-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cast Of Characters In The Chavez Trial (Alan W. Bock, the senior editorial
writer for The Orange County Register, shares his impressions of the judge,
defendant, prosecutor and defense attorneys at the trial of Marvin Chavez,
the medical marijuana patient and founder of the the Orange County Patient
Doctor Nurse Support Group.)
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:04:31 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Editorial: Cast Of Characters In 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: Fri, 13 Nov 1998
Author: Alan W. Bock-Mr. Bock is the Register's senior editorial writer.
CAST OF CHARACTERS IN THE CHAVEZ TRIAL
Marvin Chavez is a small man who almost always wears a chest brace because
of a rare spinal disorder.He found that marijuana offered him pain relief
without the side effects of prescription drugs.He became a campaigner for
Proposition 215.
The Marvin Chavez trial in West Orange County Court in Westminster, features
an interesting cast of characters assembled in a proceeding that could have
a profound impact on how Proposition 215 (now Section 11362.5 of the
California Healthy and Safety Code) will be implemented. Section 11362.5
specifically provides a defense against California laws against the
possession, use and cultivation of marijuana for patients with a
recommendation from a licensed physician and for their "primary caregivers."
However, California still has laws against the sale, transportation,
importing and furnishing of marijuana. While appellate court decisions have
suggested that some leeway in these areas might be appropriate since a
"right" that can't be exercised would be an absurdity, they have so far
declined to specify just how much leeway if any.
Marvin Chavez, the defendant, is a small man who almost always wears a chest
brace because of a rare spinal disorder that was aggravated by an injury
several years ago.
It took doctors several years to figure out that he was still having severe
back pain long after his injury should have healed because he has ALS,
commonly called Lou Gehrig's disease. They prescribed a wide range of pain
medications which, according to Marvin, left him severely depressed and
almost a recluse. "I hardly ever left my room for almost two years," he told
me.
Finally, having heard something about purported therapeutic effects, he
tried marijuana and found that it offered him pain relief without the
disturbing side effects of the prescription drugs. He became a campaigner
for Prop. 215 and after it passed he took steps to organize an Orange County
Cannabis Co-Op, later renamed the Orange County Patient Doctor Nurse Support
Group.
With Dr. Del Dalton, a pain-management specialist in Laguna Niguel as an
informal medical adviser, along with Anna Boyce, the registered nurse who
was instrumental in getting 215 passed, he (and others) put together a
program of educational activities, meetings among patients and distribution
of marijuana to patients with a doctor's recommendation.
But the cooperation he had hoped for from public and law-enforcement
officials was not forthcoming. He was arrested for selling marijuana.
Despite occasional flashes of bitterness ("We're disabled people, and mostly
poor people, just trying to get a reliable supply of our medication. Why are
they going to so much trouble to make a hard life even harder?") Marvin is
mostly cheerful and optimistic. He knows he might have to go to jail and it
will be hard to get his preferred medication there, but he's prepared for
the possibility.
Judge Thomas J. Borris, 45, has been presiding judge in the West Orange
County Judicial District since 1993. A Republican, he was appointed by Pete
Wilson. A Kansas City native who went to high school in Buena Park (where he
played football), he was graduated in 1976 from the Claremont Colleges with
a political science degree and received his law degree in 1979 from Loyola
Law School. He was a deputy district attorney in Orange County from 1980 to
1990 and in private practice from 1990 to 1993.
According to his short biography in the 1998 edition of "California Courts
and Judges," a standard reference work published by James Publishing, Inc.,
Judge Borris was named "Judge of the Year" in 1995 and "District Attorney of
the Year" in 1984 by the Orange County Narcotics Officers Association.
That is an interesting distinction to have earned, given his current case.
My observation, based on sitting in his courtroom for several days, is that
he is the fairest and most thorough judge to have had this case so far.
He listens, he has a sense of humor (when denying a motion from an attorney
he's prone to say "that's not gonna happen") and while he keeps things
moving along he also takes the time to consider issues and make sure both
sides have their say. He has ruled against the defense on most of the issues
germane to the case, but he has allowed the defense to build a foundation
for an entrapment defense on some of the charges. He loves sports analogies.
Carl Armbrust, the deputy district attorney prosecuting this case, is almost
a caricature of what you would expect an anti-marijuana crusader to be.
Tall, balding, gaunt, this former career Air Force officer projects a stern
demeanor at first. But he is also approachable, pleasant and reasonable to
talk with even when he disagrees with you. He has a wry sense of humor. He's
fond of exaggerated pronunciation; he enunciates "may-ri-wanna." I think
he's doing a terrible thing in pursuing this case rather than dropping it,
but heaven help me, I like him.
It is not surprising to learn that defense attorney James Silva, with his
short, dark hair and intense demeanor, grew up in New York, where he
graduated from Pace University in Pleasantville. He got his law degree from
Pepperdine in December 1994, took the Bar in February 1995 and passed it the
first time. Since then he has had a solo practice in Venice and has handled
several medical marijuana cases.
He has represented Steve McWilliams in San Diego (whose criminal case is
scheduled in December), Andrea Nagy in Ventura County (whose civil case
closing her growing plot is on appeal) and has been a co-counsel for the
Oakland and San Francisco cannabis clubs.
Silva, who much prefers his BMW motorcycle to any car, is the earnest
explainer to the jury, pleading with them to understand how sincere Marvin
Chavez's efforts have been.
J. David Nick is the polite but persistent and unrelenting cross-examiner,
especially skilled at finding holes in the stories policemen tell on the
stand. Born in Miami, he has lived in San Francisco for 17 years and got his
law degree from the University of San Francisco in 1990. Since then he has
been a solo practitioner criminal defense attorney, with a special interest
in constitutional issues.
Nick handled his first case involving medical marijuana in 1992 and got
several acquittals on "medical necessity" grounds before Prop. 215 was
passed. He was one of the lawyers for "Brownie Mary," the 70-year-old woman
who used to bring marijuana-laced brownies to AIDS patients in San Francisco
hospitals and has an appeals case pending before the 9th Circuit on the
constitutionality of drug-sniffing dogs in schools.
Much of what happens in court is routine and boring, but there are usually
moments of drama or turning points. With this cast of characters and the
issues involved, this case has had and should have more of these than usual.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Young Voters Rule (Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page
suggests in The San Jose Mercury News that Jesse Ventura's upset victory
in the Minnesota governor's race heralds the rise of an alternative party
that appeals to young people. Minnesota had the highest voter turnout
of any state in this off-year election, largely because of Ventura,
who opposes current drug policy and favors industrial hemp.)
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:04:21 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: OPED: Young Voters Rule
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: Fri, 13 Nov 1998
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
Copyright: 1998 Mercury Center
Author: CLARENCE PAGE, Chicago Tribune
YOUNG VOTERS RULE
Ventura's win crushes the myth of generational apathy
ON the day after the recent elections I put a riddle to Michele Mitchell,
author of a fascinating new book on the political views of Generation X.
``What,'' I asked, ``do you get when young voters show up at the polls?''
She demonstrated her expertise by giving the correct answer:
``Jesse `The Body' Ventura.''
Watching the election returns in her Brooklyn apartment, Mitchell, 28, was
delighted with the former professional wrestler's upset victory in the
Minnesota governor's race. She had been predicting that young people would
fuel the rise of an alternative party. But she had expected it to come in
2000 or later, not this soon.
Nor, like most of us, had she expected it to come on the shoulders of a bald
former professional wrestler running under the banner of Ross Perot's Reform
Party.
A former press secretary to former Rep. Pete Geren, D-Texas, from 1993 to
1996 and later the youngest writer the New York Times editorial board ever
had, Mitchell has written ``A New Kind of Party Animal: How the Young are
Tearing Up the American Political Landscape'' (Simon & Schuster, $23).
In it she argues that people born between 1961 and 1981 are not the
politically apathetic slackers us geezers tend to think they are.
For example, in 1992, when the Clinton-Gore campaign actively sought their
vote, 42 percent voted in national elections, the second highest number of
young voters since 1972. In 1996, when all age groups had a low turnout,
young voters still had a 21 percent turnout, only 2 percentage points lower
than senior citizens, Mitchell says.
While seniors are heavily courted by both parties, young voters are the
jilted lovers. These young voters are presumed to be apathetic and,
therefore, pretty much ignored until politicians need them.
Quite the contrary, Mitchell finds the young voting generation to be largely
independent, less committed than their elders to parties or doctrines and
more eager to see the rise of an alternative party.
Her findings have been supported by a variety of independent studies and
surveys, including exit polls of the Minnesota governor's race.
