence indicating that marijuana use
did not lead irreparably to harder drugs, his pragmatism helped him
recognize that the problem of narcotics was far more cost-effectively
approached as a health issue rather than one strictly of law enforcement.
In a narrative that alternates between descriptions of a drug-ridden
neighborhood in Harlem and policy makers in the nation's capital, Massing
compellingly argues that the most effective battle against addiction is the
creation and maintenance of a comprehensive national treatment system.
--Patrizia DiLucchio

***

The New York Times Book Review, David F. Musto

. . . a balanced and significant analysis of the American drug problem that
carries specific, practical recommendations for reform.

***

Commentary, Daniel Casse

The Fix does an admirable job of illustrating the unglamorous and destructive
nature of drug abuse; its portraits of abject addicts and unspeakably cruel
dealers are vividly drawn and deeply disturbing. Yet as a history of U.S.
drug policy the book is seriously flawed, and as a set of policy
prescriptions even more so. One set of difficulties arises with Massing's
policy recommendations. His favored program corresponds in every respect to
the conventional wisdom of the "treatment community" - the loose collection
of physicians, psychotherapists, and miscellaneous Ph.D.'s who believe that
drug addiction should be handled on a voluntary basis by public-health
authorities rather than coercively by the criminal-justice system. But the
remedies offered by the treatment community are only partial at best.

***

From Booklist , October 1, 1998

"It would be hard to think of an area of U.S. social policy that has failed
more completely than the war on drugs," declares Massing, a contributing
editor of the Columbia Journalism Review and 1992 MacArthur fellow.
Yet this is not another legalization argument; instead, it urges that the
Nixon administration's emphasis on drug treatment worked and that
government attention and funding should be shifted from the supply side
to the demand side of the nation's drug problem. Massing spent time with
addicts and counselors in Spanish Harlem and researched 30 years of federal
drug policy, which shifted from treatment to interdiction in the Reagan
years. Many of the core concepts Massing proposes - from blends of
approaches, including, for heroin addiction, both methadone maintenance
and therapeutic communities, to recognition that programs should be focused
on hard-core, not casual, users - are sure to be controversial. But The Fix
is a thoughtful, well-reasoned analysis of a social problem that the war on
drugs does not adequately address. Mary Carroll Copyright (c) 1998,
American Library Association. All rights reserved

***

From Kirkus Reviews , September 1, 1998

This is a persuasive and well-supported argument that readily available
treatment is the way to combat the massive problem of drug abuse in the US.
Massing knows of what he speaks. As a contributing editor of the Columbia
Journalism Review and frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books
(he was also a 1992 MacArthur fellow), Massing has been reporting on US drug
policy for ten years. He finds, as do most others studying the topic, that we
are losing the war on drugs. Despite spending billions of dollars every year,
drug production, distribution, sales, and use continue to flourish. Our
current policy, focused on interdiction and punitive measures, has not
worked; yet neither, for the author, will legalization nor harm-reduction or
maintenance (how does one maintain a crack addiction?). What will work,
because it has worked in the past, is a nationwide network of clinics
providing treatment for all who want it. Surprisingly perhaps, this is
precisely the drug policy we had under the Nixon administration, but under
the Reagan administration, for ideological and budgetary reasons, a
treatment approach was largely abandoned. It's the detail Massing provides
that makes this such an effective work. He travels from the street world of
the addict in New York's Spanish Harlem and treatment programs that work
there, in particular one called Hot Line Cares, to the insulated and
distant world of Washington drug policymakers. He discusses the
personalities and processes that brought the Nixon policy into being and
those that led to its dismantling. Massing finds that drug policies
formulated in Washington have little to do with the reality of drug use in
the street; his book is an attempt to bring the two worlds together. The
passion and care of the writing make this an important contribution to the
debate on what our drug policy should be and how it should be formulated.
-- Copyright (c)1998, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

Book Description

In America's twenty-five-year war against drugs, only one national policy
achieved some success. That was the Nixon Administration's program for
treating heroin addicts, which was dismantled by the Reagan Administration.
In The Fix, Michael Massing exposes the political and ideological
narrow-mindedness that have made national drug policy a failure, and
demonstrates convincingly why we should reinstate the policy that worked.

