------------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant In Pot Trial Testifies (The Long Beach Press-Telegram says Marvin Chavez, a medical marijuana patient and founder of the the Orange County Patient Doctor Nurse Support Group, took the stand in his trafficking trial Monday and told jurors that his activities were part of a mission of mercy for those needing the drug for severe pain. Undercover detective Hector Rios admitted he was lying when he said Chavez had asked for a donation when the defendant provided medicinal marijuana Jan. 8.) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:38:58 -0800 From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews) To: mapnews@mapinc.org Subject: MN: Us Ca: Mmj: Defendant In Pot Trial Testifies Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: FilmMakerZ Pubdate: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 Source: Long Beach Press-Telegram (CA) Copyright: 1998 Press-Telegram. Contact: crutch@ptconnect.infi.net Website: http://www.ptconnect.com/ Author: Joe Segura DEFENDANT IN POT TRIAL TESTIFIES Court: Medicinal Marijuana Advocate Tells Jurors He Was On A Mission Of Mercy. WESTMINSTER - Medicinal-marijuana advocate Marvin Chavez took the stand Monday and told jurors that his activities were part of a mission of mercy for those needing the drug for severe pain. Chavez is facing nine felony charges of drug sales and one drugs- transportation count. He maintains providing marijuana for medicinal uses is legal under Prop. 215, known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. Chavez took the stand late Monday afternoon, and he's expected to complete his statements today. He was repeatedly blocked Monday from explaining how he started the Orange County Patient-Doctor-Nurse Support Group. Judge Thomas Borris has ruled that Prop. 215 cannot be used as a defense. However, Chavez was allowed to say that he thinks he was entrapped into providing undercover detectives the medicinal marijuana. Chavez said that he insisted on a doctor's recommendation as part of a screening process. He also said that money was never a necessary ingredient of a transaction. Often, he said, many of the members of the co-op were on fixed incomes and unable to pay. Chavez said, however, that donations -- generally about $20 -- were welcomed to meet the expenses of the co-op, including producing literature, paying for telephone and beeper costs, logo buttons, copying costs. "It was to keep the organization alive," he said during questioning by defense attorney Jim Silva of Venice. Earlier in the day, Jack Shachter, another member of the co-op, testified how he worked with Chavez to provide a service to seriously or terminally ill patients. However, since he's facing his own trial on drug-sale charges, Shachter declined to comment on whether he actually provided anyone with medicinal marijuana, citing the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, as recommended by his attorney, Public Defender Claudia Gaona. Detective Hector Rios said Chavez had asked for a donation when the defendant provided medicinal marijuana Jan. 8. Under Silva's cross-examination, Rios backed off that statement. "I was wrong," he said. Co-counsels Silva and J. David Nick also locked horns with Deputy District Attorney Carl Armbrust over the potential testimony of an Orange County Sheriff's forensic staffer's about the medicinal marijuana manicured of its seeds and stems.
------------------------------------------------------------------- The Chavez Trial (A staff editorial in The Orange County Register says the most interesting comment during Marvin Chavez's trial came from Hector Rios, an investigator with the District Attorney's Office. Asked by defense attorney James Silva if he had studied the new medical-marijuana law, Proposition 215, now section 11362.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, before joining the undercover investigation of Mr. Chavez, Mr. Rios said he hadn't and the to this day he has no idea what the medical-marijuana law says in any detail.) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 05:00:16 -0800 From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews) To: mapnews@mapinc.org Subject: MN: US CA: Editorial: 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: 17 Nov 98 THE CHAVEZ TRIAL Perhaps the most interesting comment during Marvin Chavez's trial on 10 marijuana sales-related charges, which continued Monday in the West County court in Westminster, came from Hector Rios, an investigator with the District Attorney's Office. He had posed as the cousin of Joseph Morales, another D.A. investigator, as the two tried to obtain marijuana from Mr. Chavez in an undercover operation. Asked by defense attorney James Silve if he had studied the new medical-marijuana law (Prop. 215 or Health and Safety Sec. 11362.5) before joining the undercover investigation of Mr. Chavez, Mr. Rios said he hadn't and the to this day he has no idea what the medical-marijuana law is in any detail. Can this be true? Two years after Prop. 215's passage, have local investigators who do undercover drug-law work not been briefed or been instructed to familiarize themselves with the provisions of the new law so they won't waste their time and the taxpayers' money investigating people who, under the law, have a legal right to possess, use and cultivate marijuana? If so, this would be a disturbing neglect of law enforcement's duty to obey and find a way to follow a new law. The Chavez trial opened on Monday with testimony from Jack Shachter, an associate of Mr. Chavez, appearing as a defense witness. Mr. Shachter appeared despite concerns from his own attorney since he faces criminal charges himself. His public defender, Claudia Gaona, sat next to him in the witness stand and raised concerns about some questions, but the testimony concluded without Mr. Shachter invoking his right not to incriminate himself. Mr. Shachter testified that after Mr. Chavez was arrested and released in January, district attorney investigator Joseph Moreno, still posing as Victor Flores, a patient with severe and chronic back pain, contacted him (Mr. Moreno he would have to verify his status as a member of the Orange County Patient Doctor Nurse Support Group,k then later told him he could not furnish marijuana because he didn't have an "medicine," as both called it. Mr. Shachter said he also had several contacts with David Reyes of the Garden Grove Police Department, posing as Al Pena, a nephew of Flore/Moreno. Finally, he told Pena/Reyes not to call him again until he received a caregiver card from Mr. Chavez. On cross-examination, Deputy District Attorney Carl Armbrust questioned why Mr. Chavez had told investigator Moreno to call Mr. Shachter at a time when Mr. Shachter was not distributing marijuana and he tried to get Mr. Shachter to specify that at a different time Mr. Schachter had distributed marijuana, but the questions were not allowed. Mr. Rios then took the stand, explained how he had posed as Mr. Flores/Moreno's cousin and obtained marijuana from Mr. Chavez. The prosecution played a tape of the meeting, The prosecution stressed that money as well as marijuana changed hands while the defense stressed that the money offering was characterized as a donation. After seeing a transcript of an earlier meeting Mr. Rios conceded that it could be characterized as something other than a sale. The afternoon began (with the jury not present) with a discussion about separating seeds and stems. Last week the defense established that a criminalist who had weighed some marijuana seized from Mr. Chavez had included seeds and stems, and argued that under the law, such non-pychoactive parts of the plant should not be included as marijuana. On Friday the prosecution instructed another criminalist to separate the seeds and stems from another batch of marijuana seized from Mr. Chavez, weigh the remainder and then analyze it. He said it was marijuana and weighed 35.9 grams. Judge Thomas Borris finally allowed the testimony and said the defense could present its own expert witness. The issue is important because under California law, possession, transportation, etc. of less than one ounce (28.5 grams) of marijuana is a misdemeanor, while possession of more than an ounce is a felony. Marvin Chavez himself then took the stand and his lawyers led him through a description of his own medical problems, a cursory description of how the "cannabis co-op," also called the Orange County Doctor Patient Nurse Support Group, operated and how he dealt with the undercover investigators. Mr. Chavez's testimony should be finished tomorrow, followed by cross-examination, then perhaps one more defense witness. Unless further delays occur (don't bet against it) closing arguments take place in the afternoon and then the case, which could help determine how Prop. 215 will be implemented, will be in the jury's hands.
------------------------------------------------------------------- The Drug War Isn't About Combating Use (Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer says the drug warriors' recent battle against medical-marijuana initiatives was motivated by the fact that, without the war on marijuana, the budget for the war on drugs would be much smaller.) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 19:35:11 -0800 From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews) To: mapnews@mapinc.org Subject: MN: US CA: OPED: The Drug War Isn't About Combating Use Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield Pubdate: 17 November 1998 Source: Los Angeles Times (CA) Contact: letters@latimes.com Website: http://www.latimes.com/ Fax: 213-237-4712 Copyright: 1998 Los Angeles Times. Author: ROBERT SCHEER, a Times Contributing Editor THE DRUG WAR ISN'T ABOUT COMBATING USE Crusaders fight medicinal marijuana to help justify the cause's bloated budget. If there is one stunning bit of stupidity that instantly garners bipartisan support, it's the failed war on drugs. Virtually all politicians march in lock-step to do battle with unmitigated fervor against each and every banned drug as if they were all created equal in destructive potency and anti-social impulse. Nowhere is the simplistic arrogance that underwrites national drug policy more blatant than in the continual denigration of voters in the states that dare dissent from official policy. In 1996, it was the electorate of California and Arizona that begged to differ and, by voting in favor of the limited legalized use of medical marijuana, incurred the blistering wrath of the anti-drug crusaders. To hear the uproar in official circles, you would have thought marijuana, even in small quantities and prescribed by doctors for AIDS and chemotherapy patients, was demon rum itself, and that the ghosts of the temperance society ladies had risen from their graves to smash open the doors of the cannabis clubs. But the hysteria failed. Despite police harassment, the nonstop fulminations of President Clinton's drug czar Barry McCaffrey and a massive advertising campaign against medical marijuana, the electorate has remained sane. In this last election, voters in Nevada, Oregon, Alaska and Washington joined California and Arizona in approving patient use of marijuana. In Arizona and Oregon, voters moved beyond medical marijuana use, opting for serious steps in the direction of decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana. Exit polls show that voters in the nation's capital similarly voted for legal use of medical marijuana, but in one of the more egregious violations of the spirit of representative government, Congress approved a ban to even count the D.C. vote on this measure. The fight to prevent the vote count was led by ultra-right wing Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), who perfectly embodies the contradictions inherent in his ideological obsessions. Barr has been the most vociferous opponent of gun control legislation and even gutted an anti-terrorist bill to tag explosives material on the grounds that it would be an unwarranted extension of government power. But locking folks up for smoking weed is his favorite cause. He's not alone. Marijuana remains the scourge of the $11-billion-a-year anti-drug bureaucracy not because of any documentable antisocial impact but simply because that's where it gets the big numbers of drug users to justify the bloated budgets. According to the latest FBI statistics, 545,396 Americans were arrested in 1996 for possessing marijuana, a substance that, if legal, would prove no more dangerous to society than the vodka martini one occasionally sips. That doesn't mean it's good to abuse any mood-altering drug, but rather that a national policy which turns the relatively benign use of marijuana into a highly profitable and socially disruptive criminal activity is absurd. But don't try to tell the politicians that, or they'll tear your head off. Just look at the smear job McCaffrey has done on financier/philanthropist George Soros and other businessmen for daring to help finance recent state ballot initiatives that present voters with a drug policy choice. McCaffrey thundered recently that the folks putting up money for these campaigns are "a carefully camouflaged, exorbitantly funded, well-heeled elitist group whose ultimate goal is to legalize drug use in the United States." Interesting that McCaffrey was silent on the far larger amounts of tobacco industry money that poured into California to challenge a ballot initiative to increase the tax on tobacco products and divert it to education. It is invidious to pretend that the drugs now classified as legal are less harmful than those whose use is branded as a crime. Drug abuse, both of legal and illegal drugs, is a medical problem requiring treatment by health professionals, not cops. What makes the war on drugs so nutty is that it's more about maintaining the coercive power of anti-drug bureaucrats than treating those who suffer from serious drug abuse. The voters have been vilified as naive, but that appellation belongs to a war-on-drugs crusade that has filled our jails while leaving illegal drugs more plentiful and cheaper. It drives the anti-drug bureaucracy mad that voters in six states have now voted to ever so slightly challenge its total grip on the awesome power of government, but it bodes well for our representative system of government. - - - Robert Scheer Is a Times Contributing Editor
