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

Pot Trial Guilty Verdict (The Long Beach Press-Telegram says a jury
in Orange County, California, found medical marijuana patient Marvin Chavez,
the founder of a local medical marijuana dispensary, guilty Thursday
of eight of 10 counts of drug-sales and drug transportation.)

Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:51:38 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Pot Trial Guilty Verdict
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: FilmMakerZ
Source: Long Beach Press-Telegram (CA)
Contact: crutch@ptconnect.infi.net
Website: http://www.ptconnect.com/
Copyright: 1998 Press-Telegram.
Pubdate: Fri, 20 Nov 1998
Author: Joe Segura

POT TRIAL GUILTY VERDICT

Court: Jury reduces five of eight counts to misdemeanors.

WESTMINSTER - A six-man, six-woman jury found medicinal-marijuana advocate
Marvin Chavez guilty Thursday of eight of 10 counts of drug-sales and drug
transportation.

The jury, which deliberated for one day, also decided that five of the eight
guilty counts should be misdemeanors rather than felonies.

Defense attorney James Silva of Venice said an appeal would be filed based
on the fact that Prop. 215, known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, was
not allowed as a defense.

Chavez's defense was tailored around the contention that he was helping
seriously or terminally ill patients, by providing them medicinal marijuana
through the Orange County Patient-Doctor-Nurse Support Group.

Prop. 215 was not allowed to be considered by the jury, since Chavez could
not prove that he was the primary caregiver to those seeking the relief
drug, as mandated by Prop. 215, according to three judges who heard
arguments for the measure's incorporation into the trial.

Chavez will be sentenced Jan. 8, and he could face 16 months to three years
for each of the felony counts. Prior to the trial, another judge offered
three years probation if he would plead guilty to one count.

Chavez refused.

"There's no deal on Prop. 215," he said Thursday. "I'm willing to do my
time."

During the week-long trial, defense attorneys Silva and J. David Nick made
repeated references to Chavez's activities as being in the spirit of Prop.
215. Nick, a San Francisco attorney, took the case pro bono because it was
one of several cases testing the law approved by voters statewide in 1996.

And, despite the instruction by Judge Thomas Borris to the jury to disregard
the marijuana measure, the attorneys privately expressed beliefs that there
would be a hung jury.

However, shortly before noon Thursday, Deputy District Attorney Carl
Armbrust was the person to savor the victory, while the defense attorneys
quickly left the court to map out an appeal strategy.

Following the verdict victory - coming on the day of his retirement after 26
years as a prosecutor - Armbrust made it clear that he believes Prop. 215
has a sinister goal.

"I personally feel that passage of the marijuana measure is simply a step to
legalize all drugs."

The news of the jury's ruling was a jolt to attorneys Jon Alexander of
Garden Grove and Bob Kennedy of Long Beach, who represented Chavez in his
early efforts to have Prop. 215 introduced as a defense.

"This is a perversion of the law," Kennedy said, adding that Prop. 215's
failure to provide a distribution system is victimizing people providing an
essential service.

"Chavez tried to do it by the books," Alexander said.

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

Cannabis Club Co-Founder Convicted (The Regional Review version)

From: "Bob Owen@W.H.E.N." (when@olywa.net)
To: "_Drug Policy --" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: Cannabis Club Co-Founder Convicted
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 20:46:53 -0800
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net

Friday, November 20, 1998

The Regional Review
DEVELOPMENTS IN ORANGE, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND VENTURA COUNTIES

Cannabis Club Co-Founder Convicted

WESTMINSTER--In a case being closely watched by marijuana activists across
Southern California, a jury Thursday convicted the co-founder of a local
cannabis club of selling the drug. But the verdicts fell short of the full
victory sought by prosecutors.

The Superior Court jury took just over a day to convict Marvin Chavez,
42, in what legal experts consider one of the most significant cases of its
kind since state voters legalized medicinal marijuana use two years ago.

The district attorney's office portrayed Chavez as a sophisticated drug
dealer operating under the guise of Proposition 215, the 1996 initiative
that legalized the medical use of marijuana in the state.

But jurors declined to convict him on five counts of felony marijuana
sales in cases in which Chavez gave the drug to caregivers using it to treat
patients. Instead, the panel convicted him of misdemeanor charges of "giving
away marijuana."

In addition, Chavez was found guilty on two felony counts of selling
marijuana to undercover investigators from the district attorney's office
and one felony count of transporting the drug. But he was acquitted on two
other charges related to his sale to the officers.

Chavez's case has become a rallying cry for some supporters of
legalized marijuana, who have been particularly critical of the undercover
operation that resulted in some of the charges.

Outside the courtroom an emotional Chavez, who is free on $100,000
bail, vowed to continue his fight.

***

When away, you can STOP and RESTART W.H.E.N.'s news clippings by sending an
e-mail to majordomo@hemp.net. Ignore the Subject: line. In the body put
"unsubscribe when" to STOP. To RESTART, put "subscribe when" in the e-mail
instead (No quotation marks.)

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

OC Cannabis Club Activist Found Guilty (The Los Angeles Times version)

Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 05:17:41 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: O.C. Cannabis Club Activist Found Guilty
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: FilmMakerZ
Pubdate: Fri, 20 Nov 1998
Source: Los Angeles Times, Orange County Edition
Contact: ocletters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/ORANGE/
Author: Daniel Yi, Times Staff Writer

O.C. CANNABIS CLUB ACTIVIST FOUND GUILTY

In a case being closely watched by marijuana activists across Southern
California, an Orange County jury Thursday convicted the co-founder of a
local cannabis club of selling the drug, but the verdicts fell short of a
full victory sought by prosecutors.

The jury of six women and six men took just over a day to convict Marvin
Chavez, 42, in a case that could clarify who is entitled to the legal
protection that a care-giver is allowed under Proposition 215, the state's
medicinal marijuana initiative passed two years ago.

The district attorney's office portrayed Chavez as a sophisticated drug
dealer operating under the guise of Proposition 215, the 1996 initiative
that legalized the medical use of marijuana in the state.

But jurors declined to convict him on five counts of felony marijuana sales
in cases where Chavez provided the drug to those he believed were treating
serious illnesses. Instead, the jury convicted him on misdemeanor charges of
"giving away marijuana."

In addition, jurors convicted Chavez on two felony counts of selling
marijuana to undercover investigators from the Orange County district
attorney's office and one felony count of transporting the drug by mail. But
he was acquitted on two other charges related to his sale to the
investigators.

Chavez, who is free on $100,000 bail, will be sentenced Jan. 8. He faces up
to seven years in jail.

His case, one of a handful of medicinal marijuana convictions in the state,
has become a rallying cry for some supporters of Proposition 215, who have
been particularly critical of the undercover operation that resulted in some
of the charges.

Moreover, it underscores the legal maze created with the passage of
Proposition 215. Interpreting and enforcing the vaguely worded initiative
has been left largely to local authorities across the state. Several Bay
Area counties have said they will not prosecute cases involving medical use
of marijuana, while Orange County has been aggressive in prosecuting such
cases.

"It is a crazy quilt criteria that changes with landscape, political figures
and county lines," said J. David Nick, a San Francisco attorney who
represents Chavez and other marijuana activists. Chavez argued that he was
simply providing marijuana to sick people, as the proposition allows.

But the trial judge ruled that Chavez could not use the law as a defense
because he does not fit the definition of a "primary care-giver," who under
the law is protected against prosecution along with the patients themselves.

Attorneys said the case could eventually set a clearer standard for what a
care-giver is and whether cannabis club operators such as Chavez are
protected under Proposition 215.

San Francisco Dist. Atty. Terence Hallinan, who has declined to file charges
in medicinal marijuana cases, said the fact that the Orange County jury
reduced some felony charges to misdemeanors might indicate that they believe
Chavez was actually trying to help patients.

The jurors were rushed out of the Westminster courthouse after the ruling
and could not be reached for comment. But Orange County Deputy Dist. Atty.
Carl Armbrust expressed satisfaction with the decisions. "It's a reasonable
verdict," he said.