Drawing on scores of interviews with federal officials charged with
directing the drug war and on years of on-the-street reporting, Massing
offers a fresh new way of looking at the drug problem. The heart of that
problem lies not with recreational users of marijuana, as many politicians
and journalists maintain, but with hard-core users of heroin, crack, and
cocaine. Numbering about three million, these addicts are concentrated in
the nation's inner cities and account for most of the demand for drugs and
most of the crime associated with their use.

Given the number of addicts and the tenacity of their habit, putting them
in jail is not an affordable or effective longterm solution. And, given the
tendency of addicts to engage in destructive behavior, legalization would
simply encourage more of it. A far more effective policy, Massing argues,
would be to recognize that drug use is a public health problem, and to use
the government's resources to create a national network of clinics offering
addicts treatment on demand.

Massing shows that drug treatment works by describing the success that
street workers have had in reaching out to addicts in Spanish Harlem and
placing them in the few treatment programs now available. Further evidence
that treatment can reduce the demand for drugs comes from the Nixon years.
Confronted with a raging heroin epidemic in the early 1970s, President
Nixon responded by allocating hundreds of millions of dollars to set up a
nationwide network of methadone clinics and other drugtreatment facilities.
The program was a striking success, and, if revived today, it could go a
long way toward reducing the rate of drug-related crime in the United
States. Among Massing's findings:

Even as Nancy Reagan was traveling around the country urging people to
"just say no" to drugs, her husband was sharply cutting the federal
drug-treatment budget. When the crack epidemic hit in the mid-1980s, those
treatment facilities that remained were completely overwhelmed, and many
addicts who wanted help were forced back onto the street. The Reagan
Administration's policies made the crack epidemic far worse than it need
have been. The greatest influence on drug policy in the last twenty years
has been the "parent movement," a little-known network of strong-willed
mothers and fathers that sprang up in suburbs across the country in the
late 1970s. Panicked over their kids' use of marijuana, these parents
pioneered such concepts as zero tolerance and a drug-free America, while at
the same time stymieing all efforts to help innercity addicts. The only
federal official in recent years to make a genuine bid to revive the Nixon
model and treat addicts in a humane fashion was Lee Brown, the former New
York City police chief who became President Clinton's first drug czar. But
Clinton, despite promises to support Brown, eventually abandoned him out of
fear that he would look soft on crime. Clinton's drug policy is no less
hawkish than that of his Republican predecessors, and every bit as
ineffective.

Instead of relying on foreign governments to hunt down drug lords, or on
building more prisons to warehouse addicts -- approaches that are
expensive, wasteful, and ineffective -- we should restore our once and only
successful program of treatment for hard-core addicts. It's our only hope
for winning the war against drugs.

The publisher, Simon & Schuster , October 21, 1998:

***

The Sun (Baltimore), Oct. 11, 1998:

Performs a highly valuable service recounting how the Nixon administration
. . . put together the best drug policy of any postwar administration.

***

The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 12, 1998 Well-written and lively.... In
contrast to many recent books and articles raging against the drug war, THE
FIX is balanced.

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

Book Review - "Ending the War on Drugs - A Solution for America,"
by Dirk Chase Eldredge (A list subscriber posts a couple of articles,
from Booklist and Kirkus Reviews, about a conservative Republican's proposal
for carefully controlled "legalization.")

Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:23:58 -0800
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: Gerald Sutliff (gsutliff@dnai.com)
Subject: Book Review: Ending the War on Drugs : A Solution for America
by Dirk Chase Eldredge
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

Dear Talkers,

Here is several book reviews of "Ending the War on Drugs : A Solution for
America" by Dirk Chase Eldredge (who is a Ronald Reagan, Republican, yee
Gods!!) (;~)]

vty, jerry sutliff

***

From Booklist , September 15, 1998:

To turn the perceived problem of the unquenchable thirst for illicit
substances into a vehicle of societal uplift, Eldredge proposes
legalization and distribution of drugs by the states. This strategy would
remove the profit motive for malefactors while raising money for government
drug education and rehabilitation programs. Although Eldredge wants states
to control drug distribution and profits, he also wants to avoid
"balkanization" of the drug problem, whereby states that decriminalize
drugs attract drug users from elsewhere. Considering a drug-legalizing
constitutional amendment a hard sell,

Eldredge proposes that Congress pass legislation allowing states to
legalize drugs; when "35 states [assure] that they will adopt legalization,
the policy change can be implemented by all." Sounds like a quick and
simple way to achieve a monumental sociopolitical change--and like a
constitutional amendment procedure. Remember the ERA? Implausibilities
aside, Eldredge marshals facts and much creative argumentation in making
his case.

Mike Tribby

Copyright(c) 1998, American Library Association. All rights reserved

***

From Kirkus Reviews, June 15, 1998:

A slim but helpful volume examining the inadequacy of current US drug
policies and how these policies might be changed. In the view of the
author, an entrepreneur, onetime Reagan campaign chairman, and son of an
alcoholic, prohibition as the foundation of our approach to controlling
drug use has failed. ``The need,'' he maintains, ``is for education, not
incarceration, treatment, not torment.'' Drugs should be legal and
state-controlled, with the profits from sales going to education programs
on the harm drugs may do, treatment for addicts desiring it, and research
into the causes of addiction.

There is nothing particularly new here; amid a growing literature calling
for an end to drug prohibition, many of Eldredge's themes are often better,
more deeply covered elsewhere. Still, two things are notable. The first, as
he emphatically declares, is the fact that Eldredge is a ``white,
conservative Republican who has passed the Medicare milestone.'' No liberal
or aging hippie is he, indicating perhaps how widespread is the discontent
with current US drug policies. The second item of note is the author's
excellent analysis of what these current policies have done or may do to
civil liberties. In the name of ``zero tolerance,'' Congress proposed a law
to create an arctic gulag for convicted drug offenders (fortunately, never
passed). Warrantless searches and the unconstitutionalto the authorseizure
of property take the place of due process. The random and capricious use of
drug testing, though of course not always unreasonable, further threatens
our individual liberties.

The author concludes with the simple points that people have always wanted
mind-altering substances and always will, and that this demand will always
be met, either legally or illegally. Given these truths, the prohibition
approach to drug control is not worth the cost to our civil liberties. A
good summary of and introduction to a libertarian perspective on drugs,
freedom, and the role of the state. -- Copyright (c)1998, Kirkus Associates,
LP. All rights reserved.

Synopsis: A conservative Republican examines how and why America is losing
the war against illegal drugs--and presents a case for carefully controlled
legalization. The implications for crime and public health, overburdened
courts and prisons, official corruption, civil rights, and other elements
of society are thoughtfully and provocatively analyzed.

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

Book Review - "Romancing Mary Jane" (FFWD Weekly, in Calgary, Alberta,
says "Romancing Mary Jane - A Year in the Life of a Failed Marijuana Grower,"
by Michael Poole, recounts the author's immersion in the cannabis culture
of British Columbia and paints a markedly different picture than that
of your local police force.)

Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 23:33:54 -0700
Subject: FFWD Bk Reveiw: Romancing Mary Jane
From: "Debra Harper" (daystar@shaw.wave.ca)
To: mattalk (mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com)

Newshawk: daystar@shaw.wave.ca
Source: FFWD Weekly (Calgary, Alberta)
Date: Nov 12, 1998: Vol. 3 #46

BOOKS
by Mark Sproxton

There are two trains of thought on marijuana in Canada, although one could
be hard-pressed to find examples of balanced representation on the issue.