------------------------------------------------------------------- Arrests Soar in Crackdown on Marijuana (The New York Times says New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's "zero tolerance" policies have led to a record number of arrests on marijuana charges. Law enforcement officials project that at the current pace, the New York City Police Department could chalk up eight times the number of arrests this year from just six years ago. "We are asking the Legislature for an increase of 23 judges citywide to address the larger caseloads," said Mai Yee, a spokesperson for the Office of Court Administration. No word on how many new jails will be needed, or how many real criminals are freed to make room for pot smokers. Plus - Giuliani quotes.) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:14:12 -0800 From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews) To: mapnews@mapinc.org Subject: MN: US NY: Arrests Soar In Crackdown On Marijuana Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: General Pulaski Source: New York Times (NY) Contact: letters@nytimes.com Website: http://www.nytimes.com/ Copyright: 1998 The New York Times Company Section: Metro, Page B1 Pubdate: 17 November 1998 Author: Kevin Flynn ARRESTS SOAR IN CRACKDOWN ON MARIJUANA NEW YORK -- Arrests on marijuana charges here have jumped to a record level this year, driven by the Giuliani administration's "zero tolerance" approach that has police officers pursuing anyone found possessing, selling or smoking even small amounts of marijuana. Law enforcement officials project that at the current pace, the New York City Police Department could arrest as many as 40,000 people by the end of the year on charges of possessing or selling marijuana. That would be eight times the number of arrests just six years ago. The soaring tally is the result of routine sweeps by plainclothes police details through known drug-dealing locations and unprecedented undercover efforts in which officers pose as street-corner "smoke sellers" to catch marijuana buyers, officials said. The initiatives, part of a continuing assault on misdemeanor crimes that police officials credit for curtailing more serious offenses, have already led to the arrest of 31,330 people on marijuana charges this year. The vast majority of those arrested -- 80 percent -- were accused of possessing, not selling, the drug. The surge in arrests is a drastic departure from the days, not so long ago, when smoking a marijuana cigarette in public often drew no more than an angry glare from a police officer. "I don't think there is more marijuana on the street today," said Jack Ryan, chief assistant district attorney in Queens. "There is probably less. But you don't have a situation anymore where you can smoke a joint on the subway and, if you do get caught, the cop just says, 'Throw it away."' Most of those arrested today are held for arraignment and may spend 16, 24, even 36 hours in custody before being released, in sharp contrast to the past, when those arrested on low-level possession charges were often given a summons and released. Some critics called the tougher handling of marijuana offenders Draconian and inefficient. "It is a waste of resources, a colossal waste," said Gerald Lefcourt, a criminal defense lawyer who serves on a legal committee for NORML, a national organization that advocates the reform of marijuana laws. "Most of the people who are arrested for marijuana are no threat to anybody." The increasing number of arrests in New York is part of a national trend by law enforcement agencies to curb marijuana use, which the federal government contends -- and some scientists deny -- is a greater health threat than previously believed. Nationally, the number of marijuana arrests has nearly doubled since 1992. National surveys indicate that marijuana use is up, but the increase is not nearly as steep as the surge in arrests. According to a University of Michigan study last year, half of the high-school seniors surveyed said they had tried the drug, up from a third who said they had used it six years ago. In New York, the increase in arrests grew out of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's pledge last year to make the fight on drugs, including marijuana, a major goal of his second term. The city's efforts have been particularly visible in Washington Square Park in Greenwich Village. The park once resembled a farmer's market for marijuana sales, but now has its own police command post and is monitored by closed-circuit cameras. "The community in general is tired of walking through the park and being hassled by having someone yelling 'Smoke, smoke' at them," said Arthur Strickler, district manager of Community Board 2 in the Village. So far this year, marijuana arrests have surpassed the 27,264 people arrested in all of 1997 -- itself a record-setting year, police said. "We have changed the traditional strategy," said Chief Martin O'Boyle, commander of the Organized Crime Control Bureau, which oversees drug enforcement efforts. He said officers now concentrate more on sting operations against buyers and less on having undercover officers buy from marijuana dealers, who even when caught do little jail time. "Now we try to discourage the customers." Although the arrest numbers are way up, those charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana do not face more severe penalties. First offenders caught with as much as several ounces of the drug -- which sells for roughly $125 per ounce depending on the strength -- are eligible for a probation program known as adjournment contemplating dismissal, in which charges are dismissed if a defendant stays out of trouble for a set period of time. During the last six months, for example, the Manhattan district attorney's office said that 4,866 defendants were arraigned in Criminal Court on charges of possessing less than an ounce of marijuana. Some 63 percent of those cases were adjourned contemplating dismissal at arraignment, according to Barbara Thompson, a spokeswoman for the district attorney's office. But by the time the defendants were arraigned, several criminal defense lawyers said, their clients had already spent a half day or more in custody, being fingerprinted, strip-searched and checked for possible outstanding arrest warrants. "We call that doing your jail time up front," said Tony Elitcher, a staff lawyer with the Legal Aid Society's criminal defense division. "You are doing your sentence before you ever get in front of the judge." Even if the amount of marijuana involved is miniscule, police officials said, the warrant and fingerprint checks made on those arrested often turn up people sought for more serious offenses. Also, said O'Boyle: "We should not be in a position of determining who we arrest for breaking the law. We have to treat all of these folks equally." Court officials said that channeling everyone accused of misdemeanor offenses, such as marijuana possession, through the booking system has put a strain on the Criminal Court, although they said more efficient procedures have prevented the system from becoming overloaded. "However, we are asking the Legislature for an increase of 23 judges citywide to address the larger caseloads," said Mai Yee, a spokesperson for the Office of Court Administration. *** From: ARTISTpres@aol.com Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 07:17:58 EST To: pdxnorml@pdxnorml.org Subject: Giuliani Quotes: resource for media and activists Giuliani quotes Compiled By Robert Lederman, President of A.R.T.I.S.T. (Artists' Response To Illegal State Tactics) "I take a different view of someone comparing me to Adolf Hitler than when someone calls me a jerk." Mayor Giuliani, N.Y. Daily News 10/25/1998 "Freedom," Giuliani argued, "is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it." Taking Liberties / Courts, critics fault Rudy on free speech, public access New York Newsday 4/20/98 "I don't regard associations of my people that support me as fascists as a light matter ....But it's ultimately the results that matter." -NY TIMES 6/24/98 "You don't have to be too polite about somebody who's taking advantage and trampling on the rights of other people". 11/5/98 Mayor Giuliani during his call-in show on News Radio 88; Channel 2 News on 11/6/98 also: NY POST 11/7/98 "We'll say it simply: Just because people don't like Rudy Giuliani doesn't give them license to compare him to Adolf Hitler. The Hitler analogy is something that seems to amuse many people in this city. Cutesy stories have been written and published in the past week about an art installation on Madison Avenue called No York in which the mayor is depicted with a Hitler moustache. This image was first bandied about by an obnoxious twerp who claims to represent a group called A.R.T.I.S.T. - but which really ought to be called M.O.R.O.N. - who is outraged that the mayor attempted to enforce plainly written statutes regarding sidewalk clutter in front of the Metropolitan Museum. For this, the twerp (whose name we shall never again use because he deserves no more public mention) imagines that Rudy Giuliani deserves comparison with the personification of evil in this century...As the New York Times' gleeful seizure of the "bunker" story indicates, you don't have to be a cabbie, a vendor or a M.O.R.O.N. to issue forth such repulsive opinions. -NY Post Editorial 6/16/98 "In satire and protest, the Mayor of the City of New York is again being likened to some of the vilest figures in history. But this time Rudolph W. Giuliani is learning to accept it.... Deputy Mayor Randy M. Mastro goes so far as to detect a touch of flattery in the Giuliani-as-Dictator analogies." NY TIMES 6/24/98 "Hudson Hitler? Midtown Mussolini? Giuliani Grins and Bears It" "Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is now bracing for a whole other order of urban treachery and cataclysm by building a $15.1 million emergency control center for his administration...bullet-proofed, hardened to withstand bombs and hurricanes, and equipped with food and beds for at least 30 members of his inner circle." -NY Times 6/13/98 Giuliani's $15.1 Million 'Emergency Control Center "With only 30 beds, who stays and who goes? Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who one day could face such a decision, said he had not made up his mind. "People admitted would depend on the nature of the emergency," he said. "It has nothing to do with my family." "He has made arrangements for his wife and children to come into this bunker with food and water for days," complained former Mayor Ed Koch. "What are the other people in this town supposed to do?"