Chavez was one of several marijuana activists who founded the Garden
Grove-based Doctor, Patient, Nurse Support Group as a way to provide what
they term "natural medicine" to people in need.

In May, David Lee Herrick, another member of the club, was convicted on two
counts of felony marijuana sale and sentenced to four years in prison.

Chavez first came under suspicion of authorities late last year after
another member of his cannabis club was arrested for possession of
marijuana.

Chavez was charged as a co-conspirator in the case. He was freed on his own
recognizance on condition that he would cease disbursing the drug. But
undercover investigators posing as seriously ill patients later received
marijuana from Chavez as part of a sting operation.

"Unfortunately, he thumbed his nose at the judge and began distributing
again," Armbrust said.

But defense attorneys said prosecutors' undercover operation amounted to
entrapment.

"It is egregious the extent the Orange County district attorney's office
went to catch Mr. Chavez," said attorney James Silva, another of Chavez's
lawyers. "Essentially, they painted the undercover investigator as a walking
time bomb of pain. So how could Mr. Chavez not feel compassionate for this
person who was crying out to him?"

Silva noted that Chavez's cannabis club, which has nearly 200 members,
provided marijuana for illnesses including AIDS, cancer and chronic pain.

Outside the courtroom, an emotional Chavez vowed to continue his fight.

"I am still here for what I stand," said Chavez. "I never hid behind the
law. I stood in front of the law."

Dozens of Chavez's supporters in the court were disheartened by the
decision.

Eloise Batista, 50, a member of the Garden Grove cannabis club who said she
takes marijuana to ease chronic pain, expressed concern that the verdict
will force her to purchase the drug from street dealers.

"I don't want to be out there with the criminal elements," a teary Batista
said. "I don't want to be a criminal."

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

Pot-Club Founder Convicted (The Orange County Register version)

Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 19:22:14 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Pot-Club Founder Convicted
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: FilmMakerZ
Pubdate: Fri, 20 Nov 1998
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Copyright: 1998 The Orange County Register
Author: John McDonald

POT-CLUB FOUNDER CONVICTED

COURTS: Vendor who sought to defend marijuana sales under Prop. 215 is found
guilty on eight counts.

The founder of the Orange County Cannabis Co-op was convicted Thursday on
eight counts of selling, transferring and transporting pot, in a case he
plans to appeal because he was barred from mounting a Proposition 215
medical-marijuana defense.

The jury verdict against Marvin Chavez, 42, was mixed: =95 He was convicted
on two felony counts of selling marijuana to undercover officers, but
acquitted on two other counts of selling to them. =95 Five felony charges of
providing pot to medical patients on a doctor's recommendation were reduced
to misdemeanors. =95 A charge that Chavez mailed 5 ounces of marijuana to an
upstate cancer patient resulted in a felony conviction.

Prop. 215, passed in 1996, allows for the possession, cultivation and use of
marijuana for medicinal purposes, but does not address distribution.

Prosecutors argued that the initiative does not allow for the exchange of
the drug for money or favors. Chavez contended that he accepted "donations"
and sometimes provided the marijuana for free.

"I'm trying to carry on in the spirit of Prop. 215," said Chavez, of Santa
Ana, as he left Orange County Superior Court with a dozen supporters from
the Cannabis Co-op. "I just want patients like me to be able to come out of
the closet."

Chavez says he smokes marijuana to ease chronic back problems.

Co-op volunteer David Herricks was convicted earlier by a different jury of
felonies on the same five charges for which the Chavez jury returned
misdemeanor verdicts. Herricks is serving four years in prison but his case
is being appealed. The Chavez trial included more testimony about using
marijuana as medicine than the other case did.

Chavez turned down a deal to plead guilty in return for a sentence of time
served -- 60 days -- and now faces up to seven years in prison when he is
sentenced Jan. 8.

During the trial, jurors heard extensive evidence about the club's goal of
providing marijuana to those in medical need. But the judge instructed
jurors not to consider Prop. 215.

"He was denied a defense" based on the initiative, Chavez's lawyer James M.
Silva said.

Jurors could not be reached for comment.

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

Medical-Pot Activists Protest Conviction Of Co-Op Founder
(The Orange County Register says advocates for patients who use marijuana
as medicine condemned the conviction of Marvin Chavez Thursday and vowed
not to let their fight fade away. Some particularly ineffective activists wore
cannabis-leaf leis and lit up pipes outside Orange County Superior Court
in Westminster, about 100 feet from the Police Department.)

Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 19:42:15 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: MMJ: Medical-Pot Activists Protest Conviction Of Co-Op
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: FilmMakerZ
Pubdate: Fri, 20 Nov 1998
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Copyright: 1998 The Orange County Register
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Author: Gil Hopenstand

MEDICAL-POT ACTIVISTS PROTEST CONVICTION OF CO-OP FOUNDER

DRUGS: Supporters Of Martin Chavez Say Their Fight Centers On The Issue Of
Choice For The Ill.

Medical-marijuana advocates Thursday condemned the conviction of
Orange County Cannabis Co-op founder Marvin Chavez on eight drug
charges and vowed not to let their fight fade away.

Some wore cannabis-leaf leis or lit up pipes outside Orange County
Superior Court in Westminster, about 100 feet from the Police Department.

"This is a miscarriage of justice. It's not what my founding fathers
died for. This is a freedom issue," said Thomas Pollard, a landscaper
from Fountain Valley who helped secure the drug for a friend who
eventually succumbed to cancer. Pollard was a reluctant witness in
Chavez's prosecution.

"It's an issue of whether people have the (choice) of what makes them
feel better. Who can decide that for me better than me?" he asked.

Advocates hope that another local case awaiting trial will protect the
use of medicinal marijuana guaranteed under Proposition 215, passed in
1996.

The co-director of Chavez's co-op, Jack Shachter of Garden Grove, is
accused of possessing the drug with the intent to sell. Shachter said
he can prove the marijuana was his by prescription from a doctor, and
he is confident a trial will conclude in his favor.

"This is a victimless crime. There is no complainant," said patient
advocate Steve McWilliams.

McWilliams said county health officials should help ill Orange County
residents get the medicinal marijuana they need. One idea advocates
are considering: building a warehouse in the county where they could
legally raise cannabis.

Regardless of what the courts decide will be Chavez's fate, supporters
said, some patients still need marijuana to cope with pain. Legal
wrangling could continue for months, they said, but they're hurting
now.

"It's our lives, not just Marvin's," said Mira Ingram, 31, of Garden
Grove, who said she needs marijuana to ease her carpal tunnel syndrome
and the arthritis in her hands and feet.

"We're hoping with Gray Davis as governor, maybe something can pass
through the state Legislature," she said.

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

Deputy DA Goes Out With A Victory (The Orange County Register
notes Deputy District Attorney Carl Armbrust capped his 26-year career
Thursday by convicting Orange County Cannabis Co-op founder Marvin Chavez
of selling marijuana.)

Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 18:41:20 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Deputy DA Goes Out With A Victory
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: FilmMakerZ
Pubdate: Fri, 20 Nov 1998
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Copyright: 1998 The Orange County Register
Author: John McDonald

DEPUTY DA GOES OUT WITH A VICTORY

COURTS: But the freshly retired prosecutor will be back for Chavez's
sentencing.

There was a look of glee on the face of Deputy District Attorney Carl
Armbrust after a jury Thursday convicted Orange County Cannabis Co-op
founder Marvin Chavez of selling marijuana.

Thursday was Armbrust's last day with the District Attorney's Office.

He is now retired.

"I'll be back as a volunteer for the district attorney to handle the
sentencing," Armbrust, 77, said before leaving for a retirement party
planned for him at the El Toro Marine base Officer's Club.

Armbrust has been an Orange County prosecutor for 26 years and has headed
the narcotics squad for 18 years.

The Chavez case touched on the hot political issues surrounding Proposition
215, but involved less than $200 worth of marijuana.

"This case wasn't important enough to come to the narcotics bureau,"
Armbrust said.

The case went to a deputy on the felony panel, but the panel was overloaded
with "three strikes, you're out" cases and asked for prosecutors from other
bureaus to help. Armbrust said he volunteered, and by chance was given the
case.