Minnesota had the highest voter turnout of any state in this off-year
election, largely because of Ventura. Exit polls showed most of his vote
came from voters under age 40. Twelve percent of those who voted in the
state said they would not have voted had there been no alternative to the
Republican and Democratic candidates on the ballot. Almost all of that vote
went to Ventura, who drew equally from women and men to win with 37 percent
of the vote in the three-way race.
Mitchell's book argues that young people are largely interested, active and
involved, but mostly in local matters, not the great global issues that pass
daily across the radar screen of major media.
Ventura's voters said they appreciated his ``straight talk,'' which is
largely libertarian, in an age when too many politicians won't say a word
unless it has been thoroughly vetted by polls, focus groups and highly paid
consultants.
With that in mind, I was disappointed to hear Ventura say he would not be a
candidate for president in 2000.
For now, he is putting a choke hold only on our preconceived notions about
the appetites of voters, especially the new generation of voters. If
Republican and Democratic leaders don't want to go the way of the Whigs,
they had better start paying more attention to young voters. They do get
older every day.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland Orders Drug Tests For Addicts On Parole - 25,000 to Face
Biweekly Checks, Escalating Penalties (The Washington Post
says Maryland has begun ordering every drug addict released on parole
or probation to report for urine tests twice a week in an ambitious attempt
to force about 25,000 criminals statewide to undergo drug treatment
and kick their habits, or face a series of quick, escalating punishments.
More than a million tests annually might be required, compared with
the 40,000 tests the state administered last year.)
From: "Bob Owen@W.H.E.N." (when@olywa.net)
To: "_Drug Policy --" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: Md. Orders Drug Tests For Addicts On Parole
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 21:15:35 -0800
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net
Newshawk: ccross@november.org
Online:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-11/13/124l-111398-idx.html
Md. Orders Drug Tests For Addicts On Parole -- 25,000 to Face Biweekly
Checks, Escalating Penalties
By Philip P. Pan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 13, 1998; Page A01
Maryland has begun ordering every drug addict released on parole or
probation to report for urine tests twice a week in an ambitious attempt to
force about 25,000 criminals statewide to undergo drug treatment and kick
their habits, or face a series of quick, escalating punishments.
The enormous project, which began last month and will be phased in over the
next two years, could redefine how the state deals with a group of repeat
drug offenders who have strained local courts and jails and make up perhaps
half of all the state's hard-core substance abusers.
The program, known as Break the Cycle, is based on the theory that frequent
drug testing coupled with swift, graduated punishments for drug use will
force more addicts off drugs than the threat of long jail terms or treatment
programs alone ever could.
Drug courts in the District and other cities have experimented with this
"coerced abstinence" approach before, but no state has tried to require such
frequent testing of all its drug-addicted parolees and probationers. Nor has
any state tried to use a set of automatic, mild sanctions to force them to
go clean.
More than a million tests annually might be required to make the plan work
in Maryland, officials said, compared with the 40,000 tests the state
administered last year.
Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (D), chief advocate of the plan, said it
could move enough addicts off drugs to cut demand for cocaine and heroin in
Maryland by as much as 50 percent. That would undermine drug markets that
have resisted traditional police crackdowns.
She said it also could produce dramatic reductions in the kind of crimes
that drug users routinely commit -- burglaries, car break-ins, prostitution
and similar low-level offenses that can wear down a neighborhood.
"I think this has tremendous potential to stop the revolving door of
addiction and crime," said Townsend, who won $3 million from the General
Assembly this year for the program and expects to seek $2 million more next
year. "This ends the debate over more punishment or more treatment. We need
both."
But Townsend and other state officials acknowledged that the program must
overcome serious obstacles to succeed, particularly if many addicts
repeatedly fail or skip the tests and must be arrested and jailed.
Mark A.R. Kleiman, a criminologist at the University of California at Los
Angeles who focuses on drug policy, said Maryland is basically trying to
overhaul its probation department -- an agency he considers critical to
crime control but that most states have neglected.
"This is a very, very big rock to push up a very steep hill. We should
expect a couple of years of tough start-up," he said. "But Maryland at the
moment is on the cutting edge. . . . Everyone's watching Maryland to see how
this goes."
For years, drug addicts released on parole or probation in Maryland have
been required to enroll in treatment programs, usually on an outpatient
basis. But supervision of those offenders was so lax and drug testing so
infrequent as to be meaningless.
Offenders routinely quit treatment without the state's approval, and many
would go for months without ever being tested for drug use. Because of
budget constraints, officials said, probation agents were permitted only
seven tests a month to cover their caseloads of more than 100 offenders.
"This is an instance of government trying to get back on course, having
deviated a long time ago, and it's about time," said Charles County Circuit
Court Judge Robert C. Nalley, who was told by state officials in 1994 to
stop ordering drug testing for so many offenders. "It doesn't make any sense
to tell a guy not to use drugs, and then not be able to police it."
Although the testing portion of the program is in place, the punishment end
remains a work in progress. Ideally, Townsend said, offenders who fail a
test or miss a treatment session would draw an immediate sanction, the
severity of which would increase with each new violation.
The challenge has been finding a way to impose the punishments quickly, and
that means transferring some authority from judges to probation agents --
which raises tricky legal questions about due process.
In Prince George's, Montgomery and Howard counties, judges have agreed to
allow probation agents to impose a range of predetermined sanctions without
waiting to prove each new violation in court: community service, tighter
supervision, home detention and "jury box" detention -- in which the addict
is forced to spend a day sitting in a courtroom.
But the judges in those counties have refused to allow agents to use brief
stints in jail, which Townsend favors.
The Break the Cycle program rejects the conventional wisdom that addicts
must "want to change" for treatment to work and instead tries to compel them
to change.
"It takes outside pressure to force people to confront their addictions, and
that pressure can come from families or from jobs. But for the most
crime-prone addicts, the only real pressure on their lives is the criminal
justice system," said Jay Carver, the trustee appointed to run the
District's probation and parole agencies and a longtime advocate of expanded
drug testing.
Carver said drug courts have shown that "the constant pressure of immediate
and measured sanctions eventually leads people to get serious about
treatment. And there's a lot of research showing that the longer people stay
in treatment, the better the outcomes."
More than 1,200 offenders already have been placed on the new testing
schedule, and officials expect to enroll 15,000 by the end of next year,
focusing first on Baltimore City and six counties: Prince George's,
Montgomery, Howard, Charles, Baltimore and Washington. In the next year,
officials plan to add 10,000 addicts from the rest of the state.
The addicts are tested twice weekly during the first three months after
being released. If they stay clean, they are tested once a week for three
more months and at random during the remainder of their terms of
supervision.
The state has expanded an existing laboratory in Baltimore and opened two
new labs to accommodate the increased workload. Offenders report for the
tests at their local probation offices, and their urine samples and test
results are tracked using a new statewide computer system.
Each jurisdiction is drawing up its own schedule of sanctions for failed or
skipped tests, but the discussions have stalled over whether probation
agents should be able to impose short jail stints on offenders.
Judges in Baltimore have worked out a possible compromise with the city's
public defenders, who have agreed that two- to 10-day stints in jail may be
better for their clients than two-month waits in jail for court hearings.
"The defendant will be consenting to these sanctions, they'll have adequate
warning, and I'll be signing the orders," said Joseph H. Kaplan, the
administrative judge in Baltimore. "If you go the regular probation route,
there's a lot of time wasted waiting for the hearing, and everybody
recognizes that a sanction delayed is worthless. You've got to do it before
the person forgets what they're being punished for."
The state Division of Parole and Probation has established minimum
guidelines for punishments that give probation agents as long as 30 days to
meet with an offender who fails a test.
Townsend said those guidelines are inadequate. "We need sanctions that have
bite to them and send the message that drug abuse is unacceptable and will
be punished," she said. "But we're going to have to build trust in this
system. This is going to take time."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MD Scoffs At Medical Marijuana (The Associated Press says a study
published Thursday in the American Medical Association journal,
"Archives of Ophthalmology," by Keith Green, a Medical College of Georgia
professor of ophthalmology, claims it is a "fallacy that marijuana
is of any value at all in the treatment of glaucoma." Plus commentary
from list subscribers.)
From: GDaurer@aol.com
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:30:25 EST
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: M.D. Scoffs At Medical Marijuana
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
Unbelievable. Try telling the information below (``the fallacy that marijuana
is of any value at all in the treatment of glaucoma") to Elvy Musikka or
Robert Randall or anybody else getting IND supplies from the government who
has retained their eyesight.
Yes, marijuana needs to be smoked often by glaucoma patients -- at least
that's the case with the leaves (yes, leaf--no bud) from the low-THC strain
which is grown and rolled into medical joints in Mississippi by the US
government.
I'd be interested to see what kind of sample he based his reasoning on.