-Newsday 6/14/98 "The city is working to meet any potential terrorist threat of germ warfare", Mayor Giuliani said yesterday. "It's the reason why I established a new agency in the city, quietly, because I didn't want to frighten people or alarm them." -Daily News 11/9/98 Rudy Praises City's Moves Vs. Threat of Germ Warfare "...the current mayor thinks he's a dictator and does not have sufficient respect, not only for other branches of government, but also for the citizenry and its opportunities to speak out and be heard" -Eliot Spitzer N.Y. Post 10/15/98 "Giuliani said Spitzer's remarks should disqualify him from holding office. "I think his remarks are insulting to a lot of Jewish people, for the overstated use of the Hitler and Nazi phraseology, and I'm really surprised that he would engage in that kind of language", the mayor fumed." N.Y. Post 10/15/98 "Hitler Remark Sparks Pol Feud" "Giuliani also lashed out yesterday at a reporter who asked him whether there was a difference between Spitzer's comments and those of Police Commissioner Howard Safir, who called former Nation of Islam spokesman Khallid Muhammad a "black Hitler" after the Million Youth March last month. Giuliani replied, "There's a difference between Khallid Muhammad and me, and if you can't figure it out, you probably shouldn't be in the journalistic profession."10/19/1998 Newsday 10/19/98 "Mayor Giuliani vows to have cops with hammers and chisels pry the medallions right off the hood of any cab in the demonstration." NEWS RADIO 88 5/21/98 "City officials declared total victory. "We've moved to stop the terrorists from carrying out their act," Police Commissioner Howard Safir said. "I was sending them a message," a feisty Mayor Giuliani crowed. "The message is: You don't get to close down the city of New York. Just don't get to do it". "They know that we broke their strike - destroyed it, really. Nobody showed up today - and that didn't happen just because we allowed business to go on as usual. That happened because we had a plan to stop them from doing it." NY Post 5/22/98 Taxi Protest "When a couple of protesting drivers gathered on the corner of Murray Street and Broadway on the edge of City Hall to talk with reporters, police officers whisked them across the street, where, about five minutes later, other officers told them to keep walking -- which they did, shaking their heads. "This is what it has been like all day," muttered Kuljeet Singh, 28, as he headed down Broadway. " NY Times 5/22/98 Taxi protest "Addressing the recruits for the first time, Mayor Giuliani said, "Today, you take the first step toward becoming New York City Police Officers - members of the finest, best trained, best equipped, most restrained and most professional police force in the nation...The Department's CPR program will teach you that courtesy, professionalism and respect must be at the root of every interaction you have with the public. And you must also remember that your allegiance to the law must supersede your allegiance to your fellow officers no matter how close those bonds may become...In the oath of office you took today, you swore to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of New York..It means from this day forward you will take on tremendous responsibilities to enable the people of the City to live freely and independently.-7/3/98 Giuliani Press Release #315-98 'Giuliani and Commissioner Safir Welcome 800 New Recruits to the N.Y.P.D.' "The Big Apple is plagued with killer cops and abusive prison guards Amnesty International says in a report today. Police officers have beaten and shot unresisting suspects; they have misused batons, chemical sprays and electro-shock weapons, the report says. Police said they couldn't comment on the report, which outlines numerous cases in New York where it says unarmed civilians have been assaulted and even killed by cops. The overwhelming majority of victims ... are members of racial or ethnic minorities, the report says. - N.Y. Post 10/6/98 "Amnesty International Chews Up Big Apple" "What brings this tendency into focus this week is an attack on the Mayor by the Rev. Calvin Butts, a prominent Baptist minister from Harlem. Mr. Butts labeled Mr. Giuliani a "racist" and accused him of not liking black people and of instituting policies that have not only devastated minorities but are moving New York "toward a fascist state." NY TIMES Editorial 5/22/98 Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who visited the area after the collapse, said that the city also intended to find out whether homeless people were living under the Boardwalk. "We can't have people coming back and living here illegally, which they don't have a right to do," Giuliani said. NY TIMES 5/26/98 "Facing a combative audience at a town hall meeting at Bishop Laughlin High School...Giuliani seemed to draw energy from biting questions about the city university, police conduct towards minorities and workfare. Amid numerous interruptions and catcalls, Giuliani lectured the audience that workfare was one of his greatest accomplishments.....Minutes earlier, when a heckler screamed, "Everybody's angry at you" Giuliani responded unexpectedly; "That's actually truer than you realize. Everybody is angry at me. That's why I'm a good mayor." NY Post 5/20/98 "Rudy to hecklers: Workfares my gem" " The Commissioner of the city's Human Resources Administration apologized yesterday for making an errant remark during a television interview that was construed by some viewers as anti-Semitic. During a televised discussion of the city's welfare-to-work program, the Commissioner, Jason A. Turner, said, "Work makes you free." NYTIMES 6/27/98 "As the arts capital of the world. New York City is proud to give our children the opportunity to nurture a future in the arts...New York City, which is blessed with boundless treasures of art and culture, and is filled with millions of the most talented and creative people on the planet, should have the best arts education in the world." From Giuliani press release: Giuliani Declares May 18-22, 1998 Arts Education Week "An exhibition of paintings is not as communicative as speech, literature or live entertainment, and the artists' constitutional interest is thus minimal." -Giuliani appeal brief against street artists having First Amendment protection, Giuliani v Lederman et al and Giuliani v Bery et al, filed with the U.S. Supreme Court 2/24/97. "Elizabeth Freedman, an attorney speaking on behalf of the N.Y.C. Corporation Counsel's office [Mayor Giuliani's lawyers], explained the City's anti-art position. "Visual art...does not express ideas", Ms. Friedman said, "and as such is not entitled to First Amendment protection." 2/24/97 radio interview WNYC's syndicated business news show, "Marketplace" "An exhibit of the mayor's photographs opened today at a downtown Manhattan gallery, displaying 23 of his color and black-and-white pictures taken over the last two years. Panning the exhibit altogether were the sidewalk protesters, who are fighting a city requirement that they need permits to sell artwork in parks and in front of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. "Since his first day in office, Giuliani has been waging a war on artists and artists' rights," said painter and printmaker Robert Lederman. "He's doing this show purely to change his image, posing as an artist in the arts capital of the world." 5/9/98 Washington Post "Mayor Rudolph W. Guiliani pledged Thursday that the city would contribute $65 million over the next three years to help pay for a major expansion project at the Museum of Modern Art...Facing its huge price tag, trustees from the museum's expansion committee, including David Rockefeller, the real estate developer Jerry Speyer and Donald Marron, the chairman of PaineWebber Inc., approached City Hall. Mr. Rockefeller, whose mother, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, was a founder of the Modern, said the city money was "the financial cornerstone" of the expansion. Of the remaining $585 million the museum must raise, he said that about $200 million had been pledged by "the family and trustees." Then he quickly added a qualifier: "When I say family, I mean the museum family, not my family." NY TIMES 4/24/98 MOMA to Get $65 Million for Expansion "It's wonderful to be here with you to celebrate the greatest legal system in the world and to spread an understanding of and appreciation for our legal heritage to people throughout New York," the Mayor said. "There are thousands of subtle ways that we interact with the law every day. Whether it is better law enforcement that has helped make the City a safer place or civil rights protections or the Bill of Rights, we learn valuable lessons, and help shape the system through our participation. Today, we celebrate the law and celebrate our freedom," the Mayor continued. "As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816, 'The most sacred of the duties of a government is to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens,' we recognize that law affects everyone and is the foundation of our civil and moral society. It is in this spirit that I proclaim today, "Law Day 1998" and honor the celebration of freedom." Giuliani Press Release, -Mayor Giuliani Proclaims 5/1/98 as Law Day "A defense attorney at the federal corruption trial of Assemblyman Dov Hikind yesterday charged that the Brooklyn Democrat's prosecution was "politically motivated" and was instigated by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and a top aide...attorney Benjamin Brafman said he had received information that Giuliani and one of his key advisers had prompted the investigation of Hikind and the Council of Jewish Organizations of Borough Park because they felt the two had become "too powerful." -NEWSDAY 6/30/98 Defense Claims Mayor Sought Hikind Charges "I don't get offended any longer when people call me crazy," Giuliani said at a news conference, responding to the attack from one doctor. "But I wonder about a doctor running a methadone program who, when a mayor raises the idea that we should end methadone, which is a way of keeping people dependent, describes my idea as crazy." -NYTIMES 7/22/98 Giuliani's Drive Against Methadone Called Unlikely to Prevail [A few hours after ordering newspapers confiscated in front of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Mayor Giuliani began a Presidential Campaign trip in Milwaukee Wisconsin, and made the following comments:] "Giuliani said the core of his programs give people "freedom" from such things as welfare dependency and fear of crime. When crime was high, he added, "New Yorkers . . . had the same feeling of oppression that someone would have in a totalitarian government."-N.Y. Daily News 8/26/98 "A dictator who oppresses people is someone who should be ostracized by the United States," Giuliani told leaders of the Cuban American National Foundation, which calls itself the country's leading anti-Castro group." -Isle Visit for Rudy Daily News 10/2/98 "The Mayor's unnecessary and unconscionable war on the weak and the poor and the black and the brown continues. Let the cleansing begin." "Cleansing CUNY" -NY Times 5/28/98 "Mayor Rudolph Giuliani...proposed cutting the library budget by $15 million -- even while trumpeting a $2 billion budget surplus -- and asked the libraries to make up some of the shortfall through private fund-raising. Librarians say this is the first time the city has asked the system to raise money for basic operating expenses." -NY TIMES 5/20/98 Editorial: Hacking Away at the Libraries "One of the things I enjoy most about being Mayor is visiting school children, reading with them and hearing about what they want to be when they grow up," the Mayor said.10/13/98 Giuliani Press Release #476-98 "Mayor Giuliani Helps announce Debut of the Children's Book "Day In The Life Of A Mayor" "Die-hard Yankee fan Mayor Giuliani yesterday said he would let his son, Andrew, skip school to attend today's ticker-tape parade and suggested other children should do the same because they could learn something from baseball." Daily News 10/23/98 "Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has a propensity to keep arguing even when the law and good sense go against him. This has been particularly true in cases involving the release of information. For nearly two years his administration has refused to hand over relevant police files to the Public Advocate, Mark Green" 11/10/98 NY Times Editorial "I've covered eight mayors," said Gabe Pressman, the veteran television reporter and president of the New York Press Club. "This has been the most difficult administration for getting information." Typically, Giuliani's response when others ask that they