Defense lawyers filed a motion to recuse Armbrust from the case because of
his crusade against drug use. A judge found no reason to remove him.

"They found I'm not prejudiced against anything but crime," Armbrust said.

On Thursday night, he was to receive a special commendation from Sen.
Dianne Feinstein for his drug prosecutions.

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

Chavez Faces Prison (A staff editorial in The Orange County Register
says it is not surprising that the jury in the Marvin Chavez case returned
the verdicts it did, given its instructions, not to consider Proposition 215.
Those instructions were unfortunate for two reasons - Mr. Chavez's personal
fate, given that he now faces up to seven years in prison, and, more broadly,
because they deprived the jury of the opportunity to offer some guidance
to confused officials and patients as to just how the Compassionate Use Act
of 1996 should be implemented.)

Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:54:14 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Editorial: Chavez Faces Prison
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: 20 Nov 98

THE CHAVEZ TRIAL

Given the instructions the jury received in the Marvin Chavez case-that it
was not to consider Proposition 215 during its deliberations - it is not
surprising that the jury returned the verdicts it did.

Those instructions were unfortunate for two reasons - Mr. Chavez's personal
fate, given that he now faces up to seven years in prison, and, more
broadly, for the fact that they deprived the jury of the opportunity to
offer some guidance to confused officials and patients as to just how the
Compassionate Use Act of 1996 should be implemented.

Prop. 215 included as one of its purposes encouraging the government to set
up a "safe and affordable" system of distribution of marijuana to patients
who, under the new law, had the right to use it so long as they had a
recommendation from a licensed California physician, but might not know how
to grow or obtain it. Except for a few cities, the government failed to
comply with this encouragement, quite notably in Orange County. Instead of
working with people like Marvin Chavez who were attempting to compensate
for the government's failure, Orange County officials filed criminal
charges against him and others.

So a jury instructed to ignore this lamentable history found Mr. Chavez not
guilty of selling marijuana on the first five counts, (involving other
members of the Orange County Patient Doctor Nurse Support Group), but did
find him guilty of the lesser misdemeanor count of giving away marijuana.
On the first two counts involving cover investigators, they found him
guilty of selling, but on the second two counts they found him not guilty.
On the 10th count, of transportation (by mail to Chico), they found him
guilty of a felony.

The defense plans to appeal on the basis of denying the jury the
opportunity to consider a Prop. 215 defense.

Sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 8 in Department 16 of the West Orange
County court in Westminster, with Judge Thomas J. Borris, who presided over
the trial.

We hope Judge Borris approaches the sentencing with compassion and common
sense. We hope even more strongly that local officials will move quickly
and establish guidelines and oversight procedures for marijuana to patents
with a legal right to use it under Prop. 215. State and local legislative
and regulatory agencies also could develop more rigorous definitions for
terms such as "primary caregiver," which turned out to be a source of
contention in this case as it has in other recent lawsuits.

The Chavez case has demonstrated that there are at least hundreds - and
probably more - of patients in Orange County whose doctors are willing to
recommend that they use marijuana.

It takes about six months to grow it. The law says patients have a legal
right to it, but how will they get it? Unless local officials make some
provisions, the only alternative will be the black market, which is too
strong already and carries significant risks of many kinds, not the least
of which is prosecution.

How much longer will they delay?

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

Verdict In, Jury Still Out On Prop. 215 (Los Angeles Times columnist
Dana Parsons says he doubts the jurors or police or judge or even the
prosecutors who convicted medical marijuana patient Marvin Chavez
really thought he was a threat to anyone. He suspects prosecutors are really
trying to stamp out a social movement toward liberalizing marijuana usage,
but they won't say that, because it butts heads with the public's will.)

Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 05:17:41 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Verdict In, Jury Still Out On Prop. 215
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: FilmMakerZ
Pubdate: Fri, 20 Nov 1998
Source: Los Angeles Times, Orange County Edition
Contact: ocletters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/ORANGE/
Author: Dana Parsons

VERDICT IN, JURY STILL OUT ON PROP. 215

The cops and prosecutors got their man: Marvin Chavez is facing prison. To
hear them tell it, a drug dealer has been taken off the streets. At moments
like these, the rest of us are supposed to feel good because our law
enforcement people have used their cunning and muscle to nail a
criminal - especially one like Chavez, who, according to the prosecutor, ran
"a very sophisticated marijuana-selling business."

Or did he?

I'd be surprised if the jurors who convicted him Thursday, the police, the
judge, or even the prosecutors - really believe that.

I'd be surprised if any really believe that Chavez is a threat to anyone.

The prosecutors and cops will say they only wanted to remove Marvin Chavez
from society; I suspect they're trying to stamp out a social movement toward
liberalizing marijuana usage.

They won't say that, because it butts heads with the public's will: In 1996,
California voters by a 56%-44% margin approved Proposition 215, which
enables patients to grow and use marijuana for medical reasons. The sale of
it remains illegal.

District attorneys across the state opposed Proposition 215, and Orange
County Sheriff Brad Gates chaired the statewide anti-215 campaign. At the
time, Gates said, "We see this purely as a legalization effort. They want a
crack in the door. Once marijuana is there, then why not decriminalize
heroin or whatever else?"

Against that backdrop, the muscle of the Orange County legal establishment
set up an undercover operation against Chavez, 43, who had made no secret of
a "club" he headed that provided marijuana to people who said they were in
pain and could support that claim with a doctor's letter.

Using undercover agents as part of its case, the district attorney's office
brought nine counts of selling marijuana against Chavez and a 10th count of
transporting it by mail. Chavez argued that in all cases, he provided the
marijuana for medical reasons and only took payments as "donations" to
finance his organization.

On Thursday, an Orange County jury convicted him on two felony counts of
selling marijuana but reduced charges to misdemeanors on five of the other
seven sales counts and tossed out the other two altogether. It also found
him guilty of the felony mail charge. Chavez faces up to seven years in
prison on the convictions.

The verdict raises puzzling questions.

If the jury agreed with prosecutor Carl Armbrust that Chavez was a drug
dealer in disguise, why not convict him of all charges of selling?
Conversely, if it believed Chavez was acting out of compassion and truly
taking only monetary donations, why convict on any sales counts?

The answers no doubt lie in the nuances of each transaction, but it must be
worrisome to law enforcement that Chavez was acquitted on most of the
serious charges, even when testimony showed he gave marijuana and received
money in exchange.

I wonder if the jurors were swayed by the daily courtroom presence of 20 or
so Chavez supporters. If Chavez were a drug seller, they symbolically
represented his "buyers." What jurors saw were people in wheelchairs, people
with arm braces, people on crutches, and people, like Chavez, wearing back
braces.

One of them was Don Lawrence, a 59-year-old Garden Grove man who brought his
own lawn chair and cushion on which to sit. "Marijuana helps me tolerate
this chronic pain I have," Lawrence told me after the trial. Chavez has
supplied him with marijuana, and Lawrence said he's made donations to
Chavez. "He made the point that if I couldn't afford it, I would get the
medicine one way or another," Lawrence said, adding that it never crossed
his mind that the arrangement was improper.

The trial marked a swan song for Armbrust, who is retiring after 26 years in
the Orange County district attorney's office. He said he's convinced Chavez
is a drug dealer using Proposition 215 as a prop.

When I asked why he couldn't convince the jury of that on all counts,
Armbrust said, "I could have done a better job on that," but also thinks
jurors felt sorry for Chavez. Armbrust disputed the suggestion Chavez was
targeted as a way to thwart Proposition 215 momentum.

"He's no different than anyone else who is peddling marijuana," Armbrust
said. "Every time we find one, we arrest them."

Prosecutors Must Feel Winds of Change

Chavez attorney James M. Silva said the several instances in which the jury
reduced charges were significant. "That means they believed that he was not
receiving the money for marijuana, but that it was to support the
organization that was set up to care for them," Silva said.

I'm disappointed, but only because I wanted perfect clarity from the jury.
Did it think Chavez was a con man, or did it believe that he provided
marijuana only to people he thought were in serious pain?