Gregory Daurer
Denver, CO
***
M.D. Scoffs At Medical Marijuana
AUGUSTA, Ga. (AP) -- A person with glaucoma would have to smoke a marijuana
cigarette every two hours -- about 4,000 a year -- to experience any medical
benefits from the drug, according to new research.
In a study published Thursday in the American Medical Association journal
Archives of Ophthalmology, Keith Green, a Medical College of Georgia professor
of ophthalmology, attacks ``the fallacy that marijuana is of any value at all
in the treatment of glaucoma.''
Voters in Alaska, Arizona, Oregon, Nevada and Washington last week approved
measures allowing use of marijuana for medical reasons. Those reasons include
reducing side effects of cancer chemotherapy and treating glaucoma.
Glaucoma is a degenerative eye disease that affects between 2 percent and 3
percent of people and is more likely in those with a family history of the
disease.
The normal eye maintains a constant pressure of fluid, but glaucoma causes a
chemical change that blocks the outflow, Green said. That leads to increased
pressure that can lead to blindness.
Chemicals in marijuana called cannabinoids do seem to help improve the outflow
in about 60 percent of the people who try it. But the pressure builds back up
within four hours, Green said.
In order to keep the pressure down, a person would have to smoke a joint every
two hours, he said.
``Smoking a joint a week is not going to cure glaucoma,'' said Green.
Advocates for medical marijuana say even temporarily alleviating the pressure
is better than doing nothing.
``Should these patients suffer so?'' asked Allen St. Pierre, executive
director of the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws Foundation.
AP-NY-11-13-98 0738EST
***
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:43:49 -0600
From: David C Dalton (tussis@playnet-kc.com)
Organization: Dalton's Interiors
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: Re: M.D. Scoffs At Medical Marijuana
References: (370107@pn.playnet-kc.com)
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
Mmm. If it is a choice between blindness and smoking a joint every two hours, I
sure know what I'd pick.
I could improve my vision, and cut back on my smoking at once. :)
***
From: Joe Wein (joewein@pobox.com)
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: RE: M.D. Scoffs At Medical Marijuana
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 00:52:26 +0900
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
>AUGUSTA, Ga. (AP) -- A person with glaucoma would have to smoke a marijuana
>cigarette every two hours -- about 4,000 a year -- to experience any medical
>benefits from the drug, according to new research.
As usual they ignore that MJ can be used in many different ways, not just
by smoking its leaves or flowers. It is well known that the effects of orally
consumed MJ (tea, cookies, hot chocolate, etc) can last much longer than of
smoked MJ. Why didn't they test for the effects of orally consumed THC on
intra-ocular pressure?
As I remember, the surviving 8 patients in the IND program receive 300 joints
per month, which works out as 10 per day or about one for every 2 1/2 hours.
And that's leaf with less than 3% potency.
Best regards
Joe Wein
http://www.taima.org
"Hemp in Japan"
***
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:36:41 -0500
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: cheechwz@MINDSPRING.COM (A H Clements)
Subject: Re: M.D. Scoffs At Medical Marijuana
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
Hey hey talkers & Doug,
Georgia is the political outback of the US, exceeded only by Alabama &
Oklahoma in drug-warriorism, IMHO.
Aside from a few DPR, needle-exchange, AIDS & med mj activists, mostly
those who hail from Georgia are ill-informed prohibitionist fanatics. For
example, PRIDE is based in Atlanta.
Even the Libertarian candidates didn't emphasize either DPR or medicinal
cannabis in this years elections. In the 2000 elections things will be
different (I hope).
Since Georgia doesn't have a citizen-based voter initiative system
(legislators must approve initiatives before they are put on ballot) there
isn't a great opportunity here for DPR.
ashley (surrounded by prohibitionists) in atlanta
At 10:03 AM on 11/13/98, Doug Keenan wrote:
> Georgia, huh? Wonder who else hails from there.
>
> Anybody know, what's the title of this "study?"
***
From: CroneSpeak@aol.com
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:42:24 EST
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: Re: M.D. Scoffs At Medical Marijuana
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
Who paid for his study?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Study casts doubt on marijuana's effectiveness as glaucoma treatment
(The CNN version - plus more commentary from list subscribers)
From: Remembers@webtv.net (Genie Brittingham)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:15:57 -0800 (PST)
To: she-who-remembers@makelist.com
Subject: DPFCA: Study doubts MJ treatment of Glaucoma
Sender: owner-dpfca@drugsense.org
Reply-To: dpfca@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/
Curious that this report appears on the heels of a victorious election
(for mmj) and the reoprt from the House of Lords. Now we get this from
our "experts". Too bad they didn't talk to Elvy Musikka, Robert Randle
or any of the other thousands of glaucoma patients who are helped by
cannabis. Too bad they didn't talk to my friend who's been blind since
birth, but is reading this email right now (on webtv), because of
cannabis.
By the way, this doctor claims that glaucoma is a painless disease......
Anyone want to challenge him? I wonder how many gov't / pharmacuetical
$$$$$ he's recieved to do this "study".
***
From: CNN website ( as reported on CNN news )
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9811/13/marijuana.glaucoma/index.html
Study casts doubt on marijuana's effectiveness as glaucoma treatment
November 13, 1998
AUGUSTA, Georgia (CNN) -- A new study that says smoking marijuana is a
hazy and impractical way to treat glaucoma is the latest twist to the
medical marijuana debate.
The study, by ophthalmologist Keith Green at the Medical College of
Georgia, found the medical benefits of smoking marijuana are slight and
relief is temporary.
"Glaucoma is a 24-hour-a-day disease, 365 days-a-year disease and you
cannot get away from it," he said.
The battle over legalizing marijuana for medical purposes has been
smoldering for over 30 years. But the issue has been recently fueled by
voters in five states --Alaska, Arizona, Oregon, Nevada and Washington
-- who passed laws legalizing the drug to ease the symptoms of certain
diseases such as glaucoma, AIDS and cancer. Glaucoma is a chronic eye
disease that can lead to blindness if left untreated. It is caused by an
abnormal increase of fluid pressure in the eye which leads to the
gradual loss of vision. Researchers suspect a chemical in marijuana
called tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, can reduce interocular pressure
which can prevent the disease from progressing.
But to be effective, Green said a patient would have to smoke an
unrealistic amount of marijuana.
"If you want to maintain a low interocular pressure with marijuana, then
you have to smoke a joint every 1 to 2 hours which is 10 to 12 joints a
day, which is 4,000 a year," he said. "That's by anybody's definition --
no matter how liberal you are -- a considerable consumption." His study
is published in the recent issue of the American Medical Association's
journal Opthamology.
Marijuana contains over 400 different chemicals, some of which cause a
euphoric feeling that eliminates or lessons pain associated with many
diseases.
But since glaucoma is a painless disease, some doctors feel the
negative effects associated with smoking marijuana outweigh the known
benefits, and patients would be better off using the available
prescription medications until scientists can duplicate the effects of
THC in a pill or topical ointment.
"For those who smoke cigarettes, marijuana has 50 percent more tar and
volatile cancer-inducing compounds," Green said. "It causes emphysema,
changes hormones, changes a whole bundle of things. It is quite a toxic
chemical."
But advocates for medical marijuana say temporary relief is better than
nothing.
"Should these patients suffer so?" said Allen St. Pierre, executive
director of the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws
Foundation.
Next month the Institute of Medicine plans to release its year long
study on the medicinal benefits of marijuana use for many diseases,
including glaucoma.
Food & Health Correspondent Holly Firfer and The Associated Press
contributed to this report.
(c) 1998 Cable News Network, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
***
From: Phillizy@aol.com
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 21:37:18 EST
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: Fwd:Re: Glaucoma
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
From: Phillizy@aol.com
Return-path: (Phillizy@aol.com)
To: asobey@ncfcomm.com
Subject: Re: Glaucoma
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:43:29 EST
In a message dated 98-11-13 13:47:17 EST, you write:
>The University of Georgia just released a study that claims marijuana
> has no effect on glaucoma unless taken in excess, and then the result is
>small. It is being carried as a lead story on Headline News now.
Yeah, the way it was reported, one needs to smoke a joint every two hours for
minimal relief. This study leads one to question the quality of cannabis
used in the research. Ditchweed comes easily to mind.
The average glaucoma user controls his/her disease with an ounce of marijuana
a week.
Lizy
***
Delivered-To: fixup-drctalk@drcnet.org@fixme
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 20:17:33 -0700
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: Steve Dunn (steve_dunn@uswest.net)
Subject: Re: Glaucoma Article...
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
I went to the AMA web site and read the article.
Contrary to news media like CNN this is absolutely NOT a
"new study" - rather it is a REVIEW ARTICLE - an
interpretation and summarization of older studies. Not one
new experiment was done.