be allowed to do their job is to brand them enemies, "stupid," "jerky" or "intellectually dishonest." NY Times 4/7/98 NYC: Once Again, the Mayor Hogs the Ball "Forest City Ratner, a major New York developer...spent more on lobbying the municipal government last year than any other business group, according to a study released Thursday. The company spent $382,385 on lobbying, which included hiring five of the top 10 lobbyists in the city to influence decisions relating to several real estate projects in the five boroughs. The figure accounted for 3.4 percent of all the money spent on lobbying in the city last year, and it far surpassed the $181,842 spent by Merrill Lynch, which ranked second. Among other groups that spent a lot of money lobbying last year was Reuters, the British information services company, which recorded $143,224 in lobbying fees. Last November, Reuters got a $26 million tax break to build a headquarters on a parcel at 42nd Street and Seventh Avenue in Times Square. NY TIMES 5/15/98 "For the second time in two years, The New York Post has received large tax breaks and other subsidies from city and state officials after threatening to move some of its operations out of New York City. Officials have granted the newspaper $24.4 million in incentives to build a new printing plant on 17 acres at a rail yard in the South Bronx." NYTIMES 7/21/98 "Mayor Rudolph Giuliani yesterday opened a self-promoting extravaganza known as the New York City Police Department's second annual spring COMPSTAT conference. This year's conference, at the Marriot Marquis hotel, got off to a better start than last year's, when the mayor barred COMPSTAT's founder, ex-police commissioner Bill Bratton. Meanwhile in the ballroom, each visitor found upon his seat a copy of Sunday's Parade magazine, which featured on its cover a picture of the mayor and Police Commissioner Howard Safir standing beneath the Brooklyn Bridge with the caption "They've made big changes that are making the city safer." Somehow in the picture, Giuliani, who stands 5 feet, 9 inches, appears taller than Safir, who is 6-foot-3." NEWSDAY 5/12/1998 "With crime rates dropping at record rates, former Police Commissioner William Bratton said it's time to cut as many as 3,300 cops and stop making them chase "after petty obscure offenses...Cops have to be careful," Bratton told this week's edition of New York magazine, "that they don't move from working on things that drive people crazy ... to things in which the benefits are far less tangible and have the risk of alienating people and making them feel like Big Brother is upon us." -NYPOST 7/13/98 "Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani appointed Robert M. Harding as his budget director yesterday, choosing to fill a critical position with a lawyer with strong political skills but little experience in fiscal matters and who is the son of one of Giuliani's closest political allies...Harding, 40, has little experience with municipal budgets compared with his predecessors, and his selection surprised many fiscal experts, government officials and government watchdog groups. Several critics dismissed the appointment as a payoff to Harding's father, Raymond B. Harding, the leader of the Liberal Party, who has supported and advised Giuliani since 1989." NYTIMES 7/8/98 Mayor Places An Ally's Son in Budget Post "A Queens precinct commander says he will punish cops who don't make enough arrests by denying them days off, even in an emergency, The Post has learned...Although the Police Department denies there are arrest quotas in any of the precincts, the memo proves that cops who don't bring in enough bad guys face repercussions. "The pressure from the department to meet these numbers has surpassed the pressure that the officer encounters while on patrol," said Patrolmen's Benevolent Association official Daniel Tirelli. "Unfortunately, these pressures are not just in the 110th Precinct, they're in all precincts throughout the city." -NY POST 6/11/98 "Kenneth Starr and Rudolph Giuliani worked together at the Reagan Justice Department. And they also have this in common: both pranced around in drag for variety shows. "Ken's a good friend," says Mr. Giuliani." -NY Times 3/1/98 "Even though there is generally no expectation of privacy in a public space, most people expect freedom from government monitoring when they eat lunch on a park bench or stroll down a street. The growing use of police video monitors in New York City may threaten the free and anonymous nature of public space." 1/3/98 NY Times Editorial: Police Cameras in the Park "If the mayor says no, then there is a minimum 40% chance the true answer is yes, on any topic. That is the state of the mayor's credibility on matters of importance, a reputation he has earned in three years of saying any blessed thing he wishes were true. Now, a magazine article has said that he destroyed his marriage over a personal relationship with a press aide. "The best thing that can be done with this article as far as I'm concerned is it could be thrown it in the trash," said Mayor Giuliani yesterday...He is 53. She is 32. They spend every moment together, nearly 18 to 20 public hours on some days. He shopped for dresses with her one Sunday afternoon. They turn up at building collapses at 1 in the morning, and at private parties at 10 in the evening. In denying the Vanity Fair magazine story, Giuliani says he didn't have sex with Lategano. But sex would only make this relationship less weird. Lategano - whose resume doesn't get much deeper than sneaker saleswoman and campaign worker - now runs the biggest city in the country with Giuliani. You cannot get a streetlight fixed unless it is good for the mayor's image." 7/5/97 Daily News "The [unions] structure has contributed to corruption, these critics say, by discouraging executive board members from questioning how the union is run and by engendering a management style characterized by skimpy financial oversight little questioning and a lot of looking the other way...District Council 37 is one of the city's biggest, most powerful unions and, under Hill, is known for being close to Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and for negotiating contracts that set the pattern for all city workers. "-Critics Contend Power Structure Bred Corruption in City Union NY Times 11/9/98 "Marcus Aurelius is one of two great Roman symbols, representing the universality and history of Rome. As emperor, he was noted for his humanitarian philosophy and his sensitivity to the Empire's poor". -6/3/98 Giuliani Press Release #251 "Giuliani accepts statue of Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius from Mayor of Rome" "Federal officials say New York City's new welfare policies may improperly deprive thousands of poor people of access to food and medical assistance, and they have begun reviewing the public assistance programs to determine whether they violate Federal law...The inquiry focuses on the city's application procedures and marks the first time Federal authorities have questioned Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's new welfare policies, which discourage the needy from applying for public assistance in an effort to push them to rely on themselves, not government. " -U.S. Inquiry Asks if City Deprives Poor N.Y. Times 11/8/98 "There is emerging a new New York that is increasingly authoritarian and repressive,". New York Civil Liberty Union's executive director, Norman Siegel. "-NY Times 7/5/98 "A Federal judge in Manhattan ruled Monday that a city policy banning large groups from holding news conferences or rallies on the steps of City Hall was unconstitutional, saying that the Mayor used it selectively to allow groups like the Young Republicans to gather there, while blocking an AIDS advocacy group that had been critical of him." Judge Says Ban on Big Rallies at City Hall is Unconstitutional" -NYTIMES 7/21/98 "You pay for it, you've got it" hasn't yet become the city's motto, but we are making steady progress in that direction. Over the last four years, New York has sold off its public radio station, tried to sell its hospitals, ceded to business improvement districts the upkeep of large swaths of Manhattan and handed over Central Park to be run by a group of private citizens. Now, it is introducing Rent-a-Cop. For $27 an hour, plus handling charges, it is possible to put an order in with the city's Police Department for a uniformed officer -- complete with bulletproof vest and the power of arrest -- to keep the peace at your private affair. To sweeten the deal, the city will even pick up liability costs: if your rented officer happens to apply excessive force or wrench his back, taxpayers will pick up the tab. " -NYTIMES 6/29/98 Rent-a-Cop Program -- the Best Protection Money Can Buy `Increasingly, you see Mayor Giuliani handling dissent in a mean-spirited, bullying, autocratic fashion, and increasingly using the police as a private mayoral army to target those who disagree with him,'' said civil rights lawyer and activist Ron Kuby." -AP 4/30/98 "Giuliani Under Fire in New York" "At today's rally, which attracted about 400 vendors, street artists, and a smattering of taxi drivers, the mayor was described as: "Crueliani," "Jailiani," and "Stalag Gholiani". Many of the protesting street artists have had their artwork confiscated this year by police after they displayed it without a permit in front of the Metropolitan Museum of Art on Fifth Avenue. Lederman said police have confiscated his paintings of the mayor on more than 30 occasions. He said there is one that particularly attracts the confiscatory enthusiasm of the cops: "It says 'Giuliani Equals Police State." -Washington Post 6/4/98 "Mayor's on a Roll Vendors Aren't Buying" "For as long as 15 years, New York City police officers from the precinct responsible for eradicating much of the tawdriness from Times Square frequented a neighborhood brothel -- in uniform and while on duty -- for free sex, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and police officials acknowledged Friday." -Police Said to Have Made Deal With Prostitutes -NY Times 7/18/98 Employees of some topless clubs have said they hope to stay in business by clothing dancers in bikinis or T-shirts. But Giuliani declared that efforts to "just get around" the law's intent would fail, since nudity was "only one of many criteria" that would be considered. NYTIMES 7/20/98 -End Is Near, Mayor Tells New York Sex Shops "They're not only going to have to get around things, they're going to have to reform themselves and change the essential nature of the kind of operation that they are," Giuliani said". -NY Post 7/20/98 -Porn Shops Reach Date of XXXpiration Giuliani said yesterday that the crackdown would be even more aggressive. "A club may be violating this new zoning law . . . but it may also be violating health codes, building codes, fire codes and other things," he said. "So this is our opportunity to look at this whole group of laws to make sure that they're in compliance." Penalties for violations could be severe. "In some cases, it's fines," Giuliani said. "In some cases, it's putting them out of business." -Daily News 7/22/98 City, Rudy Zones In On Sex Shops "The Giuliani administration has granted a record $666.7 million in tax abatements, the lion's share of which went to businesses locating in Times Square." -8/25/98Village Voice "Porn Free" "Thanks to Mayor Giuliani's quality-of-life program, New Yorkers no longer have to step over quite so many vagrants in order to enjoy the greenery of New York's parks or the aesthetic stimulation of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Unfortunately, thanks to Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Lucy Billings, they might now find themselves navigating their way around hordes of self-described "artists" who think it's appropriate to liken politicians they oppose to Hitler." NY Post Editorial 8/20/98 "Free Speech or Free Exhibition Space?" "The rules for food vendors will also affect street artists. Robert Lederman, a leader of the artists who has called for Mr. Giuliani's impreachment, said he was alarmed by all of the solutions being considered by the Council. Each, he asserted, would lead to the replacement of today's vendors with well-financed companies that could afford to buy the newly rationed right to sell on the sidewalk. "For the past 100 years, vendors have been poor immigrants who were struggling to establish themselves", Mr. Lederman said. "Anybody could get their start on the street. Now we're headed toward the privitization of public