Had they settled on the latter, people like Brad Gates would have a big
problem on their hands. Had this decidedly middle-aged Orange County jury
sided with Chavez, Gates and those fighting initiatives like Proposition 215
couldn't have helped but feel the winds of change at their necks.

But given that they wanted a knockout of Chavez and got only a split
decision, you've got to think that maybe they already do.

Dana Parsons' column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach
Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821 or by writing to him at the Times Orange
County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or by e-mail to
dana.parsons@latimes.com

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

SJC Deals Blow To State Law Imposing Tax On Drug Dealers
(The Boston Globe says the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
ruled 7-0 yesterday that the state's "controlled substances tax" constitutes
double jeopardy when applied in concert with a criminal prosecution.)

Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 03:04:51 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US MA: SJC Deals Blow To State Law Imposing Tax On Drug Dealers
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: emr@javanet.com (Dick Evans)
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Contact: letters@globe.com
Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/
Copyright: 1998 Globe Newspaper Company.
Author: Globe Staff
Pubdate: Fri, 20 Nov 1998

SJC DEALS BLOW TO STATE LAW IMPOSING TAX ON DRUG DEALERS

Robert W. Mullins once dealt marijuana in pounds, not ounces.

He spent six months in prison once he got caught.

He forfeited $145,000 in cash - and then he got a $282,000 bill from state
tax collectors. Yesterday, however, the Supreme Judicial Court effectively
told Mullins to forget about it. In a 7-0 decision, the court said the
state's ''controlled substances tax'' is unconstitutional when used in
concert with a criminal prosecution and that Mullins no longer has to pay
the tax bill. Mullins ''was very happy, of course,'' after learning about
the SJC decision, said his Boston attorney, William B. VanLonkhuyzen. The
attorney also said the SJC ruling essentially guts the 1993 law. ''I think
in practical terms, it's dead and gone,'' he said. The controlled substances
tax has been largely ignored by the Department of Revenue - and the drug
dealers who are supposed to voluntarily pay a tax on their illegal drugs to
the state.

Backers of the law envisioned it as another way for law enforcement to go
after drug dealers, by prosecuting them for failing to pay drug taxes.

But Mullins and one other person are the only two people whom the state tax
collectors moved against.

Both cases were referred to the state by local prosecutors, and the SJC said
that connection made the drug tax a form of double jeopardy.

Enforcement of the drug tax ''is invariably limited to individuals who have
been arrested for drug crimes,'' Justice John M. Greaney wrote for the
court.

Mullins thus was being punished twice for one crime.

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

Federal court strikes down Louisiana drug test law (The Associated Press
says a federal judge in New Orleans on Friday struck down a Louisiana law
requiring random drug testing of elected officials, saying the state failed
to show a special need to single them out.)

From: "Bob Owen@W.H.E.N." (when@olywa.net)
To: "_Drug Policy --" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: Fed court strikes down LA drug test law
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 20:17:20 -0800
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net

Federal court strikes down Louisiana drug test law

By RAYA TAHAN
The Associated Press
11/20/98 7:37 PM Eastern

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- A federal judge on Friday struck down a Louisiana law
requiring random drug testing of elected officials, rejecting arguments that
the governor made in court in support of the law.

U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon said the law violates the Constitution's
Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizures. He said the
state failed to show a special need to test elected officials.

Ruling after a hearing Friday, Fallon quoted from writings by George
Washington as well as a 1997 Supreme Court decision that forbade Georgia
from drug testing political candidates.

"There is established law that a drug test is a search," Fallon said.
"Warrantless searches must depend upon reasonableness."

The judge ruled on a lawsuit brought by two state representatives and the
American Civil Liberties Union. The state said it will appeal.

Republican Gov. Mike Foster said he feared for the future of private
industry drug testing programs if the ruling stands. "I wonder if, in fact,
the majority of all drug testing programs all over the country might fail,"
he said.

Foster, who is not a lawyer, had backed the legislation and sought
permission to speak on its behalf in court.

"Why not test elected officials?" Foster said to the judge. "I can't think
of a profession that can influence our lives more."

Foster noted that drug testing is often a part of corporate life in America,
an argument lawyer Bill Rittenberg said was irrelevant.

"Governor, you didn't take an oath of office to defend corporations. You
took an oath of office to defend the Constitution," said Rittenberg, who
argued for Rep. Arthur Morrell, D-New Orleans, and the ACLU.

The law, which was to go into effect in January, required 10 percent of
state and local officials to be randomly tested each year. An official who
refused would have faced a $10,000 fine and censure.

Challenges are in the works against two other laws that require random
testing of welfare recipients, students on state scholarship and virtually
anyone else who gets state benefits.

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

Drug-Test the Chess Club? (USA Weekend says school districts
around the United States are increasingly requiring high-school students
to submit to urine tests in order to participate in extracurricular
activities.)

Newshawk: DrugSense
Source: USA WEEKEND
Copyright: 1998 USA WEEKEND
Pubdate: 20-22 Nov 1998
Author: Steve Rhodes
Contact: http://www.usaweekend.com/about/email_usaw.html
Website: http://www.usaweekend.com/
Note: USA WEEKEND is carried by more than 500 local newspapers across the
country. This article is tied to an online poll about drug testing. You may
exercise your right to vote at:
http://www.usaweekend.com/

DRUG-TEST THE CHESS CLUB?

More and more schools require students to pass a drug test to participate
in extracurricular activities - even the honor society. While most teens
simply adjust, a few outraged families just say no.

Delaware Valley High School in Pike County, Pa., 70 miles northwest of New
York City, is deploying a new weapon in its war against drug use by
students: drug-testing them for extracurricular activities. Starting this
year, every student who wants to join in activities - from yearbook and
chess club to sports and drama--must take a school-administered drug test.
The practice, an expansion of the more common testing of student athletes,
is gaining acceptance in a small but growing number of districts around the
nation:

Rushville, Ind. Rush County High School began testing all students involved
in extracurricular activities in 1996. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to
hear a challenge in October.

San Bernardino, Calif. This is perhaps the largest school district (10,000
students; four high schools) with a mandatory drug-testing program. Only
two students have tested positive in two years.

Plummer, Idaho. The Plummer-Worley district began mandatory testing this
year of athletes, cheerleaders and student body officers.

Dade County, Fla. Miami-Dade Public Schools this year launched a voluntary
drug-testing program for all high school students, requiring consent from
both parents and students.

In Pennsylvania's Pike County, schools launched the new anti-drug effort
for middle and high school students after a teenager was arrested last year
for selling heroin on school grounds. "The community was appalled," says
Superintendent Candis Finan. In addition, 3 percent of the district's
sixth-graders said in a survey that they had smoked marijuana at least once
in the past 30 days, a rate slightly higher than the national average. Of
the 1,000 students tested so far, one has come up positive.

Students still are adjusting to the new requirement. On a recent afternoon
at Delaware Valley High School, while students on the yearbook staff were
scrambling to meet deadlines, two girls dropped by to offer help. One small
problem: "You haven't been drug-tested yet," teacher Jacquelyn Weston
reminded one of the girls. The upshot: She couldn't participate.

Despite broad acceptance among students and parents, there are pockets of
resistance. "To test everybody just because they volunteer for something
shows a basic lack of trust in students and families," says Sarah Casey, a
17-year-old senior who passed a drug test to participate in the environment
club and the National Honor Society.

Adds her mother, Sue Casey, one of two school board members who opposed
testing: "If a kid smokes a joint on a Friday night and shows up Monday and
fails a drug test, but performance in school is never affected, is that the
school's responsibility?"

At least one family is preparing to sue the school system, saying drug
testing amounts to unreasonable search and seizure, according to its
attorneys. "It's an invasion of privacy," says 17-year-old Jen Stangl, a
senior who took the test to get a parking permit. "It was disgusting. I
felt violated. They just presumed everyone was guilty."

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

Saying 'No' To Drug Surveys (The Colony Leader, in Texas,
says Lewisville Independent School District officials have refused
to administer a Texas A&M University drug-use survey for students
in grades seven through 12, saying the survey is unscientific and too easy
to manipulate.)

Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 16:15:47 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US TX: Saying 'No' To Drug Surveys
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: wmorr1@jcpenney.com
Pubdate: 20 Nov 1998
Source: The Colony Leader (TX)
Page: 1A - Front Page
Contact: HolguinR@scripps.com
Author: Randy Evans, staff writer

SAYING 'NO' TO DRUG SURVEYS

County Drug Survey Called 'Unscientific' by LISD Officials

The Denton County Substance Abuse Commission and Lewisville Independent
School District officials agree that the county has a drug problem.

What they don't agree on is the method of obtaining information from
students on just how bad the problem is.

"Our job is to work with the different entities to find out information",
County Commissioner Jeff Krueger said. "That is the goal of the (substance
abuse) commission and that's why it was formed."

At issue is the use of a drug survey issued by Texas A&M University for
students in grades seven through 12. The commission asked all school
districts in Denton County - Lewisville, Denton, and Carrollton-Farmers
Branch - to participate in the survey.

Denton and Carrollton-Farmers Branch obliged; Lewisville, however, refused.

LISD officials cite the survey as being unscientific and too easy to
manipulate. The commission, made up of elected county officials, clergy,
Parent Teacher Association presidents and others, believes the survey is as
scientific as any other of its kind.

"You may have one or two students (lie), but overall the students respond
honestly," Krueger said. "The survey takes out the high and the low and
gets the average anyway."

LISD board member Fred Placke, who was informed about the issue by a
parent, said he heard district officials think the survey has "too many
weaknesses."

"The district believed there was too much space for error and it would be
too easy to manipulate", Placke said. "We don't need a survey to tell us
we have a drug problem, and we're certainly going to be doing a lot of
things towards (solving) the problem. But I don't know what they survey
could have told us."

Executive Director of Secondary Instruction Harry Crenshaw served as the
district's representative during the commission's recent meeting, but could
not be reached for comment Thursday.

The commission is in its first year of operation and was formed as a result
of the Denton County Drug Summit conducted last year. The organization's
mission statement is to reduce the impact of alcohol and other drugs in the
county.

In addition, the commission plans to provide public policy direction,
planning and advocacy for enhanced substance abuse prevention,
intervention, and treatment services for Denton County youth and their
families.

County officials believe the survey provides school districts and the
county with knowledge of how bad the drug problem is.

"Results tell you a lot", Krueger said. "It tells you whether or not what
you're doing is working".

Larry Mankoff, coordinator of Denton ISD's Mental health and Substance
Abuse Program, said the survey has provided Denton with a starting point in
determining numbers.

"We as a district want to have a baseline of information to find out the
level of drug use and trends," said Mankoff, who is also vice chairman of
the commission. "One of the valuable things about the survey is that A&M
provides you with information from districts across the state so you can
compare results."

Krueger, who also serves on the substance abuse commission, said LISD's
absence is hindering it from providing numbers for state grant applications
that could benefit county drug programs.

"I'm not saying if we had their data we would get the grants, but without
them we can't even apply," he said.

Commission officials have told LIDS officials if they find a survey they
consider suitable then they will switch.

"We simply need a system where we're comparing apples to apples", Mankoff
said. "We would be glad to switch over".

Commission members said by not having the participation of the largest
school district in the county, they're hindered in their ability to provide
cross-county data.

"The district (LISD) has to make a decision on how its going to get
information", Mankoff said. "If you don't collect information, you're just
guessing".

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

Champion Shop Pulls Out Of Cannabis Cup Contest (The Associated Press
says the unspecified winner of last year's "Cannabis Cup" in Amsterdam,
Holland, withdrew from this year's competition Friday, saying the annual
marijuana-cultivation competition sponsored by "High Times" magazine
had become a "commercial circus" in which only about 20 of Amsterdam's
356 coffeeshops could afford to participate.)

Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 06:45:04 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Netherlands: Wire: Champion Shop Pulls Out Of Cannabis Cup Contest
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: Fri, 20 Nov 1998
Source: Associated Press
Copyright: 1998 Associated Press.

CHAMPION SHOP PULLS OUT OF CANNABIS CUP CONTEST

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) -- Marijuana users are rolling into town for the
annual contest to crown the Dutch capital's best drug ``coffee shop.''

But a cloud of controversy hangs over the usually mellow Cannabis Cup. Last
year's winner withdrew Friday, saying the yearly smoke-out has become a
``commercial circus.''

During Cannabis Cup week, an event sponsored by the American magazine ``High
Times,'' hundreds of people, mostly Americans, descend on Amsterdam to
sample the best brands of marijuana and hashish the shops have on offer.

Dutch authorities tolerate the shops, saying they allow police to keep tabs
on the trade in soft drugs and deter cannabis users from hard drugs such as
heroin.

But 2 1/2 days of judging by cannabis connoisseurs can lead to -- believe it
or not -- a ``stressed atmosphere'' in some of the ``coffee shops'' where
marijuana and hashish are freely sold, said two-time winner cafe De
Dampkring.

``With grave concern we see how the event, which started in 1988 as a
harvest festival ... gradually deteriorates into a commercial circus in
which the economic interests of coffee shops and seed companies pull most
weight,'' the cafe said.

``We hate the stressed atmosphere, the favoritism and the buttering-up to
the media,'' it added.

During the cup, which begins Monday, coffee shops slash their prices and
often dole out free marijuana samples. De Dampkring argued that such
extravagance means only about 20 of Amsterdam's 356 coffeeshops can afford
to participate.

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

First Question - What Are The Implications For Health? (A translation
of excerpts from an article in Frankfurter Rundschau, in Germany,
says the newly appointed federal 'drug czar,' Christa Nickels, will proceed
on the principle that addiction is a sickness. The new 'Red-Green' federal
government will have a more liberal drug policy than its predecessor,
and will follow the example of the Swiss, emphasizing education
and assistance, not punishment.)

Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 06:54:51 -0800
To: mattalk@islandnet.com
From: Pat Dolan (pdolan@intergate.bc.ca)
Subject: Germany: First Question: What Are The Implications For Health?
Newshawk: Harald Lerch (HaL@main-rheiner.de)
Source: Frankfurter Rundschau
Copyright: Frankfurter Rundschau 1998
Pubdate: 20 Nov 98
Contact: fr-leserbriefe@combox.de
Fax: +49 +69 2199 3421
Author: Jutta Redmann
Translator: Pat Dolan (from German text)

(Translator's Note: Main points summarised. Direct speech given in quotes. pd)

FIRST QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH?

The 'Red-Green' way to a more liberal drug policy

What all the experts have been demanding for a long time is now a step
closer. The 'Red-Green' federal government will hold to a more liberal path
in its drug policy than its predecessor. Proceeding on the principle that
addiction is a sickness, the newly appointed federal 'drug czar', Christa
Nickels, will emphasize education and "Assistance not Punishment".

Christa Nickels is satisfied. Her office has been transferred from the Home
Office to the Department of Health. That sends the signal that drug policy
will henceforth be based on a humanitarian, health model, not a law
enforcement model.

Eduard Lintner, her predecessor, saw things quite differently. The Swiss
model he regarded as a "Horror," as he announced after a visit. The number
of drug related mortalities rose steadily during his term in office.

A Swiss model will be followed also in the proposed clinics where addicts
can inject in a safe, supportive environment. Heroin will also be provided
as soon as the law has been revised. Frankfurt's experience with its trial
since 1994 has been very encouraging.

It is expected that Hamburg and many other large cities will be adopting
similar models.