It's clear from the introduction that the author greatly
dislikes marijuana - anyway, he points out that the fall in
pressure only lasts a few hours and then says that you'd
have to smoke a joint every few hours to benefit and then
extrapolates the toxic effects from that amount of smoking.
So the question is whether his statment is true and he doesn't
go into the kind of detail about the methodology of the studies
he reviews that I am used to seeing in other review articles.
If the tests he reviews were of just a single dose then given
that the persistence of MJ in the body might lead to a
more chronic lowering of the pressure with chronic moderate use
this is not a fair method - if the tests involved patients given
a moderate dose over a period of time and found that there was no
overall drop in ocular pressure except proximate to smoking another
joint then he really does have a substantial point.
MJ does not have to prove out for every indication to be a valid
medicine - it only needs to prove out for ONE.
-Steve Dunn
PS: I am a layman - but I read lots of journal articles in
oncology...
The possibilities are infinitely
greater than the averages
CancerGuide: http://cancerguide.org
"When you need the right questions"
***
From: adbryan@ONRAMP.NET
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:27:35 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: M.D. Scoffs At Medical Marijuana
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
I couldn't find the study on MCG's website.
http://www.mcg.edu/som/eye/research.html
But I did a couple of other things:
GREEN , KEITH P
kgreen@mail.mcg.edu
(706) 721-4804
REGENTS PROF BG-123
OPHTHALMOLOGY
Keith Green
Major research interests - ocular physiology, pharmacology and
toxicology. Areas of research include, drug pharmacokinetics in the eye;
ion transport in and across corneal endothelium and ciliary epithelium
relating to the maintenance of constant corneal thickness and aqueous
humor formation processes, respectively; toxicology of potential
ophthalmic products; investigation on new drugs to decrease intraocular
pressure and their mechanisms of action; drug and chemical interaction
with contact lenses; and, marijuana effects on the eye.
Examinations have been made on the kinetics of distribution of several
drugs, ranging from cationic (benzalkonium chloride) or anionic (sodium
lauryl sulfate) surfactants to indomethacin. These studies have
established the distribution patterns of a number of drugs in the eye
and the kinetic relationships in adult versus young versus neonatal
animals. More drug is taken up in younger eyes although the temporal
distribution is almost the same, indicating a faster and greater, uptake
and loss by younger tissues. Ion transport studies have shown that a net
sodium and bicarbonate transport occurs across the rabbit corneal
endothelium which are separable from each other through the use of
different stimuli or perturbations in the bathing solution. The
intracellular endothelial potential is lower (-45 mV) than that of the
ciliary epithelium (-80 mV) but each cell type is joined in a syncytium.
Many techniques are employed in these studies, such as pneumotonography;
Scheimpflug photography of the anterior segment of the eye;
fluorophotometry for blood-aqueous barrier and blood-retinal barrier
permeability, corneal endothelial and epithelial permeability and
aqueous humor turnover rate; use of ion-sensitive intracellular
fluoroprobes; transtissue radioisotopic ion or non-electrolyte fluxes;
electrophysiologic studies to determine transmembrane and intracellular
ionic events; and use of radioactive compounds to follow pharmacokinetic
parameters of drug distribution within the eye.
Has published over 310 papers in refereed journals with co-editorship of
several books on ocular toxicology. Was a founder-member of the
International Society of Ocular Toxicology (ISOT) in 1986 and wrote the
Constitution and By-Laws that were adopted by the Society. Served as the
Secretary/Treasurer from 1986 to 1992, and most recently as President of
ISOT from 1/1/95 through 12/31/96. Has been recipient of NIH Career
Development Award (1970-1974); Fogarty Senior International Fellow
(1982-1983) for sabbatical leave at University of Edinburgh, Scotland
with Drs. Randall House, Calbert I. Phillips and Ruth Clayton; Research
to Prevent Blindness, Inc. (RPB) Manpower Award (1980); and RPB Senior
Scientific Investigator Award (1994). Was member (1978-1981) and chair
(1981-1982) of Visual Sciences A Study Section.
***
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: Robert Goodman (robgood@bestweb.net)
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 00:28:25 -500
Subject: Re: M.D. Scoffs At Medical Marijuana
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
>I couldn't find the study on MCG's website.
>http://www.mcg.edu/som/eye/research.html
>But I did a couple of other things:
>GREEN , KEITH P
>kgreen@mail.mcg.edu
>(706) 721-4804
>REGENTS PROF BG-123
>OPHTHALMOLOGY
>Keith Green
>Major research interests - ocular physiology, pharmacology and
>toxicology. Areas of research include, drug pharmacokinetics in the
>eye; ion transport in and across corneal endothelium and ciliary
>epithelium relating to the maintenance of constant corneal
>thickness and aqueous humor formation processes, respectively;
>toxicology of potential ophthalmic products; investigation on new
>drugs to decrease intraocular pressure and their mechanisms of
>action; drug and chemical interaction with contact lenses; and,
>marijuana effects on the eye.
>Examinations have been made on the kinetics of distribution of
>several drugs, ranging from cationic (benzalkonium chloride) or
>anionic (sodium lauryl sulfate) surfactants to indomethacin. These
>studies have established the distribution patterns of a number of
>drugs in the eye and the kinetic relationships in adult versus
>young versus neonatal animals. More drug is taken up in younger
>eyes although the temporal distribution is almost the same,
>indicating a faster and greater, uptake and loss by younger tissues....
I remember those studies. Seems he got a lot of publicity from this because
of the implication that shampoo might damage eyes. All he actually showed
was that soap penetrates eyes, not that it causes damage. But he seems to
have a knack for making general news from his published studies. I'm
interested in the details of the one at hand. Are they the result of
clinical studies I didn't know about? Or animal research? Or what?
Although he may have put a "spin" on it you don't like (probably because he
thought pointing out the LIMITATIONS of cannabotherapy is more newsworthy
than pointing out its therapeutic potential, which I guess by now is old
hat), it is more evidence of the therapeutic usefulness of cannabis.
Robert
***
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:01:31 -0800 (PST)
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: R Givens (rgivens@sirius.com)
Subject: RE: M.D. Scoffs At Medical Marijuana
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
>M.D. Scoffs At Medical Marijuana
>
>AUGUSTA, Ga. (AP) -- A person with glaucoma would have to smoke a marijuana
>cigarette every two hours -- about 4,000 a year -- to experience any medical
>benefits from the drug, according to new research.
So what, the Feds give glaucoma patients in their program 300 joints a
month, so that conforms to the need to smoke a joint every two hours.
There is no cure for glaucoma at present. Patients using standard meds have
to take the pills or eye drops every day to reduce eye pressures to safe
levels the same way cannabis users must continue taking their medication,
so Green's hypocrisy on this point fails, unless, of course, we outlaw
every medicine that requires multiple daily doses.
Every standard glaucoma med on the market has lethal side effects when used
as directed.
The warning sheet for Timolol advises:
"Severe breathing problems, including death due to bronchospasm (spasm of
the bronchial tubes), have been reported in patients with asthma following
use of some ophthalmic beta-adrenergic blocking agents."
In one six month period over 57 people died of bronchospasms because of
using beta-adrenergic blocking agents. They call it the "sudden death
syndrome." The patient gets up one morning and simply drops dead. From my
information, asthmatics were not the only victims.
Contrast that with the fact that marijuana use has never caused a death.
Moreover, Keith Green's own conclusions dispute his claims:
Results: Although it is undisputed that smoking causes a fall in IOP in
60-65% of users, continued use at a rate needed to control IOP would lead
to substantial systemic toxic effects revealed as pathological changes.
I'd like to see Green's Reefer Madness research overturning countless
studies that showed no "substantial systemic toxic effects" for marijuana.
Also Green's hypocritical logic fails to account for the LETHAL qualities
of standard glaucoma medications compared to zero deaths from marijuana.
Lastly, Green admits that marijuana IS effective for 60-65% of glaucoma
patients. I guess Green just doesn't give a damn about patients who
develop tolerances to his glaucoma wonder drugs and could save their sight
with marijuana.
R Givens
***
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: Robert Goodman (robgood@bestweb.net)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 22:11:03 -500
Subject: toxicity
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
On 1998-11-16 rumba2@earthlink.net said:
>--------------
>I didn't know that Marihuana was toxic. Haven't studies confirmed
>this?
>Scott
The trouble comes in defining toxicity. Someone can always point to an
effect undesired by the commentor, and say that's toxicity. With marijuana,
that'd be behavioral toxicity: making people giggle, etc.
Robert
***
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:48:11 -0600
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: "Carl E. Olsen" (carl@COMMONLINK.NET)
Subject: Re: Glaucoma
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
At 11:24 AM 11/16/1998 -0500, Scott Dykstra wrote:
>I didn't know that Marihuana was toxic.
>Haven't studies confirmed this?