space". NY Times June 26, 1998-Mayor Abandons Plan to Ban Sidewalk Vendors ``We're sick and tired of Rudy Giuliani's police state,'' said street artist Robert Lederman, addressing the protesters with a bullhorn. ``He's taking away the rights of vendors and giving them to corporations.'' Giuliani said that although booksellers enjoy First Amendment protection, it ``doesn't extend to unlimited protection. If the city deems that a particular street is overcrowded, then that affects all vendors,'' he said." -N.Y. Street Vendors Protest -Associated Press 6/3/98 "As he continued to accuse City Council leaders of fiscal waywardness, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani yesterday defended his decision toforgive $594,000 in back rent...owed by one of his top campaign contributors...Zachary Fisher, a real estate magnate who is the museum's chairman and chief benefactor. Fisher donated generously to Giuliani's past two bids for mayor." Newsday 10/8/98 Mayor Defends Deal on Intrepid "The parades have been rare in recent decades, with only 11 in the city since 1970. But the ticker-tape parade on Monday will be the third in just the last month. The Mayor was jubilant in announcing the event for the astronauts. "This is wonderful," he said. "I think the more ticker-tape parades I can have during the time that I'm Mayor, the more great memories I'm going to have later on." -NY Times 11/13/98 Glenn Is Set to Repeat Another Journey in Ticker-Tape Parade Up Broadway "The mayor defended rejecting applications for parade permits by other groups, including the activist group Housing Works to mark World AIDS Day. "Obviously, you can't grant everyone's request", he said. "If the city were to grant permits to everyone who wants to have a parade, all the city would do is have parades". -NY Post 11/13/98 Motorists who cause gridlock are simply uncivil, Giuliani said. "When you block the intersection, you're basically saying, 'I don't care about anybody else, I just care about myself,' " the mayor said." -"Rudy's Road Rules" Daily News 11/13/98 "Nearly 10 percent of the city's 1,100 public schools is now officially designated as failing, more than at any time in the last decade. All but four of the schools on the state list are in New York City." -NY Times 11/14/98 "State Adds to List of Failing City Schools, Making Total of 97" "Nearly five years after a crucial deal lured the Walt Disney Company to 42d Street and jump-started the revival of Times Square, a coalition of Broadway interests is struggling to carry the economic gains to the heart of the theater district.The issue's tangled beginnings go back to January 1994, when the city and state offered low-interest loans of almost $30 million to the Walt Disney Company to renovate and take over the decrepit New Amsterdam Theater on 42d Street."-The Broadway Theater Still Awaits Windfall Build on Thin AirNew York Times 11/12/98 Robert Lederman, President of A.R.T.I.S.T. (Artists' Response To Illegal State Tactics) (718) 369-2111 e mail ARTISTpres@aol.com http://www.openair.org/alerts/artist/nyc.html [Note: All quotes used here in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107. This material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.] *** ***
------------------------------------------------------------------- Experts say hundreds of thousands of cases hinge on ruling (The Dallas Morning News notes lawyers for Sonya Singleton on Tuesday will ask a federal appeals court in Denver to rule that prosecutors who offer leniency in exchange for testimony against others are guilty of bribery. If the court agrees, legal experts say it could throw the war on some drugs into immediate upheaval. Hundreds of thousands of cases could be dismissed, and law enforcement could be stripped of its most powerful investigative tool. Singleton's chances of winning are good, according to analysts. Since July, four separate federal courts, including a Denver appeals court, have ruled that it is illegal for paid informants to testify during a trial.) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:41:54 -0500 To: cheechwz@mindspring.com (A H Clements) From: cheechwz@mindspring.com (A H Clements) Subject: HT: fwd: hundreds of thousands of criminal cases hinge on ruling Sender: owner-hemp-talk@hemp.net Forwarded from Tom M (tom@november.org) ALERT! This needs to be everywhere. The AP Wire and most national newspapers seem to be silent, but if this decision stands, especially all the way to the Supreme Court, the prosecutorial end of the Drug War is effectively over. The feds are gonna fight this tooth and nail, for sure, so we need to make as much noise as possible. Peace. Tom. ALERT! *** The Dallas Morning News 11/17/98 By Mark Curriden / The Dallas Morning News Experts say hundreds of thousands of cases hinge on ruling WICHITA, Kan. - Sonya Singleton's name may soon go down in legal history - right beside Ernesto Miranda, Dred Scott and Jane Roe as people whose battles in the courts dramatically changed American society. On Tuesday, lawyers for Ms. Singleton will ask a federal appeals court in Denver to make a decision that legal experts say could throw the criminal justice system into immediate upheaval. Hundreds of thousands of cases could be dismissed, and law enforcement could be stripped of its most powerful investigative tool. The issue is whether prosecutors are committing bribery when they use witnesses who have been paid money or given reduced prison sentences in return for testifying in criminal trials. Ms. Singleton's chances of winning are good, according to analysts. Since July, four separate federal courts, including a Denver appeals court, have ruled that it is illegal for paid informants to testify during a trial. U.S. Justice Department officials are so worried about losing the case that they are already lobbying Congress for legislation that would protect federal prosecutors from bribery charges and allow the government to continue its use of witnesses who have been rewarded. Prosecutors say a decision in Ms. Singleton's favor would jeopardize the convictions - all of which remain on appeal - of Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Manuel Noriega and those involved in the World Trade Center bombing. "Law enforcement should be extremely nervous about this case," said Ron Carlson, a law professor at the University of Georgia and an expert on criminal law. "Not since the Miranda decision in 1966 forced police to read suspects their rights to remain silent and access to a lawyer have we seen a case with such far-reaching and explosive potential." Getting nervous Authorities in Dallas are also nervous about the possible ramifications of the Singleton litigation. And they should be. More than 86 percent of a sampling of federal criminal cases in Dallas and Fort Worth between 1995 and 1997 involved the use of informants and co-conspirators who received deals from prosecutors in return for testimony, according to a review of nearly 300 cases by The Dallas Morning News. Some of the informants were paid thousands of dollars for their cooperation. Most received a reduction in the amount of time they would serve in prison for their crimes. The cases mostly involved drug offenses, illegal-gun charges and various white-collar conspiracies. "If this case stands, law enforcement would be seriously hampered in our ability to investigate and prosecute serious crimes," said U.S. Attorney Paul Coggins of Dallas. "This case makes every prosecutor, every judge, every defense attorney co-conspirators in a federal bribery case. I don't think that can be allowed to stand." The case began last year when Wichita police and federal agents arrested dozens of people they alleged were involved in a conspiracy to launder money and distribute cocaine. Among those arrested was Sonya Singleton, a 25-year-old mother of two. Prosecutors said she helped wire some of the drug money between Kansas and California - a charge Ms. Singleton denied. During her trial, the only witness able to identify Ms. Singleton as part of the conspiracy was Napolean Douglas, a convicted cocaine dealer who had cut a deal with prosecutors. Officials agreed to reduce Mr. Douglas' prison sentence from 15 years to five years in return for his cooperation. Ms. Singleton was found guilty and sentenced to four years in a Texas federal prison. Buying witnesses But on appeal earlier this year, John Van Wachtel, Ms. Singleton's lawyer, argued that the prosecutors' deal with Mr. Douglas violated federal bribery laws, which prohibit "whoever" from giving, offering or promising "anything of value" to a witness in exchange for testimony. The law doesn't exempt prosecutors, he said. "They bought this witness, offered him the most precious commodity known to man - freedom," said Mr. Wachtel. "With the deal he got, he was going to tell the government anything they wanted to hear, even if that meant lying." In July, a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver unanimously agreed, reversing Ms. Singleton's conviction on the ground that the leniency deal with Mr. Douglas was illegal. "Promising something of value to secure truthful testimony is as much prohibited as buying perjured testimony," the three judges said in their opinion. "If justice is perverted when a criminal defendant seeks to buy testimony from a witness, it is no less perverted when the government does so." The decision rocked the criminal justice system. Texas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers president Kent Schaffer praised it as "one of the most enlightened opinions" in decades. Justice Department attorneys said it "caused chaos and significant disruptions" in their practices. Most judges were stunned. "If you read the 10th Circuit opinion, it's well-reasoned and easily supported by federal law," said a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who spoke on the condition that he not be identified. "But the results would be catastrophic. What do you do as a judge in a situation like that - follow the law or try to devise a way around it?" Ten days after the decision, the full 12-member 10th Circuit Court agreed to review the decision. Only three additional judges are needed to join the three judges from the original panel to uphold the panel's decision. Both sides agree an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is certain. The original ruling was only enforceable in the 10th Circuit, which includes Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. But in the four months since the decision, federal trial judges in Florida, Louisiana and Tennessee have cited the 10th Circuit opinion in refusing to allow informant testimony. Wait-and-see mode Meanwhile, at least a dozen judges in other states have either delayed making such decisions until the full 10th Circuit rules, or have simply rejected the 10th Circuit's reasoning. Judges in nearly every state report lawyers filing "Singleton motions" in their respective cases to have informant testimony thrown out. The U.S. Justice Department argues that the 10th Circuit's decision "would cripple law enforcement" and "lead to absurd results." Prosecutors say Congress never intended for the bribery laws to apply to the deals they make with informants. "I would eat my hat if this case is not reversed," said Susan Klein, a law professor at the University of Texas and a former federal prosecutor. "This would eliminate the prime tool law enforcement has in combating crime, and that is the ability to reach down into a criminal operation and catch a low-level fish and cut them a deal in return for their cooperation. "The system depends upon this, and I can't imagine the courts putting tens of thousands of investigations, trials and convictions in jeopardy over this." However, defense lawyers and many judges argue that the system's reliance on informants has undermined public confidence in the court system. They say the Singleton case offers an opportunity for the courts and Congress to make necessary improvements. Too often, said San Antonio criminal defense attorney Gerald Goldstein, authorities rely exclusively on paid informants and co-defendants-turned-informants and have no corroborating evidence to support the informant's testimony. "Every day, there are people being sent to prison for many years solely based on the word of career criminals who are manipulating the criminal justice system as informants," said Terry Hart, a former federal prosecutor in Dallas. "The best thing about this case is that it should make all of us rethink the use of informants and dealmaking for the sake of fairness and justice."