Copyright (c) Frankfurter Rundschau 1998

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

The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue No. 68 (The Drug Reform Coordination
Network's original summary of drug policy news and calls to action,
including - Federal court to decide on legality of testimony for leniency
deals; Amnesty International report - too many children incarcerated in
America; Government health officials deny marijuana and pain study, again;
Swiss to vote on drug legalization; Australian officials call for heroin
maintenance; Methadone support and advocacy network request for proposals -
RFP; Philadelphia Bar Association holding medical marijuana forum Dec. 1; And
the winner is . . .; plus an editorial by Adam J. Smith, Thanksgiving in a time
of drug war)

Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 07:32:42 -0500
To: drc-natl@drcnet.org
From: DRCNet (drcnet@drcnet.org)
Subject: The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue #68
Sender: owner-drc-natl@drcnet.org

The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue #68 -- November 20, 1998
A Publication of the Drug Reform Coordination Network

-------- PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE --------

(To sign off this list, mailto:listproc@drcnet.org with the
line "signoff drc-natl" in the body of the message, or
mailto:lists@drcnet.org for assistance. To subscribe to
this list, visit http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html.)

(This issue can be also be read on our web site at
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html. Check out the DRCNN
weekly radio segment at http://www.drcnet.org/drcnn/.)

PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the
contents of The Week Online is hereby granted. We ask that
any use of these materials include proper credit and, where
appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If
your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet
requests checks payable to the organization. If your
publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use
the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification
for our records, including physical copies where material
has appeared in print. Contact: Drug Reform Coordination
Network, 2000 P St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036,
(202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail
drcnet@drcnet.org. Thank you.

The Week Online will take a one week hiatus next week, for
the Thanksgiving holiday, and will return on December 4. If
you are looking for something to read in the meantime, try
browsing some of the many documents in the DRCNet Online
Drug Policy Library at http://www.druglibrary.org. One of
our favorites is The History of the Marijuana Laws, a speech
by Prof. Charles Whitebread of the University of Southern
California School of Law, to the California Judges
Association's annual conference, online at
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm,
with links to many more important documents, including the
full text of the 1972 Report of the National Commission on
Marihuana and Drug Abuse, the Hearings of the Marihuana Tax
Act and more. All of us, Dave, Adam, Karynn and Kris wish
all of you a happy and a healthy Thanksgiving!

See article 8 for the winners of our Drug Crazy Giveaway
Contest!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Federal Court To Decide on Legality of Testimony for
Leniency Deals
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html#testimony

2. Amnesty International Report: Too Many Children
Incarcerated in America
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html#amnesty

3. Government Health Officials Deny Marijuana and Pain
Study, Again
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html#nostudy

4. Swiss to Vote on Drug Legalization
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html#droleg

5. Australian Officials Call For Heroin Maintenance
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html#australia

6. Methadone Support and Advocacy Network Request for
Proposals (RFP)
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html#methadonerfp

7. Philadelphia Bar Association Holding Medical Marijuana
Forum, 12/1
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html#philadelphia

8. And the Winner is...
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html#thewinners

9. Editorial: Thanksgiving in a Time of (Drug) War
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/068.html#editorial

***

1. Federal Court To Decide on Legality of Testimony for
Leniency Deals

In what has the potential to be one of the most important
legal decisions of the century, the full 10th Circuit Court
of Appeals heard arguments on Tuesday (11/17) in the case of
U.S. v. Singleton. The issue to be decided is whether
prosecutors are committing bribery when they exchange cash
and or leniency for testimony in criminal cases. A sampling
of federal criminal cases by the Dallas Morning News found
that such testimony was used in 86% of those trials. If the
court finds that such deals are illegal, it could affect the
status of hundreds of thousands of cases and convictions.
Federal officials are understandably concerned.

Leniency deals are particularly important to the prosecution
of drug cases, in part due to the consensual nature of most
drug offenses and the lack of a "complaining victim". While
the exact numbers are unknown, experts claim that it is
likely that thousands of Americans are currently
incarcerated on the word of an informant alone.

Nora Callahan, director of the November Coalition, an
organization of drug war prisoners, family and friends, told
The Week Online, "While no one is keeping statistics on
this, it is safe to say that there are thousands upon
thousands of cases in which the word of an informant is the
only evidence against someone who is serving jail time.
There are even more people who plead guilty, and who serve
five, eight or ten years in prison rather than face 25 years
or more, once they are threatened by prosecutors with the
prospect of this type of bought testimony."

Callahan continued, "The government wins 97% of all of the
drug cases that they bring to trial. That success rate is
higher than for any other type of offense. The reason for
this is that if you are prosecuting, say, a murder, you need
real evidence, you need motive. In a drug case, the motive,
which is either money or drugs, is assumed. All the
government really needs is one person who is willing to get
on the stand and tell the government's story in exchange for
their freedom."

The case at bar involves Sonya Singleton, a 25 year-old
mother of two, who was sentenced to four years in prison for
her alleged part in a cocaine distribution/money laundering
operation. Prosecutors claimed that Ms. Singleton helped to
wire some of the money, which she denies. The only witness
for the government who identified Ms. Singleton as part of
the conspiracy was Napolean Douglas, a convicted felon whose
sentence was reduced from fifteen down to five years in
exchange for his testimony.

On appeal, Singleton's attorney, John Van Wachtel, argued
that federal law, which forbids the exchange or offer of
"anything of value" to a witness in return for testimony,
applies to prosecutors, as well as to defense lawyers. A
three-judge panel of the 10th circuit upheld the appeal.
That decision was put on hold just ten days later by
decision of the entire 12-member court, pending review.

"In Ms. Singleton's case, the testimony came from an alleged
co-conspirator," Wachtel told The Week Online. "My client
was twice offered leniency in exchange for her testimony.
The first time they (federal prosecutors) approached her,
she was twenty years-old. She was told that if she
testified, they'd drop charges, but if she refused, they
would put her in prison for twenty-five years and that she'd
lose her kids. Both times she told them that she knew
nothing, and that she wouldn't lie and say she did.
Ultimately, (Napolean) turned, and suddenly it's my client
they're after."

While federal officials are deeply concerned about the
outcome of the case and its implications, Wachtel told The
Week Online that exchanging prosecutorial favors for
cooperative testimony cannot help but corrupt the process.

"It is one thing to offer a deal in return for substantive
assistance in the investigation. It is quite another to
have someone testify, with the prosecutors standing over
them, when the witness' freedom hangs in the balance
depending upon what he or she says. It is an extraordinary
incentive either to color the testimony to fit what the
government wants to hear, or else to simply lie in exchange
for one's freedom."

The three-judge panel that wrote the initial opinion on the
case said that "Promising something of value to secure
truthful testimony is as much prohibited as buying perjured
testimony. 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."

There is concern that with so much riding on the decision,
either the full 10th circuit or the Supreme Court, where
both sides believe the case will wind up, will make their
decision not with regard to the law, but rather with regard
to the impact that the current decision would have on the
federal law enforcement bureaucracy.

The Dallas Morning News story quotes a member of the 5th
Circuit Court of Appeals, who spoke with them on condition
of anonymity, who said "If you read the 10th Circuit's
opinion, it's well reasoned and easily supported by federal
law. 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?"

Jack King, spokesman for the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers (http://www.criminaljustice.org),
who filed an amicus brief and who were allowed ten minutes
to argue in this case, told The Week Online that federal
prosecutors are overstating the practical obstacles that the
panel's original decision places in their path.

"They would just have to go out and investigate and gather
evidence like the prosecutors do at the state level. An
informant could still provide substantive assistance in that
investigation, even in return for leniency. What the feds
couldn't do would be to pay someone to testify, and then
just sit back in the comfortable knowledge that their side
of the story has been bought and paid for. They'd have to
actually work to make their cases."

Late in the last legislative session, a bill was introduced
by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) that would have exempted
federal prosecutors from Article 18, Section 201. It is
likely that the bill, or something like it, will be re-
introduced in the upcoming session.

The Department of Justice declined to comment for this
story.

(Attorney John Van Wachtel and NACDL spokesman Jack King
were interviewed for the DRCNet weekly radio show, online at
http://www.drcnet.org/drcnn/ -- check it out, and if you're
motivated, shop it around to your local radio stations and
get the word around!)

***

2. Amnesty International Report: Too Many Children
Incarcerated in America

A report issued this week by Amnesty International takes the
US to task for its high levels of juvenile incarceration and
for the treatment of those children under the imposed
supervision of the state. The report's introduction blames
"the notion of the super-predator" for a host of short-
sighted policies and conditions representing a breach of
international standards on the treatment of children.