The loudest voice is the typical police/political line that marijuana is the
root of all things evil and must be kept out of public hands at all costs.

The other, and seldom told, side of the story defies that malicious,
criminal, seedy underworld stereotype. In Romancing Mary Jane: A Year in the
Life of a Failed Marijuana Grower, Michael Poole immerses himself in the
cannabis culture of British Columbia and paints a markedly different picture
than that of your local police force.

Never taking the promoter's role in the marijuana debate, Poole argues
persuasively that marijuana use, growth and production is a civil liberties
issue worthy of much debate, not an issue to automatically default to the
dictums of those in power.

"I wanted this book to be useful, and I wanted it to be accessible," Poole
says while in town on a cross-country book tour. "Also, I wanted to
de-mystify marijuana because the war on drugs is a real war with bullets and
blood. And like all real wars, it has propaganda.

"And the propaganda has all been coming from one side. We need some
countervailing voices badly. What they're saying (the police) is a
propaganda line. It has no basis in fact because they're not educated in
that way, they're indoctrinated."

While Poole's book comes off a bit too much like the cathartic exercise it
was - part of a program to relieve the suffering from burnout after 30
years as a documentary filmmaker - he paints a clear picture of what the
world of marijuana growing, harvesting and selling is all about. On many
levels his cannabis culture resembles the hippie world of the 1960s and '70s,
and in a way, this book is Poole's form of civil disobedience.

Perhaps surprisingly, marijuana growing is back-breaking, labor-intensive,
stress-filled work, Poole shows. He documents the arduous tasks of hauling
soil, planting the seeds, watering the garden and then struggling to keep it
hidden from thieves, animals and police. While he's optimistic that
attitudes toward marijuana will change over time, proof of just how long it
may take comes from this book tour. While in Toronto, the wanna-be American
city that pretends it's the sophisticated place to be, Poole was only
interviewed twice.

"The media ran for cover and admitted it was running for cover," he says.
"The publisher's representative there was told over and over again: 'We do
not talk about marijuana.'"

But the issue should be discussed, he insists. "There's no evidence that
the use of marijuana is a societal problem, but the police would quote
chapter and verse the propaganda line because the media in this country
still takes at face value whatever the police or the government say about
drugs.

"(Marijuana) is an agent of enlightenment that's there for people to use if
people choose to use it that way. That's its real significance."

The veteran marijuana user spent three years researching and writing this
book, which debunks many of the myths surrounding the plant, shows the
problems of half-way legislation in the Netherlands (it's legal to smoke
marijuana, but not legal to grow and distribute it) and contains some tips
on what to do if arrested with marijuana.

Although Poole never achieved the commercial success he hoped from this
cultivating experience, don't let the subtitle fool you.

"I'm having a little fun with that, because I think our situation with
regard to drug laws and our whole drug situation in the country is
ridiculous," he says. "The appropriate response is ridicule. The most
withering thing for any government, any politician to resist is laughter."

Copyright (c) 1998 All Rights Reserved.

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

Colombia Fires Air Force Officers (The Associated Press says five members
of the Colombian air force were arrested Thursday after US authorities seized
a Colombian air force plane in Florida carrying more than 1,600 pounds
of cocaine.)

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 01:48:04 -0800
From: Paul Freedom (nepal@teleport.com)
Organization: Oregon Libertarian Patriots
To: Cannabis Patriots (Cannabis-Patriots-L@teleport.com)
Subject: CanPat - Colombia Fires Air Force Officers
Sender: owner-cannabis-patriots-l@smtp.teleport.com

Colombia Fires Air Force Officers

NOVEMBER 12, 23:50 EST-AP

BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) - Five members of the Colombian air force were
arrested Thursday after U.S. authorities seized a government plane in Florida
carrying more than 1,600 pounds of cocaine.

