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

Dare To Do Better (A staff editorial in The Denver Post comments on the
dwindling local support for DARE. Last year, Delbert Elliott and other
researchers at the University of Colorado's Center for the Study and
Prevention of Violence reviewed 400 programs aimed at reducing youth violence
and "drug" use. They cited 10 such programs - not including DARE - as worthy
of emulation. The newspaper believes "drug education" should be part of the
curriculum at all levels, not just elementary schools, and that preventing
"drug abuse" through "education" is "far more effective" than belatedly
treating or incarcerating those who miss or ignore that message - though the
newspaper doesn't say on what evidence that opinion is based.)

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 03:00:59 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CO: Editorials: Dare To Do Better
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: General Pulaski
Pubdate: Tue, 8 Dec 1998
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Contact: letters@denverpost.com
Website: http://www.denverpost.com/
Copyright: 1998 The Denver Post

DARE TO DO BETTER

DARE to do better. As Karen Auge reported in Monday's Post, a number
of Colorado cities have dropped the Drug Abuse Resistance Education
program because they doubt its effectiveness. Yet, the dropouts have
been more than offset by other communities joining the program,
according to Russ Ahrens, director of the state DARE effort.

The Post believes that any government program, DARE included, can
benefit from constructive criticism. But we have a simple challenge
for DARE's critics: If you think you can do better, let's see your
program.

Fortunately, some critics have already met that challenge. Last year,
Delbert Elliott and other researchers at the University of Colorado's
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence reviewed 400 programs
aimed at reducing youth violence and drug use. They cited 10 such
programs - not including DARE - as "blue chip" programs worthy of emulation.

We welcome such efforts to more effectively warn young people about
the danger of illegal drugs. But we would strongly oppose any effort
to abandon drug education altogether.

There are essentially just three tools available to dam the tide of
drug abuse that has ruined so many lives in this country while
empowering a worldwide criminal empire: education, treatment and
incarceration. While all three have a role to play, it is obviously
much better - and more cost-effective - for society to head off
potential drug abuse through education than to struggle to cure
addicts who have already damaged their lives and health, sometimes
irreversibly, through drug abuse. Sending drug users to prison -
sometimes simply for selling enough drugs to support their own habits
- is probably the least effective technique of all, though a necessary
one when violent crime is involved.

Fortunately, DARE officials themselves seem to be taking the criticism
to heart and working to improve their approach. In general, DARE is
becoming less lecture-oriented and more interactive, and some
programs have added segments about issues such as date rape and youth
violence. DARE officials themselves concede their program is more
effective if it can be carried into the junior high and high school
but complain that budget restraints keep them out of those vital arenas.

Again, whether the message is carried by DARE or alternative programs,
we believe drug education should be a vital part of the school
curriculum at all levels, not just elementary schools. Young minds
are too precious to waste - and preventing drug abuse through
education is far more effective than belatedly treating or
incarcerating those unfortunate youths who, tragically, have missed or
ignored that message.

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

Dumping DARE A Good Start (Denver Post columnist Diane Carman
says that like most aspects of the war on drugs, DARE has been a colossal
waste of money. Since 1971, the US has spent an estimated $1 trillion
on the war against some drug users. In that time, illegal drug use
has mushroomed and black-market prices have soared. More than 400,000
Americans are in prison on drug charges. One in nine American schoolchildren
has at least one parent in prison. If we really cared about protecting
our children, we'd demand that the government abandon the war on drugs
and employ some of the cheaper and vastly more effective programs
under way in other countries.)

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 14:49:54 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Column: Dumping DARE A Good Start
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Jerri Merritt
Pubdate: Tues, 8 Dec 1998
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Contact: letters@denverpost.com
Website: http://www.denverpost.com/
Copyright: 1998 The Denver Post
Columnist: Diane Carman, Denver Post Staff Columnist dcarman@denverpost.com

DUMPING DARE A GOOD START

Dec. 8 - It's only a baby step, the tiniest movement toward rational public
policy. A handful of cities have dared to dump the DARE program.