Among Amnesty's findings are that 200,000 children per year
are prosecuted in general criminal courts, with an estimated
7,000 of those children held in jails before trial. Over
11,000 children are currently being housed in prisons and
other adult correctional facilities.

While it is the image of the sociopathic child which seems
to drive new juvenile justice legislation, such as the
effort to have more and more children tried as adults, in
1995, more than half of children whose cases were
transferred out of the juvenile courts were charged with
non-violent offenses.

Jason Zeidenberg, policy analyst with the Center for
Juvenile and Criminal Justice, which provided some of the
research for Amnesty's report, told The Week Online that the
United States is the world's most prolific jailer of
children.

"The US puts more of its children behind bars than any other
nation on earth. To give you a comparison, the U.S. has
more than five times the number of incarcerated children as
India, a country of nine hundred million people."

Further, Zeidenberg argues, children who are incarcerated,
even in juvenile facilities, are more likely to re-offend,
and have worse future economic prospects than those who
receive alternative sentences.

"Children who have been incarcerated are three times more
likely to re-offend within the next year as children who are
sentenced to alternatives to incarceration. Such
alternatives can include counseling, community service,
reparations and a whole host of others. Also, all of these
alternatives are much less expensive than incarceration."

Amnesty's report also notes that despite international
standards which preclude the use of solitary confinement for
children, the practice is all but standard in the US. The
report cites a 1992 national study which found nearly 89,000
cases in which a child was placed in solitary confinement
for more than 24 hours.

Those children who end up in adult institutions, however,
have it worst of all. Children in adult institutions are
eight times more likely to commit suicide, five times more
likely to be raped, and three times more likely to be beaten
by staff than are children in juvenile facilities.

"The very act of placing a child into an adult facility,
often integrated into an adult criminal population, makes it
likely that the child will accumulate physical, emotional
and psychological scars that will last a lifetime.
Imprisoning children in this manner is an act not of
rehabilitation, but rather of debilitation."

The Juvenile Justice Bill, introduced in the last session of
Congress, would have mandated that children as young as
fourteen be transferred by states into their adult justice
systems for certain categories of crimes including certain
drug crimes. And while that bill never made it out of the
House, Zeidenberg says that some version of juvenile justice
legislation can be expected in the next session.

The Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice and many of its
reports are online at http://www.cjcj.org. The Amnesty
International feature section on Juvenile Justice is online
at http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/juvenile/.

(Jason Zeidenberg was interviewed for DRCNet's radio show,
online at http://www.drcnet.org/drcnn/.)

***

3. Government Health Officials Deny Marijuana and Pain
Study, Again

(reprinted from the NORML Weekly News, http://www.norml.org)

November 19, 1998, Washington, DC: Federal health officials
rejected a scientific proposal last week to conduct research
on marijuana's effectiveness as a pain reliever in human
patients. The denial marked the second straight year
National Institute of Health (NIH) officials refused to
sponsor human trials regarding marijuana's analgesic
potential.

"There remains a remarkable disconnect between Washington
bureaucrats who oppose any rational debate on the medical
marijuana issue, and those doctors, nurses, and patients who
strongly support research and therapeutic access to
marijuana," said NORML Foundation Executive Director Allen
St. Pierre. "It is disturbing that NIH officials would deny
legitimate medical marijuana research only days after voters
in seven states overwhelmingly affirmed their support for
the use of marijuana as a medicine."

Neurologist Ethan Russo, M.D. of the Western Montana Clinic
sought federal permission to compare smoked marijuana to
synthetic THC and an injected painkiller in acute migraine
treatment. Russo has attempted since 1996 to obtain
official clearance to conduct an FDA approved clinical trial
evaluating marijuana's therapeutic value on migraine
patients. He recently authored an authoritative review of
marijuana's history as a treatment for migraine in the peer
reviewed journal Pain, the official publication of the
International Association for the Study of Pain.

"I am disappointed that I will not have the opportunity to
study this important clinical issue this year," said Russo,
who speculated that as many as 10 million migraine sufferers
could potentially benefit from inhaled marijuana. "Our
bureaucrats seem hopelessly mired in political place. They
are ignoring the science, as well as the rising tide of
public opinion that is clamoring for clinical studies of
cannabis."

In the past year, a growing body of medical evidence has
emerged indicating marijuana's effectiveness as a pain
reliever. At the 27th Annual Meeting of Neuroscientists,
researchers announced, "Substances similar or derived from
marijuana... could benefit the more than 97 million
Americans who experience some form of pain each year."
Recent animal studies demonstrate marijuana constituents
relieve pain on par with those of opiate-based drugs like
morphine. Some researchers maintain that the use of
cannabinoids like THC and other chemical compounds found in
marijuana do not appear to carry the risk associated with
the use of opiates, such as addiction and tolerance.

Russo's latest rejection comes more than one year after a
NIH expert panel recommended federal health agencies
implement policy changes to expedite medical marijuana
research. So far, no visible changes have been made.

"It remains federal officials -- not voters or the medical
community -- that continue to thwart the use and study of
marijuana as a legal medicine," St. Pierre said. "In 1982,
the National Academy of Sciences strongly recommended the
federal government to undertake definitive scientific
studies to determine marijuana's therapeutic value. It is a
morally unconscionable that 15 years later, we are still
battling to allow this research to take place."

***

4. Swiss to Vote on Drug Legalization

On November 29, Swiss voters will have an historic
opportunity to reject the international drug war. On that
date, Swiss citizens will vote up or down on "Droleg", short
for the Swiss words for Drug Legalization.

The proposal was submitted in 1993 by a group calling itself
"Initiative for a Reasonable Drug Policy." By November,
1994, the group had turned in over 107,000 signatures,
qualifying it for the ballot. The government, which has up
to ten years to review an initiative, did so and placed it
on the ballot.

The language of the initiative is direct. From its opening
statement, "The consumption, possession and purchase of
narcotics for personal use are exempt from punishment," and
throughout its text, calling for the government to establish
regulations and necessary licenses for a controlled market,
and for the revocation of all international agreements and
treaties which would prohibit the initiatives terms.

This is not the first time that Swiss voters have been asked
to direct their nation's drug policies. Last year,
Switzerland's voters rejected, by a margin of 71% to 29% an
initiative which would have stopped the nation's progressive
direction on drug policy in its tracks and reestablished a
purely punitive regime.

Philip Coffin, a researcher with The Lindesmith Center, a
New York-based drug policy think tank, told The Week Online
that while the Swiss initiative would be a large and
historic step, it would be even more so in a country like
the US.

"I think that before a society would be ready to consider
the total separation of the issue of substance use from the
law enforcement model, that society would first have to
experience a shift in paradigm regarding how it thinks about
substance use itself. The Swiss are obviously light years
ahead of Americans in terms of thinking about drug abuse as
a health issue. They've had an excellent experience with
opiate maintenance. They're preparing a proposal at the
federal level to regulate the sale and possession of
cannabis by adults. How deeply that paradigm shift has
taken hold, we shall have to wait and see."

Supporters of the initiative acknowledge that if Switzerland
were to go it alone in bucking the global drug war, care
would have to be taken to avoid the problems of drug tourism
that have plagued The Netherlands, where personal possession
and use of drugs is tolerated, but not technically legal.
They believe, however, that a regulated market would
eliminate so many problems, including the ease of access
that the black market affords to children, that the switch
would be worth the work. The federal government, on the
other hand, is officially opposed to the initiative, not
because they are enamored with the drug war, but because the
initiative "goes too far," and perhaps, in a nation that is
already on the path toward legalized cannabis and
medicalized narcotics, just a bit too quickly.

But the issue is now with the voters to decide, and even
Droleg's supporters aren't expecting miracles. "We will
consider anything above 35% to be a victory" said Francois
Reusser, a Droleg organizer. "We have to get more than the
29% that voted for stricter laws last year. But we really
don't know how it will turn out. We may win."