Agents from the federal prosecutor's office detained the intelligence chief of the
military airport in Bogota, Maj. Gonzalo Noguera, and four aviation technicians. The
seizure also led to the retirement of airport commander Col. Arturo Duenas and his
second-in-command.

``Their presence was not desirable,'' Defense Minister Rodrigo Lloreda said
Thursday. Duenas had resisted a request by President Andres Pastrana to resign.

Thursday's developments brought to eight the number of air force officers who
have left the service since the drugs were discovered, a major embarrassment for
Pastrana.

Air force commander Gen. Jose Manuel Sandoval resigned on Tuesday after U.S.
authorities disclosed the seizure of 1,639 pounds of cocaine in a Colombian air
force C-130 cargo plane at Fort Lauderdale's international airport.

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

Cannabis Pills (The Times version)

Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:14:52 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: UK: Editorial: Cannabis Pills
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Martin Cooke (mjc1947@cyberclub.iol.ie)
Pubdate: Thur, 12 Nov 1998
Source: Times, The (UK)
Contact: letters@the-times.co.uk
Website: http://www.the-times.co.uk/

CANNABIS PILLS

The case for returning the law to 1973

A woman, crippled by multiple sclerosis, is in agony. She tries a number of
drugs, yet finds only one that eases the pain: cannabis. So the woman's
husband, desperate to lessen his wife's suffering, grows it himself. The
police hear reports of strange plants seen growing in the couple's garden,
and pay them a visit. The husband is arrested. The wife loses her
painkiller.

It became illegal to use cannabis for medical purposes in 1973. For the
preceding two millennia, it had been used as a herbal remedy, the earliest
known reference being Assyrian tablets of the 7th century BC. But, after a
decade of soaring drug abuse, the Medicines Control Agency found there was
"insufficient evidence" to support cannabis's medical use. Declared a
Schedule One drug, its use was banned "except for scientific and very
limited medical purposes". Cocaine, morphine, heroin, amphetamines and
pethidine were listed under Schedule Two, permitting their prescription to
named patients.

Earlier this year, the Government issued a licence for a British company to
investigate the uses of cannabis as a medicine. Although its trials have yet
to begin, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee believes the
law should be changed immediately. After a lengthy inquiry, the committee
concluded that cannabis "almost certainly does have genuine medical
applications", and that the Government should act now to allow doctors to
give cannabis to named patients, before clinical trials have been completed.
They justify their haste on compassionate grounds: why delay and prolong
people's agony, when so much anecdotal evidence suggests cannabis can
alleviate pain?

The committee speaks with authority. Chaired by a pharmacologist, its
members include a Nobel prizewinning chemist and a former president of the
General Medicine Council. Yet neither the Government, nor the British
Medical Association, is persuaded. Cannabis is a toxic mixture, containing
over 60 cannabinoids and other ingredients. Giving patients impure, crude
cannabis would be similar to administering opium, instead of its derivative,
morphine. Allowing doctors to prescribe the drug now, before trials show
which cannabinoids are therapeutic and which are harmful, would put patients
at risk and could undermine the development of a drug based on scientific
research.

Such a reaction may appear harsh. Many Britons would agree with the
inhabitants of Alaska, Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington,
who voted to allow cannabis to be given to patients with severe or terminal
illnesses. If the results of the research do not question the select
committee's report, the Government should not hestitate to allow doctors to
prescribe effective derivatives of cannabis to named patients. Until then,
anyone found taking the drug for proven medical reasons should be treated
with the compassion they deserve.

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

Lords' Call For Medical Cannabis Rejected (The Times, in Britain,
says George Howarth, the Home Office Minister, ruled out a call
from the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee for doctors
to prescribe cannabis now. The peers said thousands of people suffering
muscle spasms and terminal cancer could benefit from the drug's painkilling
properties.)

Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:21:12 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: UK: Lords' Call For Medical Cannabis Rejected
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Martin Cooke (mjc1947@cyberclub.iol.ie)
Pubdate: Thur, 12 Nov 1998
Source: Times, The (UK)
Contact: letters@the-times.co.uk
Website: http://www.the-times.co.uk/
Author: JAMES LANDALE, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

LORDS' CALL FOR MEDICAL CANNABIS REJECTED

THE Government yesterday rejected fresh demands for the immediate
legalisation of cannabis for medical purposes.

But ministers gave a small ray of hope to sufferers by indicating that
doctors might be allowed to prescribe the drug after extensive clinical
trials.

George Howarth, the Home Office Minister, ruled out a call from the House of
Lords Science and Technology Committee for doctors to prescribe cannabis
now. The peers said thousands of people suffering muscle spasms and terminal
cancer could benefit from the drug's painkilling properties.

Mr Howarth said: "It would be irresponsible to say it's OK to use it but
there is no scientific evidence it will work."

While the Government's position angered patients' groups and some
politicians, the British Medical Association approved, saying that said
making cannabis available on prescription could delay development of more
effective drugs.

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

Judge Warns Against Lifting Cannabis Ban (Yahoo! News says Old Bailey Judge
Graham Boal QC was presiding over the case of a 27-year-old man who smoked
the herb heavily on a daily basis who was charged with butchering a young
artist with a kitchen knife in an unprovoked attack outside a London pub.
Commenting on the report issued by the House of Lords, the judge said,
"In the current debate on whether cannabis should continue to be a prohibited
substance, perhaps more attention should be given in some quarters to cases
such as this." The defendant was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia
in 1989.)

From: "Bob Owen@W.H.E.N." (when@olywa.net)
To: "_Drug Policy --" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: UK Judge Warns Against Lifting Cannabis Ban
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 18:31:32 -0800
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net

Newshawk: ccross@november.org
Source: Yahoo! News
Pubdate: Thursday November 12

Judge Warns Against Lifting Cannabis Ban

An Old Bailey judge has warned against rash moves to decriminalise cannabis,
just hours after a House of Lords call to legalise the drug for medical use.

Judge Graham Boal QC spoke out after hearing how cannabis helped to turn
Thai-born Arnat Boonprasit into a psychotic killer.

Government officials and doctors have already rejected the newly-published
Lords committee proposals which would make cannabis available on
prescription to fight serious illness.

Judge Boal told Boonprasit: "In the current debate on whether cannabis
should continue to be a prohibited substance, perhaps more attention should
be given in some quarters to cases such as this."

The comment came after Judge Boal heard how the 27-year-old, who smoked the
drug heavily on a daily basis, had butchered a young artist with a kitchen
knife in an unprovoked attack outside a London pub.

Boonprasit, who came to Britain aged nine and was diagnosed with paranoid
schizophrenia in 1989, admitted manslaughter on the grounds of diminished
responsibility. He was sectioned under the Mental Health Act and placed
under a restriction order without a time limit.

Earlier, the Lords Science and Technology committee published their report
calling for immediate action to give cancer patients and multiple sclerosis
sufferers cannabis to combat pain.

Committee chairman Liberal Democrat Lord Perry of Walton said clinical
trials could take up to five years and that was too long for sufferers to
wait.

"We felt that the evidence of benefit to these patients with very
distressing symptoms was such that we shouldn't make them wait that long,"
he said.

Patients' groups, politicians and even anti-drugs campaigners welcomed the
committee's conclusions. But the Government ruled out any change in the law
until clinical trials are completed.

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

Judge Warns On Cannabis (The version in The Irish Independent)

Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:21:12 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: UK: Judge Warns On Cannabis
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Martin Cooke (mjc1947@cyberclub.iol.ie)
Pubdate: Thur, 12 Nov 1998
Source: Irish Independent (Ireland)
Contact: independent.letters@independent.ie
Website: http://www.independent.ie/

JUDGE WARNS ON CANNABIS

A BRITISH judge yesterday warned against rash moves to decriminalise
cannabis, just hours after a House of Lords call to legalise the drug for
medical use.