------------------------------------------------------------------- Court to decide legality of rewarding informants (The Dallas Morning News version) From: "Bob Owen@W.H.E.N." (when@olywa.net) To: "_Drug Policy --" (when@hemp.net) Subject: Are rewarded informants illegally bribed? Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 18:31:02 -0800 Sender: owner-when@hemp.net Court to decide legality of rewarding informants 11/17/98 By Mark Curriden / The Dallas Morning News Experts say hundreds of thousands of cases hinge on ruling WICHITA, Kan. - Sonya Singleton's name may soon go down in legal history - right beside Ernesto Miranda, Dred Scott and Jane Roe as people whose battles in the courts dramatically changed American society. On Tuesday, lawyers for Ms. Singleton will ask a federal appeals court in Denver to make a decision that legal experts say could throw the criminal justice system into immediate upheaval. Hundreds of thousands of cases could be dismissed, and law enforcement could be stripped of its most powerful investigative tool. The issue is whether prosecutors are committing bribery when they use witnesses who have been paid money or given reduced prison sentences in return for testifying in criminal trials. Ms. Singleton's chances of winning are good, according to analysts. Since July, four separate federal courts, including a Denver appeals court, have ruled that it is illegal for paid informants to testify during a trial. U.S. Justice Department officials are so worried about losing the case that they are already lobbying Congress for legislation that would protect federal prosecutors from bribery charges and allow the government to continue its use of witnesses who have been rewarded. Prosecutors say a decision in Ms. Singleton's favor would jeopardize the convictions - all of which remain on appeal - of Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Manuel Noriega and those involved in the World Trade Center bombing. "Law enforcement should be extremely nervous about this case," said Ron Carlson, a law professor at the University of Georgia and an expert on criminal law. "Not since the Miranda decision in 1966 forced police to read suspects their rights to remain silent and access to a lawyer have we seen a case with such far-reaching and explosive potential." Getting nervous Authorities in Dallas are also nervous about the possible ramifications of the Singleton litigation. And they should be. More than 86 percent of a sampling of federal criminal cases in Dallas and Fort Worth between 1995 and 1997 involved the use of informants and co-conspirators who received deals from prosecutors in return for testimony, according to a review of nearly 300 cases by The Dallas Morning News. Some of the informants were paid thousands of dollars for their cooperation. Most received a reduction in the amount of time they would serve in prison for their crimes. The cases mostly involved drug offenses, illegal-gun charges and various white-collar conspiracies. "If this case stands, law enforcement would be seriously hampered in our ability to investigate and prosecute serious crimes," said U.S. Attorney Paul Coggins of Dallas. "This case makes every prosecutor, every judge, every defense attorney co-conspirators in a federal bribery case. I don't think that can be allowed to stand." The case began last year when Wichita police and federal agents arrested dozens of people they alleged were involved in a conspiracy to launder money and distribute cocaine. Among those arrested was Sonya Singleton, a 25-year-old mother of two. Prosecutors said she helped wire some of the drug money between Kansas and California - a charge Ms. Singleton denied. During her trial, the only witness able to identify Ms. Singleton as part of the conspiracy was Napolean Douglas, a convicted cocaine dealer who had cut a deal with prosecutors. Officials agreed to reduce Mr. Douglas' prison sentence from 15 years to five years in return for his cooperation. Ms. Singleton was found guilty and sentenced to four years in a Texas federal prison. Buying witnesses But on appeal earlier this year, John Van Wachtel, Ms. Singleton's lawyer, argued that the prosecutors' deal with Mr. Douglas violated federal bribery laws, which prohibit "whoever" from giving, offering or promising "anything of value" to a witness in exchange for testimony. The law doesn't exempt prosecutors, he said. "They bought this witness, offered him the most precious commodity known to man - freedom," said Mr. Wachtel. "With the deal he got, he was going to tell the government anything they wanted to hear, even if that meant lying." In July, a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver unanimously agreed, reversing Ms. Singleton's conviction on the ground that the leniency deal with Mr. Douglas was illegal. "Promising something of value to secure truthful testimony is as much prohibited as buying perjured testimony," the three judges said in their opinion. "If justice is perverted when a criminal defendant seeks to buy testimony from a witness, it is no less perverted when the government does so." The decision rocked the criminal justice system. Texas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers president Kent Schaffer praised it as "one of the most enlightened opinions" in decades. Justice Department attorneys said it "caused chaos and significant disruptions" in their practices. Most judges were stunned. "If you read the 10th Circuit opinion, it's well-reasoned and easily supported by federal law," said a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who spoke on the condition that he not be identified. "But the results would be catastrophic. What do you do as a judge in a situation like that - follow the law or try to devise a way around it?" Ten days after the decision, the full 12-member 10th Circuit Court agreed to review the decision. Only three additional judges are needed to join the three judges from the original panel to uphold the panel's decision. Both sides agree an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is certain. The original ruling was only enforceable in the 10th Circuit, which includes Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. But in the four months since the decision, federal trial judges in Florida, Louisiana and Tennessee have cited the 10th Circuit opinion in refusing to allow informant testimony. Wait-and-see mode Meanwhile, at least a dozen judges in other states have either delayed making such decisions until the full 10th Circuit rules, or have simply rejected the 10th Circuit's reasoning. Judges in nearly every state report lawyers filing "Singleton motions" in their respective cases to have informant testimony thrown out. The U.S. Justice Department argues that the 10th Circuit's decision "would cripple law enforcement" and "lead to absurd results." Prosecutors say Congress never intended for the bribery laws to apply to the deals they make with informants. "I would eat my hat if this case is not reversed," said Susan Klein, a law professor at the University of Texas and a former federal prosecutor. "This would eliminate the prime tool law enforcement has in combating crime, and that is the ability to reach down into a criminal operation and catch a low-level fish and cut them a deal in return for their cooperation. "The system depends upon this, and I can't imagine the courts putting tens of thousands of investigations, trials and convictions in jeopardy over this." However, defense lawyers and many judges argue that the system's reliance on informants has undermined public confidence in the court system. They say the Singleton case offers an opportunity for the courts and Congress to make necessary improvements. Too often, said San Antonio criminal defense attorney Gerald Goldstein, authorities rely exclusively on paid informants and co-defendants-turned-informants and have no corroborating evidence to support the informant's testimony. "Every day, there are people being sent to prison for many years solely based on the word of career criminals who are manipulating the criminal justice system as informants," said Terry Hart, a former federal prosecutor in Dallas. "The best thing about this case is that it should make all of us rethink the use of informants and dealmaking for the sake of fairness and justice."
------------------------------------------------------------------- Family Of Mexican Slain By Texas Police Files Suit (Reuters says family and friends of Pedro Oregon Navarro, an illegal Mexican immigrant shot and killed by police during a botched drug bust, sued the city of Houston Tuesday, seeking unspecified damages.) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:13:06 -0800 From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews) To: mapnews@mapinc.org Subject: MN: US TX: WIRE: Family Of Mexican Slain By Texas Police Files Suit Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: hadorn@dnai.com (David Hadorn) Pubdate: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 Source: Wire: Reuters Copyright: 1998 Reuters Limited. Author: Jeff Franks FAMILY OF MEXICAN SLAIN BY TEXAS POLICE FILES SUIT HOUSTON (Reuters) - Family and friends of an illegal Mexican immigrant shot and killed by police during a botched drug bust sued the city of Houston Tuesday. The suit seeks unspecified damages in the death of Pedro Oregon Navarro, who was shot 12 times -- nine times in the back -- when six police officers burst into his Houston apartment without a warrant in search of drugs on July 12. ``We are making allegations against the city of Houston that policies and practices have failed... particularly in the recruiting, hiring and training of officers,'' attorney Richard Mithoff told a news conference. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, also names the now-fired police officers as defendants. They entered Oregon's apartment without a legal warrant after an informant, drunk and on cocaine, told them he bought drugs there. One of the officers apparently fired his gun accidentally, wounding another officer in the shoulder. Apparently thinking the shot came from Oregon, police opened fire with 33 rounds. A search of the apartment found no drugs and an autopsy found no trace of any in Oregon's body. His friends said the 22-year-old landscaper from the Mexican state of Michoacan did not drink, smoke or use drugs. Houston Police Chief C.O. Bradford fired the officers involved, saying the incident was an ``egregious'' case of official misconduct. But a Harris County grand jury indicted only one of them on a misdemeanor trespassing charge. The grand jury's decision triggered loud protests from Oregon's family and others. FBI Director Louis Freeh visited the family last week and promised a thorough investigation. Oregon came to the United States illegally eight years ago. His mother, brother and sister live here now, along with two children he had with two different women. Mithoff previously offered $35 million to settle the case but got no response from the city. ``This family came to this country to seek a better way of life, to seek justice and... I intend to see that this country does not fail them,'' he said. Redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Random Drug Testing Comes Home (The New York Times recounts the experiences of Sunny Cloud, an insurance saleswoman and single mother in Marietta, Georgia, whose discovery that her son smoked cannabis led her to distribute the first at-home urine-testing kit for worried parents. Last month, the Food and Drug Administration approved the latest of these kits, the QuickScreen at Home Drug Test made by Phamatech, a San Diego manufacturer.) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 18:12:45 -0800 From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews) To: mapnews@mapinc.org Subject: MN: US: Random Drug Testing Comes Home Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: General Pulaski and Dick Evans Source: New York Times (NY) Contact: letters@nytimes.com Website: http://www.nytimes.com/ Copyright: 1998 The New York Times Company Pubdate: 17 Nov 1998 Section: Health & Fitness, Page F7 Author: Sheryl Gay Stolberg RANDOM DRUG TESTING COMES HOME On a weekday afternoon in 1992, Sunny Cloud, an insurance saleswoman and single mother in Marietta, Ga., dropped by her home unexpectedly and found her 16-year-old son, Ron, smoking marijuana. Stunned, Ms. Cloud hustled the boy off to the nearest hospital emergency room, where she asked doctors to screen his urine. "I was scared," she said recently, "and I didn't know what else to do." The procedure was expensive, and embarrassing. So Ms. Cloud, still suspicious of her son, decided to do her own drug tests, sending him into the family bathroom in boxer shorts with instructions to come out with a cup full of urine that she could ship to a local laboratory for analysis. That is how Ms. Cloud began a cottage industry: the home drug testing business. As more teen-agers experiment with illicit drugs, a small but growing roster of companies, including Parents Alert, founded by Ms. Cloud in 1994, are marketing drug testing kits to parents. Last month, the Food and Drug Administration approved the latest of these kits, the QuickScreen at Home Drug Test made by Phamatech, a San Diego manufacturer of diagnostic tests. The company bills its product as the first to give parents a result at home. Phamatech says that when the kit hits drug stores in December, screening for marijuana, cocaine, LSD or heroin will be as simple as taking a home pregnancy test. But while advocates of the kits describe them as lifelines for parents struggling to keep their teen-agers away from illicit drugs, critics warn that the tests will turn parents into detectives, undermining the fragile trust essential in guiding children through the tumultuous teen-age years. "If parents want the illusion of control, then I think they should scamper out and buy this kit and use it," said Dr. Daniel H. Gottlieb, a family therapist in suburban Philadelphia and an adviser to the Federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. "On the other hand, if they want a good relationship with their child, they need to talk to their child to find out what is going on in that child's life." Teen-age use of illicit drugs has risen steadily over the past six years, according to Monitoring the Future, a study by the University of Michigan that has examined drug abuse among high school seniors every year since 1975. Among the graduating class of 1992, 27.1 percent had used an illegal drug in the year before the survey; by last year, the figure had jumped to 42.4 percent. In 1997, Nearly half of 12th graders had tried marijuana by the time they graduated; 8.7 percent had tried cocaine; 13.6 percent had tried LSD and 2.1 percent had tried heroin. But those figures, while alarming, do not mean that drug dependency is rampant among teen-agers. Dr. David T. Feinberg, a child psychiatrist and expert in addiction at the University of California at Los Angeles, estimates that 5 percent of American teen-agers are addicted to drugs. Parents, he said, need to be able to tell dependency from the "normal experimentation," that is part of the rite of passage to adulthood, a distinction a drug test cannot make. "Parents should not be performing medical tests on their kids," Feinberg said. Nor, he added, should pediatricians. "The way to determine if a kid has a drug problem is the way to determine if a kid has any problem, first by taking a history, then a physical," Feinberg said. Moreover, Feinberg says, the tests do not always tell the truth. Eating a poppy seed bagel can render a urine test positive; so, too, can taking certain over-the-counter cold remedies. The new test marketed by Phamatech cautions parents that while a negative result is proof that a child is not using drugs, a positive result is not conclusive and must be confirmed by a laboratory. "Some people have said, 'Don't you think this is like Big Brother watching you?"' asked Carl Mongiovi, Phamatech's director of operations and regulatory affairs. "Neither myself nor my company is interested in getting into the family unit, telling people how to do things. But parents seem to need some help." Mongiovi and other proponents of the tests, including officials at the National Parents' Resource In Drug Education, a nonprofit group based in Atlanta, say talking with young people about drugs is hardly as easy as Feinberg and others suggest. They argue that when parents have suspicions that a child is using drugs, testing may be a good way -- in some cases, the only way -- to start a truthful dialogue. "Many parents that I have talked to feel that it is hard for them to discuss this with their adolescents," said Dr. Herbert Kleber, medical director of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. "These tests can help deal with that issue, if they are used as part of the communication between parent and child. If they are used as a club, they are going to cause harm." The kits come in various forms. Ms. Cloud's version, the Parents Alert Home Drug Test Service, sells for $44.95 and includes a urine collection bottle, a prepaid courier package to send to the lab and the toll-free number of a drug counselor. She says the counseling is essential. "A drug test is just a tool," she said. "It gives you information. What most people don't know is what to do with the information." Phamatech's test is designed to eliminate the laboratory, as much as possible. The company says its kit, which will cost between $25 and $35, will tell parents in about 10 minutes if their children are free of drugs. It is already used by employers. For those who do not like the idea of urine tests, there is an at-home hair analysis kit, marketed by the Psychemedics Corp., a biotechnology company in Cambridge, Mass. Psychemedics bills the product as "designed for parents concerned about drug abuse." The hair test costs $59.95, and has the advantage of surprise: A parent can take a snip of hair while a child is sleeping. It is difficult to determine how many of these kits are sold each year; most of the companies involved will not divulge sales figures. But Ken Adams, the owner of Parents Home Drug Testing, a company that is doing a brisk business selling unlicensed tests over the Internet, says he sells 1,000 kits a month. Dr. Bruce Burlington, director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the FDA, said several companies have requested approval for tests similar to Phamatech's. Although Adams says his company operates in a "gray area," Bruce Burlington of the FDA says the food and drug agency considers the sale of unlicensed tests illegal. "We are in the process right now of weighing what actions we should take," he said. The companies marketing these tests advocate that parents set up a "family drug policy." "Start when they are 11 or 12," Adams suggested. "Say that part of the family drug policy is that there is going to be random drug testing. That doesn't mean I don't love you and I don't trust you. It means that this thing is too serious to take a chance." Adams and Ms. Cloud both argue that the at-home tests can give adolescents an easy out -- "a good excuse to say no to peer pressure," in Ms. Cloud's words. Her son, Ron, now a 22-year-old junior at the University of Georgia, agrees. He said he smoked his first marijuana cigarette in the eighth grade, and by 10th grade he was smoking marijuana and taking LSD regularly. "His grades slipped," Ms. Cloud said. "He started getting belligerent." Cloud said that he stopped using drugs several years ago, after some "major spiritual revelations" that began four years ago, when he was a senior in high school. He said he had attended a concert by the heavy metal group Nine Inch Nails, had taken LSD and "was pretty far out there." "I felt like I was going into the depths of hell," he said. After the concert, he went home and woke up his mother. "I told her I was sorry for the torture I was putting her through." Subsequently, he said, he turned to religion. Although he initially resented the drug tests his mother forced him to take, Cloud said that they did "play a role in putting me down a good path." "I knew that I couldn't go out and get crazy."
------------------------------------------------------------------- Exposing drug-war pseudo-scientists (A physician and list subscriber responds to the recent propaganda about cannabis and glaucoma published in the Archives of Ophthalmology by suggesting the reform community desperately needs a credible and recognized source of unbiased scientific information concerning the health and social effects of drugs and drug policies. This group would serve as a "rapid response truth squad" which ideally the media would learn to consult prior to publishing articles about "new drug studies" and the like.) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:31:26 -0800 (PST) To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org) From: hadorn@dnai.com (David Hadorn) Subject: Exposing drug-war pseudo-scientists Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org Colleagues, The article on mmj and glaucoma by Keith Green in this month's Archives of Ophthalmology and its attendant publicity have reinforced my long-held belief that we desperately need a credible and recognized source of unbiased scientific information concerning the health and social effects of drugs and drug policies. This group would serve as a "rapid response truth squad" which ideally the media would learn to consult prior to publishing articles about "new drug studies" and the like. I will discuss the Green article in another post, but I want to focus here on the desirability of establishing a plan and mechanism for opposing and exposing the small but powerful clique of ideologically driven "scientists", most of whom unfortunately work at mainstream institutions, and whose mis-statements, obfuscations, and repetition of long-discredited myths continue to be broadcast by lazy and irresponsible media, thus serving to obstruct progress toward rational and evidence-based drug policies. These pseudo-scientists (i.e., people who profess to be scientists but who systematically break established rules of scientific endeavor and discourse) are intellectually analogous to "creation scientists", whose deluded work continues even to this day as a quaint but largely harmless island in the sea of contemporary evolutionary biology. Unfortunately, drug-war pseudo-scientists (DWPSs, pronounced "dwips") are far from harmless. Indeed, they provide powerful sources of aid and comfort to the war machine that is oppressing millions of people and disrupting civilization all over the world. I would not liken DWPSs to Nazi scientists, necessarily, but they are surely at best wolves in sheeps' clothing, pretending to provide unbiased and honest information while in reality promoting their own ideological agendas. An even more apt analogy would be criminals dressed in police uniforms and driving patrol cars, pulling innocent people over on the pretence of some safety concern and then assaulting them. "Trust me, I'm only here to help. POW!" I mean, if you can't trust police or scientists, who can you trust? (Thus Carl Olsen's recent frustrated dismissal of the entire scientific community as a legitimate player in the drug policy arena.) I will present supporting documentation for this strong language in subsequent posts. DWPSs should be ruthlessly and visibly exposed in order to neutralize them as potentially credible sources of information even to the gullible media. Well-documented and well-argued charges of scientific misconduct should be formally levied, where appropriate, using the relevant policies and procedures in place in the professional organizations or academic institutions these individuals are associated with. It might also be appropriate at times to publicly describe these charges in press releases and the like, although timing here would be important. Obviously if such an endeavor is to succeed the members of the accusing body would have to have both unimpeachable credentials and an appetite for potentially difficult confrontations in the interest of human and ecological welfare. I had hoped that the Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy might be interested in serving in this capacity, but a brief e-mail contact with PLNDP head David Lewis a year ago or more confirmed that they are only interested in promoting treatment (including "forced rehabilitation"; see http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n1030.a03.html). I would potentially be interested in trying to help put together an appropriate group of scientists to serve in the above-envisioned capacity, although the difficulties would be great. Funding would have to be found and many of the most knowledgeable *real* scientists in the field have already been labeled and marginalized by the drug warriors. Probably the group would have to be made up (mostly?) of high-quality people who have not yet taken a public stand on drug policy. This was largely the model used to set up the New Zealand Drug Policy Forum Trust, although this group would clearly not be a suitable candidate for this role, at least for northern hemisphere audiences. Now that I'm living in the SF Bay area, it would be easier for me to participate in such an activity--which, again, I think is desperately needed. Anyway, before I take this any further, I'd be interested in hearing any ideas people have concerning these initial thoughts. Thanks, D
------------------------------------------------------------------- More Anti-Medical Marijuana Research Propaganda (A bulletin from the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies says an opinion piece in today's New York Times by Jim McDonough of the White House drug czar's office makes several factual misrepresentations of Dr. Donald Abrams' medical marijuana study.) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:19:12 -0800 (PST) From: Uzondu Jibuike (ucj@vcn.bc.ca) To: Uzondu Jibuike (ucj@vcn.bc.ca) Subject: More Anti-Medical Marijuana Research Propaganda (fwd: MAPS:) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:38:01 EST From: RickMAPS@aol.com Subject: MAPS: Medical Marijuana Research To All: More anti-medical marijuana propaganda. The Drug Czar's office misrepresented Dr. Donald Abrams' medical marijuana study in today's New York Times. Donald is incensed and is planning to write a letter to the editor and is calling the Drug Czar's office. The article was in the Science Section, page D9. Jim McDonough, Director of Strategy for the White House Office Drug Control Office, wrote an opinion piece (he can't claim to have been misquoted!) in which he said, "... Dr. Donald Abrams at UC San Francisco, who is conducting the only accepted study, has to recruit subjects for a double blind study. But the only thing participants can take while battling AIDS or cancer is marijuana. Naturally, participants' willingness is limited. In one study that compared marijuana to Marinol- the active ingredient in the marijuana plant- patients preferred Marinol...." First, Donald has already enrolled about 17 people in his study. He has more than enough volunteers but is limited to testing them in two hospital rooms equipped with special filters for the marijuana smoke. Second, the study is limited to AIDS patients and does not include cancer patients. Third, the study is testing for the interaction of marijuana, Marinol or placebo with a protease inhibitor. Patients are getting the latest AIDS treatment and are not restricted only to marijuana. Fourth, no studies in AIDS patients have ever been done before so there is no evidence whatesover that AIDS patients before Marinol to marijuana. As far as I know, all the studies that compared marijuana to Marinol where in cancer patients and were conducted about 15 years ago. In most studies, more patients preferred marijuana than Marinol. One study in which more patients preferred Marinol was in lung cancer patients, who you would naturally think wouldn't want to smoke anything. There are also other falsehoods and misleading statements in Jim McDonough's brief article, but you get the point.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Justices considering drug search legalities (The Houston Chronicle says the US Supreme Court on Monday delved into the constitutionality of the war on some drugs by agreeing to decide whether police need a warrant before searching a car suspected of having been used in a cocaine deal. The case, from Florida, questions the extent to which police may examine the automobiles they impound while investigating illegal drug activity. While courts have upheld the right of police to seize the vehicles, a question remains whether officers may then search them without first getting a judge's permission.) From: adbryan@ONRAMP.NET Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 06:07:59 -0600 (CST) Subject: ART: Justices considering drug search legalities To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org) Cc: editor@mapinc.org Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org From the 11-17-98 Houston Chronicle http://www.chron.com viewpoints@chron.com Justices considering drug search legalities High court to decide if police need warrants By STEVE LASH Copyright 1998 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday delved into the constitutionality of the war on drugs by agreeing to decide whether police need a warrant before searching a car suspected of having been used in a cocaine deal. The case, from Florida, questions the extent to which police may examine the automobiles they impound while investigating illegal drug activity. While courts have upheld the right of police to seize the vehicles, a question remains whether officers may then search them without first getting a judge's permission. In other action, the justices let stand a lower court decision that struck down a Cincinnati ordinance limiting campaign expenditures in City Council elections. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the ordinance ran afoul of the Supreme Court's 1976 ruling in Buckley vs. Valeo that generally held campaign funding limits to be an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. In the Florida case, the justices will review whether police violated the Fourth Amendment when they conducted a warrantless search of Tyvessel White's automobile and found cocaine in an ashtray. White, who had been arrested on an unrelated charge, was subsequently charged with drug possession. At his trial, White asked that the cocaine evidence be thrown out because the police lacked a warrant when they searched his vehicle. Police, believing the car had been used several months earlier to deliver illegal drugs, seized the automobile after arresting White. The trial judge permitted the warrantless search, and White was convicted. A Florida appeals court upheld the conviction, saying the police did not need a warrant to search the car because they had probable cause to believe the vehicle had been used to facilitate a drug deal. However, the Florida Supreme Court reversed, saying the police needed a warrant before searching a car seized under the state Contraband Forfeiture Act, which allows law enforcement to impound cars. In his successful request that the U.S. Supreme Court hear the state's appeal, Florida Attorney General Robert Butterworth noted the local federal appeals court had ruled that police do not need a warrant before searching an impounded vehicle. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based its ruling on Supreme Court decisions that police must be allowed to conduct quick, warrantless searches of automobiles because cars can be driven away in the time it would take to get approval. Butterworth said the Florida Supreme Court decision creates the "inherently anomalous situation" that state police need a warrant before searching a car but that the same automobile seized for identical reasons by federal officers may be searched without a warrant. "Such a result cannot be permitted to stand." he added. David Gauldin, an assistant public defender representing White, urged the justices not to disturb the Florida Supreme Court's decision. He said the need for police to search automobiles quickly only applies to situations on the open road. Officers, after seizing a car, have plenty of time to get a warrant before conducting a search, Gauldin argued. In the campaign funding case, council members urged the Supreme Court to hear their appeal and overturn the 6th Circuit's decision. They argued the $140,000 limit Cincinnati places on campaign expenses removes the "pervasive public perception" that money has corrupted local elections and politicians. However, John Kruse, an unsuccessful candidate for council, urged the justices to let the 6th Circuit's decision stand. Political candidates have a First Amendment right to spend as much as they want on their campaigns, argued Kruse, who was joined in the case by his campaign committee and two financial contributors to Cincinnati City Council campaigns.