Droleg can be found online at http://www.droleg.ch -- follow
the link written in English for an English version of the
initiative language and other information.

***

5. Australian Officials Call For Heroin Maintenance

Australia's long-debated heroin maintenance trial got a
boost of support last week (11/13) from a group of state and
federal politicians, who issued a call to Prime Minister
John Howard to allow the trials to move forward.

The trial was all but set to move forward with apparent
public support earlier this year when Prime Minister Howard
canceled the plan at the last minute (see issue #49 at
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/049.html#australia. Lord Mayor
Dr. John Freeman of Hobart told the Australian newspaper The
Advertiser, "We believe the politicians are behind public
opinion" on the issue.

***

6. Methadone Support and Advocacy Network Request for
Proposals (RFP)

The Drug Policy Foundation has announced the availability of
a grant to foster the creation of a national Methadone
Support and Advocacy Network. The Methadone Network is
designed to encourage methadone supporters to identify and
build consensus around policy issues that meet their own
needs while providing decision-makers and other stakeholders
with insight into both the effectiveness of methadone and
the needs of methadone clients. The network will be
comprised of consumers (past and present methadone clients),
organizations founded and/or run by methadone clients,
methadone providers as appropriate and related supporters of
methadone and methadone clients (such as harm reduction
organizations, needle exchange programs, other drug
treatment consumers and supporters, families, friends and
significant others of current and former methadone users).
A grant award between $50,000-$100,000 is anticipated.

For further information, contact: Drug Policy Foundation,
4455 Connecticut Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20008, (202) 537-
5005 (phone), (202) 537-3007 (fax), e-mail dpf@dpf.org.

***

7. Philadelphia Bar Association Holding Medical Marijuana
Forum, 12/1

A forum on the issue of legalization of marijuana for
medicinal purposes, sponsored by the Philadelphia Bar
Association, will take place on Tuesday, 12/1, from 12:30-
2:30pm at the Philadelphia Bar Education Center in Center
City Philadelphia. Producers had hoped to present a
balanced panel representing both proponents and opponents or
medical marijuana, but all those invited from the federal
government (Dept. of Justice and Office of National Drug
Control Policy) declined invitations to speak.

Panelists will include:

1) Larry Hirsch, a Philadelphia attorney who filed a federal
class action lawsuit in the US District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania earlier in the year on
behalf of medical marijuana users. He will be speaking
about the legal (particularly Constitutional) aspects of
this issue.

2) Kiyoshi Kuromiya, the Editor and Publisher of Critical
Path AIDS Project and a medical user of marijuana. He is a
plaintiff in the federal class action lawsuit filed by Larry
Hirsch known as the Action Class for Freedom of Therapeutic
Cannabis and will speak about his experience as a medical
user of an illegal drug.

3) Dr. John P. Morgan, a researcher at the City University
of New York Medical School and co-author of the book
Marijuana Myths Marijuana Facts. Dr. Morgan will speak
about medical research on therapeutic cannabis.

4) Robert Kampia, Director of Government Relations for the
Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), a nonprofit organization
dedicated to full-time lobbying at the federal level on the
issue of marijuana law-reform. Kampia will speak about the
state of the reform movement in the US as it relates to
marijuana for medicinal use from a policy perspective.

For further information on this event, contact Mariana
Rossman, (215) 247-0074 (phone), (215) 247-0931 (fax),
myunis@astro.ocis.temple.edu.

***

8. And the Winner is...

Thank you to the more than 900 of you who participated in
our Drug Crazy Giveaway Contest. As promised, we are
announcing the five winners in this issue. For privacy
reasons we have decided not to include the winners' last
names, but only the first name, last initial, and state or
country.

We're sorry we can only give away five copies of Mike Gray's
Drug Crazy: How We Got Into This Mess and How We Can Get
Out. But we hope you will go ahead and buy a copy and read
and support this important book, perhaps the best exposition
of prohibition and the drug ever written for the popular
audience. You can read the book's first chapter,
endorsements, editorials by the author, online at
http://www.drugcrazy.com -- follow the Buy Online link to
purchase a copy though amazon.com, and DRCNet will earn 15%
from your purchase. Better still would be to pick up or
order a copy from your local bookstore -- maybe they'll
order more copies or even put them in display!

One of the reasons we made this special offer was to learn
more about our readers and what their interests are, hence
the online survey included in the contest form. If you
didn't enter the contest, but want to help us figure out how
to provide more of what interests you, please visit the form
at http://www.drcnet.org/contest/ and fill out the survey.
We can't offer a book this time, but your participation in
the survey will help us do our job better and bring our
ultimate goal of a sensible drug policy closer to reality.

So, without further delay, the winners are...

John O., California
John B., South Carolina
Arthur B., New Hampshire
Brian O., Georgia
Matthew G., California

If you are one of these five lucky winners, you have already
been notified by e-mail. If not, maybe you'll win the next
contest! Thanks again for participating, and thank for
being a part of DRCNet.

***

9. Editorial: Thanksgiving in a Time of (Drug) War

(Due to highly positive response, we are re-running our
Thanksgiving editorial from one year ago, with a short note
added at the end. You can here these editorials read in
Adam's own voice, in DRCNet's weekly radio show, online at
http://www.drcnet.org/drcnn/.)

As this is the last issue of The Week Online before the
American holiday of Thanksgiving, we thought we'd leave our
readers with a list of things for which to be thankful.

If neither you nor someone you love has had to decide
between the relief of pain, the suppression of life-
threatening nausea, or the loss of sight, and the prospect
of risking arrest and conviction under state or federal
marijuana laws, give thanks.

If neither you nor someone you love has had the experience
of armed agents of the state kicking in your door,
terrorizing your home's occupants and damaging your personal
property, give thanks.

If neither you nor someone you love has contracted
injection-related AIDS, or Hepatitis, because there was no
legal source of clean needles for themselves or a present or
past sexual partner or a parent, give thanks.

If neither you nor someone you love has been the victim of
Prohibition-related violence or crime, give thanks.

If neither your child nor another child that you love has
been lured by the siren song of the black market, or by
gangs, or been shot at by a law enforcement agent for being
in the wrong place at the wrong time (and for being the
wrong color), or been saddled with a life-long criminal
record for youthful experimentation, or been banished from
school for possession of an aspirin, or been tried in court
as an adult, give thanks.

If neither you nor someone you love has had property taken
by the state without so much as being charged with an
offense, give thanks.

If neither you nor someone you love has had to suffer the
indignity of urinating in a cup, on demand, for the
privilege of maintaining menial employment, give thanks.

If neither you nor someone you love has sought drug
treatment and found that it was unavailable to those of
modest means save through the processes of the criminal
justice system, give thanks.

If you and everyone that you love can go through this list
and be thankful for each and every entry, know that you are
among a shrinking group of Americans who have managed to
avoid some of the most common consequences of the War on
Drugs. But know too, that your tax dollars, in ever-
increasing amounts, are helping to make the number of
citizens like you smaller each year. So give thanks. But
remember too that there is work to be done. Happy
Thanksgiving.

Adam J. Smith
Associate Director

P.S. In this time of renewed hope, we also give thanks to
all of those who helped to make this past election day a
turning point for drug policy reform, and all who came
before them and who gave of themselves, their time and their
energies to educate their neighbors on some of these
important issues. We at DRCNet would also like to give
thanks to all of you who have supported our work. We hope
that if you have, you will continue to do so, and that if
you have not, you will consider a small donation as the
movement kicks into high gear. Together, with the truth, we
will prevail. Thank you.

***

DRCNet needs your support! Donations can be sent to 2000 P
St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036, or made by credit
card at http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html. Donations to
the Drug Reform Coordination Network are not tax-deductible.
Deductible contributions supporting our educational work can
be made by check to the DRCNet Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax-
exempt organization, same address.

***

DRCNet

***

JOIN/MAKE A DONATION	http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html
DRUG POLICY LIBRARY	http://www.druglibrary.org/
REFORMER'S CALENDAR	http://www.drcnet.org/calendar.html
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST	http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html
DRCNet HOME PAGE	http://www.drcnet.org/

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

[End]