Judge Graham Boal spoke out after hearing how cannabis helped to turn a
Thai-born man into a psychotic killer.

Government officials and doctors have already rejected the Lords committee
proposals, published yesterday morning, which would make cannabis available
on prescription to fight serious illness.

The comment came after Judge Boal heard how 27-year-old Jan Boonprasit, who
smoked the drug heavily on a daily basis, had butchered a young artist with
a kitchen knife in an unprovoked attack outside a London pub.

Boonprasit, who was brought to Britain aged nine and was diagnosed with
paranoid schizophrenia in 1989, admitted manslaughter on the grounds of
diminished responsibility.

He was placed under a restriction order without a time limit.

Earlier, the Lords Science and Technology committee published their report
calling for immediate action to give cancer patients and multiple sclerosis
sufferers cannabis to combat pain.

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

Heroin On Prescription As Addiction Solution Urged
(According to The Irish Times, a member of the National Drugs Strategy Team,
Father Seen Cassin, said yesterday that a Swiss project prescribing heroin
to addicts had "significantly good" results, and the Government
should consider new approaches to the drug problem,
including prescribing legal heroin.)

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:25:27 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Ireland: Heroin On Prescription As Addiction Solution Urged
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Martin Cooke (mjc1947@cyberclub.iol.ie)
Pubdate: Thu, 12 Nov 1998
Source: Irish Times (Ireland)
Contact: lettersed@irish-times.ie
Mail: The Irish Times, 11-15 D'Olier St, Dublin 2, Ireland
Fax: ++ 353 1 671 9407
Website: http://www.irish-times.ie/
Copyright: 1998 The Irish Times
Author: Catherine Cleary, Drugs and Crime Correspondent

HEROIN ON PRESCRIPTION AS ADDICTION SOLUTION URGED

The Government should consider new approaches to the drug problem,
including prescribing legal heroin, according to a member of the National
Drugs Strategy Team (NDST).

Father Seen Cassin, former head of the Merchants Quay project, told a Deil
Committee yesterday that a Swiss project prescribing heroin to addicts had
claimed "significantly good" results. The NDST is the statutory agency set
up to co-ordinate the work of local drugs task forces.

"We're not in favour of anybody using or injecting drugs," Father Cassin
told the Joint Committee on European Affairs. "But today some 10,000
injecting drug users are going to take heroin, they're going to inject it
and find or rob or steal the materials necessary to inject it."

The Swiss experiment involved around 1,100 heroin users over three years,
he said. "There was a significant reduction in the level of crime. One
third actually went into drug-free treatment and a further third went on to
maintenance programmes of oral alternatives to heroin."

Father Cassin said one criticism of the Swiss project had been that it had
picked those addicts more likely to succeed.

"We have a situation here in Dublin at the moment where the use of cannabis
is, in reality, decriminalised." If the i Garda pursued all cannabis users
then the system would be overwhelmed, he said. So a pragmatic approach was
taken in Dublin, where heroin was the main concern. Mr Fergus McCabe of the
NDST told the committee that the debate about such projects could "lead to
all kind of hysterical and irrational responses." "We can't have good
policies, rational or effective policies, unless we have information," he
said. There was an "urgent need" for a national drugs advisory board, he
said.

"In every other jurisdiction in Europe there is an advisory group or
council there." Ireland's drug policy had been the result of health policy
on the prevention of AIDS, he said. Mr Tony Gregory (Independent) said the
Swiss experience was that heroin crossed all social classes. Mr Gay
Mitchell (FG) criticised the Eastern Health Board for its response to the
problem. "Inchicore was devastated by people coming from all over the city
to one chemist to get their methadone."

Senator Brendan Ryan (Independent) said the Swiss police "had the peculiar
role of having to deliver heroin to the clinics," because of security
considerations. And a report, almost completed by members of the committee
would be about "neither liberal nor conservative solutions, but what has
been seen to work."

Father Cassin said politicians were afraid to decriminalise drugs.

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

[End]