Judge Young said it was non-toxic in 1988. The National Center for
Toxicological Research said it was non-toxic in 1985. Maybe there's
something more recent that I don't know about.
Sincerely,
Carl Olsen
***
Reply-To: "SUEVOS" (suevos@catskill.net)
From: "SUEVOS" (suevos@catskill.net)
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: Re: Refuting medical claims
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 19:31:41 -0800
For information about cannabis as treatment for glaucoma, I recommend pages
45-49 of Marijuana Medical Handbook, a Guide to Therapeutic use by Rosenthal,
Geirenger and Dr. Tod Mikuriya. On page 229, Bibliography, there are two
more references to glaucoma. Post message if you would like this
information. There's also tons of research articles whose citations you can
find online at the Lindesmith Center (TLC).
suevos
-----Original Message-----
From: R Givens (rgivens@sirius.com)
To: DRCTalk Reformers' Forum (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Date: Monday, November 16, 1998 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: Refuting medical claims
>>I think that actually before deciding to 'refute' the claims - one has to
>>consider that they could be correct! Maybe cannabis really isn't a good
>>treatment for glaucoma just as the good doctor says - on the other hand
>>maybe he's full of it. What is needed to INVESTIGATE his claims - based
>>on the DATA then decide if they are wrong or not.
>
>I believe the claim is correct that if mj is used as glaucoma treatment,
>joints must be smoked every 2-4 hours. The question is: Is it harmful
>to smoke that much? I do not personally believe that it is. If so,
>the Jamaican and Costa Rican studies would have revealed at least some
>indication of harm in long-term heavy users. Little, if any, harm was
>revealed.
The question isn't whether a drug causes harm, almost every drug sold has
serious, even potentially lethal effects, but whether the potential benefit
exceeds the risks involved.
Many chemotherapy medications are so lethally toxic that they actually kill
a small percent of patients (maybe 5% maybe more). Chemotherapy is used
because it helps many more patients than it kills. The potential benefit -
saving or extending a life from cancer - outweighing the risk of being
poisoned by the chemotherapy.
None of the narcomaniacs ever mention this standard, which is almost
universally included in drug fact sheets:
In deciding to use a medicine, the risks of taking the medicine must be
weighed against the good it will do. This is a decision you and your doctor
will make. For (this medication), the following should be considered: (A list
of possible negative consequences of taking the drug follows.) - Quoted from
the Timilol fact sheet.
So the question isn't whether there are possible negative effects, but
whether the drug provides enough benefits to justify the risks. Marijuana
passes on both counts because Mr. Green admits that marijuana IS effective
for 60-65% of glaucoma patients and there has never been a recorded death
from marijuana.
Green's dubious findings, if provable, should be put in the drug fact sheet,
but they are not sufficient reason to keep cannabis off the market if it
provides substantial relief for a medical condition. Hundreds of toxic
and lethal drugs are on the market.
R Givens
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cover-Up Alleged In Death Probe (The Houston Chronicle version)
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 16:50:30 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US TX: Cover-Up Alleged In Death Probe
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: adbryan@onramp.net
Pubdate: Fri, 13 Nov 1998
Source: Houston Chronicle (TX)
Contact: viewpoints@chron.com
Website: http://www.chron.com/
Copyright: 1998 Houston Chronicle
Author: STEVE LASH
COVER-UP ALLEGED IN DEATH PROBE
Official hits agencies in killing by Marine
WASHINGTON -- The Justice and Defense departments undermined criminal
investigations by withholding information about the inadequate
training of Marines who killed a Texas teen-ager while on border
patrol, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, said Thursday.
Smith said the two agencies refused requests from him and Texas
prosecutors for documents related to the fatal shooting of Esequiel
Hernandez Jr., an 18-year-old Redford goatherd, on May 20, 1997.
"It certainly has the appearance of a cover-up, at a minimum," Smith
said in releasing a 249-page report his staff prepared on the shooting
and its aftermath.
Cpl. Clemente Banuelos has testified that he shot Hernandez when the
teen-ager aimed his rifle at another Marine on anti-drug patrol.
The information the government departments did provide reveals the
camouflaged Marines had no knowledge of the Texas community and little
border patrol training before encountering Hernandez, armed only with
the .22-caliber rifle he used to ward off thieves and snakes, Smith
said.
The congressman, who chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims, said the departments' failure to provide
information to Texas law enforcement "had the effect of seriously
undermining any possibility of finding the truth in a criminal
investigation."
Two Texas grand juries declined to issue indictments in the summer of
1997. A federal grand jury also issued no indictments after conducting
a civil rights investigation. The federal government has agreed to pay
$1.9 million to the Hernandez family to settle a wrongful death claim.
The Marine Corps issued a statement defending its investigation of the
Redford shooting, saying it reprimanded officers in the chain of
command for failing to properly supervise and support the operation.
"In addition to investigating the incident itself, the investigating
officer looked at every aspect of Marine Corps support of counter-drug
operations," the military service stated. "Our efforts to make this an
open, thorough and responsible investigation enabled us to identify
that the level of support and priority of effort that [border patrol]
missions received from higher headquarters was, in some instances,
less than acceptable."
The Justice Department said there was insufficient evidence to show an
intentional violation of Hernandez's civil rights and rejected Smith's
contention the agency impeded criminal investigations.
"After our investigation, we shared all of our evidence with the local
prosecutor to the extent permitted by law," the department's statement
said.
The Texas congressman reviewed information that the departments
provided to him voluntarily and under congressional subpoena. He said
the Justice Department was more culpable than the Pentagon, because
the Marine Corps at least conducted a detailed investigation and
punished several officers.
The Justice Department, which supervises the Border Patrol, has
refused to take any action or acknowledge any responsibility for the
incident, Smith said.
"It is troubling that the Justice Department, which is responsible for
enforcing the law, decided instead to obstruct law enforcement in the
Hernandez case," he added. "Life and liberty are dependent upon
citizens and their government being held accountable.
"When the nation's chief law enforcement agency will not make even a
cursory attempt to hold itself and its employees accountable for the
wrongful killing of an American citizen, the life and freedom of every
citizen are threatened."
Smith, who said he has no plans to conduct hearings on his report's
conclusions, placed most of the blame for the shooting on the Border
Patrol for failing to teach law enforcement techniques to the Marines
and to tell them that many law-abiding residents in the area carry
light rifles for protection.
"They [the Marines] were not made to understand how threatening they
might appear to local residents with no knowledge of their presence,"
Smith said. "The Marines were not told that their observation post was
located near a number of family homes, including the Hernandez home.
They were not told that Hernandez regularly brought his goats to the
Polvo Crossing area."
The congressman said the goatherd might have fired two shots at the
Marine patrol to protect his animals, not knowing that the sounds he
heard in the underbrush were U.S. military. However, those shots --
followed quickly by Hernandez's return to tending his goats -- did not
warrant the four-member Marine patrol's decision to shadow the
goatherd for 20 minutes, Smith said.
The Pentagon has suspended the use of military personnel in border
enforcement. Proposed legislation to bar military border patrols died
in Congress this year.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you willing to pay for more police officers? (Constable Mark Tonner,
a Vancouver Province columnist, wants your feedback about whether
an overwhelming police presence is necessary to "impose order" on the
east side of Vancouver, British Columbia, and whether you agree with him
that if voters knew a tax increase would be devoted solely to police patrols,
they'd authorize more than the one per cent the city proposes.)
From: creator@drugsense.org (Cannabis Culture)
To: cclist@drugsense.org
Subject: CC: Are you willing to pay for more police officers?
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 08:48:21 -0800
Lines: 100
Sender: creator@drugsense.org
Reply-To: creator@drugsense.org
Organization: Cannabis Culture (http://www.cannabisculture.com/)
Constable Mark Tonner, weekly columnist for the Vancouver Province, wants
your feedback. He's known for his virulent anti-pot, anti-drug, lock 'em up
stance, and he needs to be shown that the people of Vancouver, and the
people of the world, do not agree with his police-state ideology or his
ideas.
Please take a look at his most recent column, and take a moment to send him
an email and let him know what you think about solving property crime and
getting drug use off the streets, marcuspt@msn.com
Techniques like prescription of drugs to addicts (it's working in
Switzerland) and increasing the number of beds for detox are going to be
far more successful than spending more money on cops and "overwhelming
police presence", who only serve to drive up the price of hard drugs when
they bust dealers, and thereby increase property crime.
See: http://www.csdp.org/factbook/treatmen.htm for facts and figures
on treatment versus domestic law enforcement outcomes.
***
Source: Vancouver Province (Canada)
Contact: provedpg@pacpress.southam.ca
Date: Friday 13 November 1998
Author: Mark Tonner
Are you willing to pay for more police officers?