Like most aspects of the war on drugs, DARE has been a colossal waste of
money. A study commissioned by the U.S. Justice Department found the
program's effectiveness at keeping kids off drugs to be "statistically
insignificant.''

Basically, the war on drugs makes the war on poverty look like a resounding
success. And we all know the war on poverty was our domestic Vietnam.

Since 1971, the U.S. has spent an estimated $1 trillion on the war on drugs.

In that time, illegal drug use has mushroomed and black-market prices have
soared. In this country, commerce in illegal drugs is estimated to be a
$150 billion-a-year industry. The U.N. estimates illegal drugs account for
10 percent of the world's trade - all tax-free.

While marijuana laws are enforced with enthusiasm in the U.S., the
percentage of adolescents using marijuana is twice as high here as in the
Netherlands, where the substance is legal.

Columbia University, meanwhile, determined that education and treatment of
substance abusers is seven times more cost-effective than arrest and
incarceration. Still, among industrialized countries in the world, the U.S.
lags far behind in spending on treatment programs - and way, way ahead in
incarceration.

Instead of paying the annual cost of $2,000 to $5,000 per addict for
outpatient treatment or up to $15,000 for long-term inpatient programs, we
spend $25,000 to $50,000 a year to jail addicts, leaving their complex
medical and psychological problems untreated.

More than 400,000 Americans are in prison on drug charges. Among federal
prisoners, 65 percent are doing time for nonviolent, drug-related
convictions. One in nine American schoolchildren has at least one parent in
prison.

The patently racist drug laws deliver their harshest penalties to
inner-city crack addicts and dealers, while giving much lighter sentences
to the well-heeled snorting cocaine in Beverly Hills and Cherry Hills
Village and Washington, D.C. It takes possession of 500 grams of powdered
cocaine to incur the same mandatory five-year sentence as possession of 5
grams of crack cocaine.

Thanks largely to the U.S. war on drugs, the economies of Colombia, Bolivia
and Peru are so dependent on black-market cocaine trafficking that no
amount of American foreign aid can compensate for the revenues that would
be lost if production were curtailed.

The failures in the war on drugs have been so spectacular and so thoroughly
documented that it's clear the only reason it continues is that Americans
have been brainwashed by self-interested political leaders and the tidal
wave of propaganda, of which DARE represents but a trickle.

If we really cared about protecting our children from the scourge of drug
addiction, we'd demand that the government abandon the war on drugs and
employ some of the cheaper and vastly more effective programs under way in
other countries.

We'd demand that leaders stop wasting our money on ill-conceived prison
programs and spend it giving our kids preparation for the kind of future
that makes wasting their lives on drugs unthinkable.

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

'High' Road Is Full Of Pot Holes (Arizona Republic columnist E.J. Montini
revisits cancer patient and medical-marijuana user Josh Berner. Now that
Arizona voters have again voted to endorse medical marijuana, Berner is
unable to find two physicians willing to recommend cannabis to him - most
doctors are afraid they'll be busted by federal authorities for prescribing
an illegal drug. And no pharmacy stocks it. "Without an implementation plan
to go along with the proposition, the situation of people like me hasn't
changed a bit since we passed the first proposition back in '96," Josh said.
"So, that's my job now. To get it implemented.")

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 17:23:56 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US AZ: OPED: 'High' Road Is Full Of Pot Holes
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Pubdate: Tues, Dec. 8, 1998
Source: Arizona Republic (AZ)
Contact: Opinions@pni.com
Website: http://www.azcentral.com/news/
Copyright: 1998, The Arizona Republic.
Author: E.J. Montini

'HIGH' ROAD IS FULL OF POT HOLES

The first time I talked to Josh Berner (two years ago this month) he gave
me his favorite recipe for eggnog. First, you pour some of the store-bought
variety into a blender. Then add in a banana, a little honey and two
heaping tablespoons of marijuana.