------------------------------------------------------------------- NPR poll on marijuana through Friday (A list subscriber urges you to vote on a "legalization" poll sponsored on the web by National Public Radio.) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:33:59 -0500 Reply-To: chaseng@MINDSPRING.COM Sender: Drug Policy Forum of Texas (DPFT-L@TAMU.EDU) From: chaseng@MINDSPRING.COM Subject: NPR poll on MJ thru Friday To: DPFT-L@TAMU.EDU Perhaps you already know. Full legalization is winning.I found this in NYTimes this AM online. John Chase Marketplace, a radio feature on National Public Radio, is conducting an online poll on medicinal marijuana. Cast your vote at: http://features.yahoo.com/finance/survey/ Results will be talleyed for the end of the week so act now!
------------------------------------------------------------------- Study finds side-effects to new anti-depressants (According to a Canadian Press article in The Halifax Daily News, a review published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal today says antidepressants such as Prozac, hailed since the 1980s for having no unpleasant side-effects, can actually cause everything from nausea and insomnia to anorexia, diarrhea, nervousness, anxiety, and agitation. Researchers found that the newer drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are no safer or more effective than other drugs used for treating people with severe depression.) From: creator@islandnet.com (Matt Elrod) To: mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com Subject: Study finds side-effects to new anti-depressants Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:52:08 -0800 Lines: 63 Newshawk: creator@mapinc.org Source: Halifax Daily News (Canada) Contact: letterstoeditor@hfxnews.southam.ca Pubdate: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 Study finds side-effects to new anti-depressants OTTAWA (CP) - Antidepressants hailed since the 1980s for having no unpleasant side-effects can actually cause anything from nausea and insomnia to anorexia. In a review published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal today, researchers report widely used antidepressants such as Prozac can also cause diarrhea, nervousness, anxiety, and agitation. The review, conducted by the Canadian Co-ordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, supports anecdotal evidence of side-effects patients have reported for years. In a wider set of studies, the researchers found the newer drugs, called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRIs, are no safer or more effective than other drugs used for treating people with severe depression. That knowledge could change the way doctors and psychiatrists decide what kind of drug to prescribe. There's been a dramatic increase in the prescription of SSRIs over the years because doctors felt they were safer than the older tricyclic antidepressants, or TCAs, which produced side-effects such as dizziness and blurred vision. Dr. Evelinda Trindade, the lead public-health researcher for the review, is hoping the findings help foster a discussion on alternative therapies for people who suffer from major depression. "(Patients) should have maybe access not only to a pill, but to a social worker or a psychologist to see the ways of getting out of a problem that is overwhelming them." When SSRIs were developed, clinical trial results showed patients were more likely to stay on them because of fewer side-effects. But Trindade's review of results from 84 clinical trials showed all antidepressants had some side-effects. Patients were not significantly less likely to stop taking an SSRI drug than a TCA one, the review also discovered. Dr. Nicolaas Otten, director of pharmaceutical assessments at the health-assessment office, said doctors will have to change the way they think of SSRIs to be able to give patients the most appropriate treatment. The review is likely to make scientists think twice about the how to interpret results of clinical trials that are normally conducted to assess the effectiveness of a drug. The majority of the clinical studies considered in this analysis are short, between four and 12 weeks, said Otten. In 1994-1995, the Canadian National Population Health Survey found an estimated 6.9 per cent, or about 1.7 million Canadians, older than 12 had experienced symptoms of depression in the last two months.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Give A Second Chance, Says Minister (The Times, in Britain, says government guidelines to be published tomorrow will tell educators that children who experiment with drugs should not be expelled from school automatically, despite some parents' desire for zero tolerance. The new guidelines, produced in consultation with Keith Hellawell, the government's drugs czar, aim to reduce expulsions, which have doubled in the past five years to more than 12,000 a year in state schools.) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 19:49:51 -0800 From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews) To: mapnews@mapinc.org Subject: MN: UK: Give A Second Chance, Says Minister Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: QC000NKH@macpo.ssd.loral.com (VanDeVooren, Craig) Pubdate: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 Source: Times, The (UK) Copyright: 1998 Times Newspapers Ltd. Contact: letters@the-times.co.uk Website: http://www.the-times.co.uk/ Author: John O'Leary, Education Correspondent GIVE A SECOND CHANCE, SAYS MINISTER Don't Expel Drug Takers, Schools Told CHILDREN who experiment with drugs should not be expelled from school automatically, teachers will be told in government guidelines to be published tomorrow. Estelle Morris, the School Standards Minister, told independent school headmistresses yesterday that she understood parents' desire for "zero tolerance" , but it was often better to give a second chance to lessen the risk of children sliding into regular usage. In a speech to the Girls' Schools Association in Glasgow, Ms Morris said drug takers' welfare must be balanced against the need for punishment and the protection of the wider school community. Dealers would normally be expelled, but many head teachers would take a different view of "someone found with cannabis in their pockets". The remarks were condemned immediately by a head teachers' leader. John Dunford, general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, said the authority of head teachers would be undermined. "Any kind of pressure on heads in this direction is unwelcome. There is a need to give a very strong message to children. It is difficult enough to keep schools out of the drugs scene," he said. David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said the advice would receive a mixed reception in schools. The guidelines on drug education, produced in consultation with Keith Hellawell, the Government's "drugs czar", will aim to reduce expulsions, which have doubled in the past five years to more than 12,000 a year in state schools. They will advocate specialist education from the age of five and use of a wider range of punishments for drug offences. However, Ms Morris ruled out random testing of drugtaking pupils at state schools as a condition of continued attendance. Many independent schools - no figures for expulsions were available - test pupils involved with drugs, with parents' agreement, but ministers believe legal difficulties would prove insurmountable in the state system. Ms Morris emphasised that schools would remain free to expel even for possession. They will still be expected to report drug takers to police, although most such cases now result only in a caution. She added: "There has got to be a bottom line in drug education that taking drugs is harmful and wrong. That has always got to be the basic message." Ms Morris added: "Drugs are a crime but they are also a welfare problem." Automatic expulsion could deprive children of support they needed to break a cycle of dependency. Once young people had been found taking drugs, it was usually too late to "sit them down and tell them not to do it". The guidelines will form part of the Government's effort to reduce exclusions by a third by 2002. Mr Dunford said head teachers would feel trapped between parents wanting a hard line on drugs and local authorities anxious to meet targets. Ms Morris, who was promoted in the summer reshuffle after serving as deputy to Stephen Byers as School Standards Minister, was seen as one of the unsung successes of the Government's first year. She had increased her majority in her Birmingham Yardley constituency at the last election. She was formerly a teacher at Sydney Stringer Comprehensive School in Coventry, and told the headmistresses that although she was single and not a parent, she could imagine the anxieties felt by families over drugs. Newspapers' standard terms and conditions. To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from The Times, visit the Syndication website. -------------------------------------------------------------------
[End]
The articles posted here are generally copyrighted by the source publications. They are reproduced here for educational purposes under the Fair Use Doctrine (17 U.S.C., section 107). NORML is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit educational organization. The views of the authors and/or source publications are not necessarily those of NORML. The articles and information included here are not for sale or resale.
Comments, questions and suggestions.
Reporters and researchers are welcome at the world's largest online library of drug-policy information, sponsored by the Drug Reform Coordination Network at: http://www.druglibrary.org/
Next day's news
Previous day's news
to the 1998 Daily News index for November 12-18
to the Portland NORML news archive directory
to 1998 Daily News index (long)
This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/981117.html