While Vancouver's police board, police union, mayor and police chief
wrangle over law enforcement budgets, the rest of us are left wondering why
such issues should be difficult to resolve.
If voters knew with certainty that a tax boost would be devoted solely to
increased police patrols, they'd likely authorize more than the one per
cent the city proposes.
Vancouverites have not lost their taste for law and order; indeed, they
demand more whenever they're given a chance to speak.
Such discussions inevitably settle on the city's downtown east side. Given
the current legal climate, the only way to impose order there is with an
overwhelming police presence.
The most effective approach: Keeping crooks in jail, is simply not
permitted.
To clean up the east side, and keep it that way, would require more than
the 40 new officers under discussion, but they'd be a decent start.
It must also be borne in mind that skid row is a small part of a large
city. Citizens everywhere in Vancouver are keen on public safety, and
though most would approve of increased police patrols in skid row, few
would support them at the expense of their own neigbourhoods.
Whether or not the current police budget is sufficiently lean is a
contentious issue, and for good reason: If we were flying ourselves all
over the country, and driving Cadillacs while our streets ran wild, more
money for policing would be pointless.
Yet the management and membership of this department have not been sidling
up to the buffet. We've honed our spending in conscientious fashion, to the
point where the whittle marks are starting to show.
VPD members are remarkably loyal to their work, but aren't above showing a
certain cynicism in their humour. Let me share a few of the comical budget
reduction ideas making the rounds:
It's been suggested we could shut our patrol function down one day a week,
choose the day at random and keep it secret. Most crooks would never figure
it out, thousands of dollars would be saved, and the drop in arrest stats
could be touted as some sort of victory.
Police could be sent out on rollerblades, rather than on bikes, or in
cars. Money would be saved, and the silent approach would be an effective
tool, so long as quick stops weren't needed. Of course, the truly frugal
gendarme would be issued the much-underrated pogo stick. Instant status and
mobility, instant self-defence accessory!
One especially misdirected fellow proposed a new category of 911 call, the
"T" file. As budgetary restraints tighten, prohibiting response to certain
incidents, these "T" or "teddy bear" files could be opened. A fuzzy stuffed
bear could be sent to comfort the caller, in lieu of an officer.
It would be simple enough to set up a catapult, or some kind of air cannon
on the roof at HQ, and our accuracy, it was suggested, would improve with
practise.
Humour helps, but it won't change this: The notion that we're living in a
time when funding for police should be reduced appears in every version of
the budget discussion I've heard.
Is this truly such a time? I say, ask the people. My guess is they want
more officers out there, and they'd be willing to pay for them.
Are you for, against, or indifferent? Share your take on this- spare a
moment to call my voice mail at 717-3349 (enter #1373) or read the
subscript and drop me a line.
Const. Mark Tonner is a Vancouver police officer. His opinions do not
necessarily reflect those of the city's police department or board. Tonner
may be contacted at The Province, or by e-mail at marcuspt@msn.com
***
CClist, the electronic news and information service of Cannabis Culture
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@drugsense.org containing
the command "unsubscribe cclist".
***
Subscribe to Cannabis Culture Magazine!
Write to: 324 West Hastings Street, Vancouver BC, CANADA, V6B 1A1
Call us at: (604) 669-9069, or fax (604) 669-9038. Visit Cannabis
Culture online at http://www.cannabisculture.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Drugs Taint Mexican City (A Chicago Tribune article in The San Jose
Mercury News says a "full-scale drug war" has broken out in Ciudad Juarez,
Mexico, just across the border from El Paso, Texas, home to more than
1 million people. To hear police officers tell it, there is not much they
can do. Despite an army of Mexican and US law enforcement officials
stationed along the border, authorities from both countries say their actions
are doing little to stem the flow of drugs into the United States.)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 16:27:48 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Mexico: Drugs Taint Mexican City
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: Fri, 13 Nov 1998
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
Copyright: 1998 Mercury Center
Author: Paul de la Garza Chicago Tribune
DRUGS TAINT MEXICAN CITY
We will never be able to guard the border completely. Not even with
the best technology from the gulf war.
International problem: Battle for control of cartels raises havoc on
both sides of the border.
CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico -- The banner headline splashed across the front
page of a local newspaper blared, ``Another two found in the trunk of
a car.''
The victims, both men, had been strangled, each found with a green
cord tied around his neck.
The article mentioned a possible motive: that it was a drug-related
hit.
But residents of Ciudad Juarez could have guessed that.
In fact, many have become inured to the drug-related violence that has
changed their city, and the way of life of its more than 1 million
residents.
This city, just across from El Paso, Texas, is home to arguably the
most powerful drug-running organization in the world, the Juarez
cartel.
With the death of its leader last year, a full-scale drug war has
erupted, with all the trappings: gangland-style murder. Official
corruption. Increased domestic drug use. And a sullied international
reputation.
``This is a city where anarchy reigns,'' says a local newspaper
editor.
Billions of dollars are at stake. The U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration estimates $200 million a week flows through the hands
of Juarez-area drug dealers. Most of it, officials say, comes from
helping cocaine move from Colombia across the U.S. border.
A struggle has broken out over control of the trade. In Ciudad
Juarez, cartel hitmen have entered restaurants in search of their
enemies, shooting indiscriminately and killing bystanders.
Last month in Ensenada, Baja California, 19 people were massacred. The
victims included women and children. Both Mexican and U.S. officials
say the massacre was a drug-related revenge killing. The first arrests
in that case were made this week, when three members of a gang that
allegedly worked for Ramon Arellano-Felix were taken into custody
by Mexican police. Police say the gang had set out to settle a drug
feud with Ferm(acu)n Castro, an alleged small-time narcotics dealer
who was among the victims.
As a result of such bloodletting, citizens of Ciudad Juarez are
changing the way they live, choosing to stay at home, for example, or
avoid crossing the border for entertainment.
``I don't go out at all,'' said Lucia Hernandez, 20, who works at
one of the maquiladoras, or factories, that dot the border.
``I don't like Ciudad Juarez. But I came here to work, not to play.''
A newspaper reporter said he no longer takes his family out.
``Here, you go out to dinner, to play, you know something can
happen,'' said the journalist, who requested anonymity because he says
he has received death threats for reporting on drugs and corruption.
Hands tied, cops say
To hear police officers tell it, there is not much they can do.
Despite an army of Mexican and U.S. law enforcement officials
stationed along the border, authorities from both countries say their
actions are doing little to stem the flow of drugs into the United
States.
Javier M. Benavides, the city's newly appointed police chief, until
recently was helping to lead the charge in the drug war nationally as
a federal field commander.
``We will never be able to guard the border completely. Not even with
the best technology from the gulf war,'' Benavides said. ``You can
bring in the Marines. You can put submarines in the Rio Grande.''
But, he added, ``So long as there is demand, there will be a problem.''
U.S. officials agree, but say official corruption in Mexico still
presents a major obstacle to effective law enforcement.
In places such as Ciudad Juarez, drug barons generally operate with
impunity. The now-deceased leader of the Juarez cartel, Amado
Carrillo Fuentes, reportedly was spotted in town last year
campaigning with a politician.
U.S. law enforcement officials say they learned a bitter lesson last
year, after Mexico's top drug fighter, Gen. Jesus Gutierrez
Rebollo, was arrested on charges of protecting the Carrillo
organization in exchange for money, cars and a luxury apartment.
Praise from U.S.
Gen. Barry McCaffrey, Gutierrez's U.S. counterpart, had lavished
Gutierrez with praise in the days before his arrest. Gutierrez is
now in prison.
Last year, the Juarez cartel lost Carrillo, once described by the
DEA as the world's most powerful drug chieftain, to plastic surgery
gone awry. Carrillo, who apparently underwent the procedure to
disguise his identity, did not survive the lengthy operation, possibly
because of a reaction between the drugs used during surgery and the
cocaine in his system.
His death, according to authorities, prompted the latest blood bath in
the city. The ensuing yearlong power struggle has left more than 50
people dead.
With Carrillo no longer in the way, authorities say the Tijuana
cartel, run by the Arellano-Felix brothers, apparently has tried to
push into the Juarez cartel's territory. Officials believe that
after Carrillo's death in a women's clinic in Mexico City on July 4,
1997, the Tijuana group banded with the Ciudad Juarez-based
narcotrafficker, Rafael Munoz Talavera.
Munoz Talavera was making a run at the leadership of the Juarez
cartel until he was shot to death about a month ago in Ciudad Juarez.
During his reign, authorities say Carrillo helped keep the peace in
this city, preferring negotiations or bribery to violence in order to
settle disputes.
Officials believe that his younger brother, Vicente Carrillo Fuentes,
36, has taken over control of the organization. The younger Carrillo,
described by law enforcement officials as a vicious boss, was indicted
in the United States this month on drug-trafficking charges. He
remains at large.