Mix to a froth. Add nutmeg.

"That's still one of my favorites," Josh told me Monday. "Wish I could whip
some up right now."

But he can't.

"The last time I had some pot was a week or 10 days ago," he said. "I'm
having a little trouble finding some right now. But I will, hopefully.
Otherwise, I won't be able to eat at all. I'll be finished. I won't let
that happen. I won't let the bastards win -- pardon my French."

No need.

I figure a guy in his 50s can speak any language he wants when he has
throat cancer and is experiencing constant nausea from the disease and the
radiation treatments. Particularly when he lives in a state that already
has passed a referendum permitting the medical use of marijuana -- twice.

"Without an implementation plan to go along with the proposition, the
situation of people like me hasn't changed a bit since we passed the first
proposition back in '96," Josh said. "So, that's my job now. To get it
implemented."

Needs a prescription

The new law says a person in Josh's position needs to have a prescription
for marijuana from two doctors. That's not likely to happen.

According to Andrea Smiley of the Arizona Medical Association, most doctors
are afraid they'll be busted by federal authorities for prescribing an
illegal drug.

Not only that, but there's no pharmacy where a guy like Josh can go.

"I tell you where that leaves me," Josh said. "Picture me walking through
the desert on a local Indian reservation, handing money through barbed wire
fence and having a bag of pot passed back to me. Why? Because there's an
80-year-old World War II veteran who called me to help him, because
marijuana is the only thing that keeps him from getting sick from
chemotherapy. That's not right. I can't let that happen."

That's why Josh is now working with activists in other states that have
passed laws similar to Arizona's Proposition 300. He wants to create a
national implementation plan.

"The only thing that keeps this from happening is superstition, ignorance
and arrogance," Josh said. "That's the basis for all of this. We're not
talking about the complete legalization of all drugs. We're talking about
medical use. All we can do is hammer away at the negative attitude that
exists out there. Someone like me can help. I'm not intimidated. I just
don't feel too good."

Change is difficult

Josh believes that if enough states get together and demand a change, the
federal government will come around. It won't be easy.

The first time Arizona passed the referendum, Sen. Jon Kyl said, "I must
tell you I am extraordinarily embarrassed" by Arizona's vote. Kyl had
nothing but disdain for what he called "pothead doctors" who might help
someone like Josh.

"When you take a position like mine, people are going to attack you," Josh
said. "But I don't worry about it. A long time ago my dad told me, 'If they
try to run you out of town, get out in front and make it look like a
parade.' "

That's not easy when you're weak and sick and all you want for Christmas is
a few plump joints.

A few days ago, a friend brought Josh the nub of a marijuana cigarette, a
"roach," and after a few puffs he felt good enough to eat a little.

"You live day to day and fight day to day," he said, "and you try to keep
your dignity and your sense of humor and your sense of determination."

His resolve was shaken a couple of days ago, however, when the temperature
dropped and there was snow in Phoenix.

"I thought, 'Oh, no, I'm a goner,' " he said, laughing. "I had told all my
friends I was going to fight this damn thing until hell freezes over."

E.J. Montini can be reached at ed.montini@pni.com via e-mail.

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

Officer in theft case surrenders - He feared drug dealers' retaliation,
source says (The Dallas Morning News says Daniel E. Maples Jr., a Dallas
police officer accused of stealing thousands of dollars from drug dealers,
turned himself in Sunday night because he apparently feared some dealers
were about to retaliate by killing his girlfriend. Maples was not charged
and was not in custody late Monday, having been placed
on paid administrative leave.)

From: adbryan@ONRAMP.NET
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 07:09:54 -0600 (CST)
Subject: ART: Officer in theft case surrenders
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

Looks to me like Officer Maples was just conducting a little
asset forfeiture. He was the one out doing the work, so he
should get the rewards. (/sarcasm off)

***

12-8-98
Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com
letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com

Officer in theft case surrenders
He feared drug dealers' retaliation, source says

12/08/98

By Jason Sickles and Dave Michaels
The Dallas Morning News

A Dallas police officer accused of stealing thousands of dollars from
drug dealers turned himself in because he apparently feared some dealers
were about to retaliate, two Police Department sources said Monday.