Drug flow continues
In the 15 months since the death of Amado Carrillo Fuentes, the drug
flow into the United States has not skipped a beat, said Robert
Castillo, special agent in charge of the El Paso field division of the
Drug Enforcement Administration.
Trouble began brewing in Mexico early in this decade when the
Colombians, facing increased pressure from U.S. interdiction efforts
in the Caribbean, switched cocaine-trafficking routes to Mexico.
The State Department estimates annual drug trafficking in Mexico
yields $27 billion to $30 billion in revenue.
Castillo said the stakes in Mexico are higher now because unlike the
old days, when the Colombians paid the Mexicans in cash to smuggle the
drugs into the United States, they now pay them with drugs. The
Mexicans, he said, ``can set their own price.''
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue No. 67 (The Drug Reform Coordination
Network's original summary of drug policy news and calls for action,
including - 84 percent of mandatory minimum drug sentences in Massachusetts
served by first-time offenders; Protesters in District of Columbia call
for release of I-59 results; Students fight back against Higher Education Act
drug provision; Medical marijuana signature gatherers harassed by sheriff
in Florida; Oregon police illegally tapped agricultural supply store's
phones - perhaps for years; British House of Lords committee calls
for medical marijuana access; New German government to consider legalizing
cannabis; Quote of the week; And an editorial by Adam J. Smith, Remembering
veterans, ignoring lessons)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 03:30:43 -0500
To: drc-natl@drcnet.org
From: DRCNet (drcnet@drcnet.org)
Subject: The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue No. 67
Sender: owner-drc-natl@drcnet.org
The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue No. 67 -- November 13, 1998
A Publication of the Drug Reform Coordination Network
-------- PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE --------
(To sign off this list, mailto:listproc@drcnet.org with the
line "signoff drc-natl" in the body of the message, or
mailto:lists@drcnet.org for assistance. To subscribe to
this list, visit http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html.)
(This issue can be also be read on our web site at
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/067.html. Check out the DRCNN
weekly radio segment at http://www.drcnet.org/drcnn/.)
PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the
contents of The Week Online is hereby granted. We ask that
any use of these materials include proper credit and, where
appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If
your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet
requests checks payable to the organization. If your
publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use
the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification
for our records, including physical copies where material
has appeared in print. Contact: Drug Reform Coordination
Network, 2000 P St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036,
(202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail
drcnet@drcnet.org. Thank you.
* Live in or near DC? Why not volunteer for DRCNet? Send
e-mail to kfish@drcnet.org or call (202) 293-8340 and ask
for Karynn Fish. Help out the movement during this busy,
exciting time!
* DRCNet is looking for good-quality videotapes of TV shows
dealing with drug policy for our archives. If you have such
tapes and can make a copy, please get in touch.
Reimbursement for the cost of tapes and postage is
available. Please be sure to contact us before making or
sending copies in case it is something we already have.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 84% of Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences in Massachusetts
Served by 1st-Time Offenders
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/067.html#84percent
2. Protesters in District of Columbia Call for Release of
I-59 Results
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/067.html#secretvote
3. Students Fight Back Against Higher Education Act Drug
Provision
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/067.html#education
4. Medical Marijuana Signature Gatherers Harassed by Sheriff
in Florida
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/067.html#florida
5. Oregon Police Illegally Tapped Agricultural Supply
Store's Phones -- Perhaps for Years
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/067.html#phonetap
6. British House of Lords Committee Calls for Medical
Marijuana Access
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/067.html#lords
7. New German Government to Consider Legalizing Cannabis
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/067.html#germany
8. Quote of The Week
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/067.html#quote
9. EDITORIAL: Remembering Veterans, Ignoring Lessons
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/067.html#editorial
***
1. 84% of Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences in Massachusetts
Served by 1st-Time Offenders
The Boston Globe this week (11/8) reports that it has
received figures from the Massachusetts Department of
Corrections indicating that 84% of state inmates serving
mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses are first-time
offenders. These inmates are serving an average of five
years, or, according to The Globe, one year longer than the
average sentence for violent offenders.
Mandatory minimum sentencing has come under attack in recent
years by judges, defense attorneys and justice advocates,
because it eliminates the court's ability to take into
account the circumstances of a particular case or
individual. Further, it has been shown that while high-
level drug dealers often have information to trade to
prosecutors in exchange for reduced sentences, small-time
dealers and users, at the bottom of the supply chain, rarely
have information that is of interest to the state.
Monica Pratt of Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM)
says that the numbers in Massachusetts come as no surprise.
"The findings of the report are in line with the findings of
a long line of reports on the impact of mandatory minimum
sentences" she said. "It is overwhelmingly the lowest level
offenders who are caught up in these laws."
"A number of states have undertaken to study the impact of
these laws and they're all going to find essentially the
same thing. The laws simply aren't doing what they were
intended to do, they're not reducing the demand for drugs,
and they're not slowing the supply of drugs into the
country. They're sweeping up the addicts and the bottom
rung dealers and the people caught up on the fringes of
conspiracies. It's becoming obvious that the biggest impact
of these sentencing laws are the enormous cost that they
entail to the taxpayers."
(Find FAMM online at http://www.famm.org.)
***
2. Protesters in District of Columbia Call for Release of
I-59 Results - Marc Brandl
Over 50 protesters turned out in front of the DC Board of
Elections and Ethics on Tuesday (11/10) to demand the
release of the results from last week's vote on Initiative
59, which would allow marijuana to be used in the District
for medicinal purposes. The results were never released due
to an amendment in the DC appropriations bill by Rep. Bob
Barr (R-GA) that prohibited any money being spent by the
District of Columbia on the initiative and future marijuana
reform initiatives. The protest, organized by Wayne Turner
of DC ACT-UP, was an effort to show support for the
democratic process as well as an attempt to get Alice
Miller, chair of the Board of Elections and Ethics to commit
civil disobedience and release the results before the matter
is decided in the courts. Several local politicians,
community activists and drug policy reformers were on hand
to speak to supporters and spectators.
Included among the speakers was Phil Mendelsohn, just
elected to the DC city council, who urged other elected
local office holders to come forward and show their support
for democracy. During the campaign season every major
politician running for office in DC, including Mayor-elect
Tony Williams, voiced their support for Initiative 59.
In the background of the protest, a court battle is going on
between lawyers representing the federal government, the
District and the local ACLU. The first hearing was held on
Monday (11/9), where Judge Richard Roberts denied a motion
to release the results at this time. During the hearing
John Ferren representing the District argued that it would
cost $1.64 to tabulate and release the results and thus the
Barr amendment forbids it. But city officials are caught in
a tight spot between what Congress dictates and their own
urge for more home rule. Said Ferren, while arguing that DC
cannot release the results, "Every single moment this vote
is not counted is an injury to you and me and everyone in
this room." Another hearing has been scheduled for December
18th.
A Freedom of Information Act has also been filed by the ACLU
to learn the results of the initiative. If the results are
released by the courts and certified, congressional debate
on medicinal marijuana is almost a certainty. Under federal
law, the new 106th Congress will have a thirty day review
period to decide whether any initiative passed in DC will be
implemented or blocked.
***
3. Students Fight Back Against Higher Education Act Drug
Provision - Kris Lotlikar
The Higher Education Act of 1998 was signed into law by
President Clinton on October 7. Included in the law was a
provision that would deny federal financial aid eligibility
to students with previous drug convictions, including
possession. Student groups, collaborating through DRCNet's
U-Net campus activism project, have been gearing up to mount
a campaign against the drug provision, and are circulating a
resolution opposing it.
Students across the country are approaching their student
governments, seeking endorsements for the opposition
resolution. "We have met with African American, empowerment
and civic campus groups to discuss the effects of this law
on students. The resolution has been presented to our
student government and so far the feedback has been very
positive," said Davis Terrell, an officer of Students for
Sensible Drug Policy at the Rochester Institute of
Technology. The RIT student government will be voting on
the resolution in early of December, and a signature is
being mounted on the campus. "Many of the students we talk
to can't believe the drug war has been extended this far",
commented Terrell.
A new drug policy group developing at George Washington
University will also be working on reforming the Higher
Education Act provision. "The Higher Education Act is a
blatantly wrong law that impacts a diverse segment of the
population. The newly forming George Washington University
drug policy group is very much opposed to this law and as
one of our first effort as a group will work to overturn
it."
"This is an issue that will have a devastating impact on
students, therefore it is up to students to get active and
stand up for themselves," said Troy Dayton, President of
American University NORML. "We will make a difference."
For an information packet on what you can do at your campus
about the Higher Education Act, call (202)293-8240 or e-mail
lotlikar@drcnet.org. Check out the U-net web page to get
the latest on news involving the student effort for Higher
Education Act reform at http://www.drcnet.org/U-net/.
***
4. Medical Marijuana Signature Gatherers Harassed by Sheriff
in Florida
On Election Day, even as Americans in five states and the
District of Columbia resoundingly approved medical marijuana
initiatives, signature gatherers from Floridians for Medical
Rights (FMR) were harassed and threatened with violence and
arrest at a polling place in Jacksonville Florida. FMR is
in the midst of a two-year effort to collect the more than
435,000 signatures necessary to get a constitutional
amendment allowing for the medical use of the plant placed
on the 1999 ballot in that state.
Petitioners were first asked to leave the polling place, at
the Hendricks Avenue Baptist Church in Jacksonville, by
representatives of the church itself, who eventually called
the police when the petitioners, who were there legally,
refused to leave. The police, ignoring the right to
petition at the polls, took the side of the church employees
and demanded that the petitioners leave.
FMR director Toni Leeman told The Week Online, "The
petitioners showed up at the polling place and began to set
up their table. As soon as they pulled out the sign
indicating that they were collecting signatures for medical
marijuana, representatives of the church came over and told
them that they were not permitted to distribute marijuana-
related information on their premises.
"When the petitioners refused to leave, citing their right
to be there under state and federal election law, one man
who worked for the church lunged at one of the petitioners
across the table. The representative of the Supervisor of
Elections, who is required to be at the polling place for
just this kind of situation, did absolutely nothing.
Finally, the people from the church called the police, who
showed up and told the petitioners that they could either
leave or face arrest. It was a blatant violation of our
rights. It was a dereliction of duty by both the election
supervisor and the police. How could either party not have
known that you cannot disallow political speech based on its
content? The petitioners were operating wholly within the
guidelines for petitioning at a poll. It's simply
unimaginable."
A formal complaint has been filed with Sheriff Nathaniel
Glover, requesting that the office adopt a written policy
and training program to assure that such violations do not
occur in the future. A complaint filed with the Supervisor
of Elections alleges violations of the rights of
petitioners, as well as failure to maintain good order at
the polling place. It also demands that the church be
removed from the list of polling places in future elections.
The Jacksonville Sheriff's Department did not return calls
for comment on this story.
(Find Floridians for Medical Rights online at
http://www.medicalrights.org.)
***
5. Oregon Police Illegally Tapped Agricultural Supply
Store's Phones -- Perhaps for Years
Defense attorneys in Portland, Oregon are furious this week
in the wake of information indicating that local police have
conducted an ongoing "phone trap" of all incoming calls to
American Agriculture, a greenhouse supply store. The trap
allows the police to monitor the numbers and addresses of
those who called the store, without actually listening in or
recording the calls themselves.
Such traps require warrants, and it appears that the police
have them, although the defense bar claims that they were
obtained illegally. State law says that a trap can stay in
place for 30 days, with an additional 30 allowable with a
judge's okay. The warrants in this case appear to have been
renewed over and over again, perhaps for years. In
addition, the trap failed to target an individual, but
rather anyone and everyone who called the store.
Police have apparently used the information obtained via the
trap to go to people's homes and conduct "knock and talk"
investigations, seeking evidence of marijuana cultivation.
***
6. British House of Lords Committee Calls for Medical
Marijuana Access
A 70-page report to be released this week by the Lords
Science and Technology Committee will call for a change in
British law to allow marijuana to be made available
medicinally. The report is certain to raise the call for
cannabis law reform in the UK, which has gained enormous
support recently from British health authorities, in the
media and even inside the government, to new heights.
Labour MP Paul Flynn called the report "a major
breakthrough."
The British Medical Association weighed in on the issue last
year, pointing our that there was "good evidence" of the
effectiveness of marijuana for certain conditions "in which
other treatments are not fully adequate."
The Lords Committee, a large percentage of whose members are
retired scientists, spent eight months on the inquiry, which
included extensive interviews with expert witnesses.
***
7. New German Government to Consider Legalizing Cannabis
Otto Schily, the Social-Democratic minister for Internal
Affairs, told the German newspaper Der Spiegel this week
that the government, in coalition with the Green party, is
considering moving toward the legalization of soft drugs
such as cannabis. It appears at this point that the
coalition will authorize a government study of the issue
before pressing further. The Social-Democrats are said to
have been internally divided on the issue, while the Greens
have long called for cannabis law reform. The new
government has already announced plans for some drug policy
reforms, including expansion of methadone treatment and an
opiate maintenance trial.
***
8. Quote of The Week
"I mean, for goodness sake, we have Stillwater State
Penitentiary here and we can't keep drugs out of there, and
these people are locked up 24 hours a day. If you're going
to fight the war on drugs, you have to fight it on the
demand side. And I don't believe that government should be
invading the privacy of our own homes, and I also believe
that you shouldn't be legislating stupidity. If there are
stupid people out there doing stupid things, it's not the
government's job to try to make them smarter. We live in a
land of freedom. And again, if we can't keep the drugs out
of the state penitentiary, how on earth are we going to do
it out on the street corner?"
Minnesota Governor-elect Jesse Ventura, 11/8/98,
Meet the Press
***
9. EDITORIAL: Remembering Veterans, Ignoring Lessons
This past Wednesday, November 11, marked Veterans Day in the
US. It is a day on which wreathes are laid, and soldiers
mourned, and the memories of fallen Americans, lost to war,
are honored. It is a day to reflect on the meaning of
sacrifice, and perhaps, at its best, a day to consider the
price to be paid, thereby tempering our patriotic zeal with
grim comprehension, when we as a nation consider sending our
citizens to war.
Over the past twenty-five years, Veterans Day has indeed
brought up difficult questions, as many, perhaps a majority
of Americans ponder the reality of more than 58,000 killed
in Vietnam with the understanding that they should never
have been sent. We were America, we were strong, and we
were confident in the moral authority of our leadership.
And so they went. And fought. And died.
And today, with the hard-to-swallow but dangerous-to-ignore
lessons of history floating in our collective memory,
Vietnam stands as a stark symbol of the horror and the waste
and cultural divisiveness inherent in making the wrong
decision. And all that we can do is promise ourselves, and
promise our dead, that we will not make the same mistake
again.
But this week, even as veterans and families and friends
paid tribute, another war was being fought. It is a lower-
intensity conflict than they saw in Vietnam, but it is no
less a war. Fought with guns and surveillance, backed up
with prison camps and the curtailing of liberties, the Drug
War has its own vets, its own dead, and its own legacy. It
is primarily a domestic war, but our soldiers also serve and
fight in Colombia, Bolivia, Panama, and countless other
outposts. And they are armed. And they kill. And they are
killed.
Police, federal agents, members of the military, civilians,
all are represented among the casualties. They are no less
dead than those who fell in Vietnam. And, to the dishonor
of the memory of those who fell in Nam, the war they died in
is no less pointless.
Decades into the Drug War, after all of the billions spent,
and the lives wasted, and the millions jailed, we are no
closer to a "drug free America" than South Vietnam was to
free-market capitalism when the last Marines, clinging to
the landing gear, took off from the roof of the American
embassy. Our kids, the generation in whose name we fight,
have better access to drugs today than did the high school
students who marched to end the last war, before they too
could be sent to shed pointless blood, at a time when the
current war was just getting underway in earnest.
This week America remembered its fallen, and, in the case of
the veterans of our last foreign war, dishonored them as
well. Once again, we have engaged in a conflict with no
foreseeable endpoint. Once again, we have misjudged the
nature of both the terrain and the enemy. Once again we are
saddled with a national leadership who have staked
reputations and careers on a struggle they cannot win. And
once again we continue to put American lives at risk long
after the futility of our strategy has become apparent.
There are always lessons in history, perhaps none so
important as those that come from our gravest mistakes.
58,000 men and women in uniform lost their lives in service
to a lesson that we ignored this week, even as we laid
flowers on their graves. Perhaps next year we will
remember. Perhaps one day we will never forget. But for
today, the fighting continues. There is no greater tragedy
than a pointless war.
Adam J. Smith
Associate Director
***
DRCNet needs your support! Donations can be sent to 2000 P
St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036, or made by credit
card at http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html. Donations to
the Drug Reform Coordination Network are not tax-deductible.
Deductible contributions supporting our educational work can
be made by check to the DRCNet Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax-
exempt organization, same address.
***
DRCNet
***
JOIN/MAKE A DONATION http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html
DRUG POLICY LIBRARY http://www.druglibrary.org/
REFORMER'S CALENDAR http://www.drcnet.org/calendar.html
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html
DRCNet HOME PAGE http://www.drcnet.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[End]
to the 1998 Daily News index for November 12-18