Officer Daniel E. Maples Jr., 26, has not been charged with a crime and
was not in custody late Monday. He was placed on paid administrative
leave after turning himself in Sunday night, a police source said.

Department officials declined to discuss the case Monday.

"It's an ongoing criminal investigation," said Sgt. Jim Chandler, a
Police Department spokesman. "At this time, we will not identify any
officers involved."

Officer Maples, a rookie hired in 1995, did not return a telephone
message left at his home Monday, and his mother declined to comment,
saying she was unaware of the investigation. A Dallas attorney said to
be representing the officer also could not be reached.

A police source familiar with the investigation said Officer Maples
surrendered because he feared some drug dealers were about to retaliate
against him by killing his girlfriend.

The department investigation began in April, when drug dealers
complained that Officer Maples was arresting them, confiscating whatever
money they had on hand and keeping it. The source, who spoke on
condition of anonymity, said Officer Maples is believed to have taken in
$10,000 to $12,000 with the scheme.

"He makes everybody look bad," a colleague said.

It was not clear Monday whether the officer's purported actions would
jeopardize any pending prosecutions on cases he worked.

Officer Maples, a patrol officer who works nights without a partner, had
been assigned to the northeast operations division since joining the
department. Colleagues on Monday described him as quiet and unassuming
but an aggressive officer.

"He locked up a bunch of people," one officer said.

A police source said Officer Maples and two other officers have been
questioned in recent months by investigators from the Police
Department's public integrity unit about possible criminal activities
and that another 15 officers have been questioned as witnesses.

Investigators went so far as to secretly attach a tracking device to
Officer Maples' patrol car so they could monitor his movements. Much of
the graft occurred at northeast Dallas motels and apartment complexes, a
police source said.

"Nobody wanted to work with him," one officer said. "He was doing the
stuff cops don't do."

Protocol for confiscating drug money should include three separate
counts of the currency, officers said.

The arresting officer counts the money before taking the bills to the
department's property room. The count is verified by a property room
employee, who then watches the officer recount the currency. The cash is
then placed in a plastic bag and stored in a safe.

A police source said Officer Maples turned himself in at Grand Prairie
police headquarters about 6 p.m. Sunday.

It was unclear Monday why he chose to surrender in Grand Prairie, which
is not involved in the investigation.

Authorities in Grand Prairie called Dallas police when Officer Maples
unexpectedly arrived and began discussing the suspected racket, a police
source said.

Department records show Officer Maples has received seven commendations
since August 1996. His recognitions include dedication to duty,
leadership and initiative and alertness.

He has never been disciplined, records show.

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

McCaffrey blasts medicinal marijuana (United Press International
says the White House drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey, told those attending
the Council of State Governments' annual convention in San Antonio, Texas,
today that victory in the war on some drug users is being jeopardized by the
medical marijuana "movement" - and by an increase in "drug" use among
teenagers. Misrepresenting both doctors and patients who have experience
with medical marijuana, McCaffrey said "pain management is not best done
with a joint and two vodkas.")

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 17:36:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Vivian (viv@hemp.net)
To: hemp-talk@hemp.net
Subject: HT: Causing Trouble (fwd)
Sender: owner-hemp-talk@hemp.net

sorry if this is redundant:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 17:08:16
Subject: Causing Trouble

When I went to check out the link that Tyler sent for the Supreme Court
Traffic Seizure article, I noticed this other article about our Great and
Knowledgable US Drug Czar. Be prepared to be pissed while you read this
(or maybe laugh at what a piece of garbage this is).

***

McCaffrey blasts medicinal marijuana

SAN ANTONIO, Dec. 8 (UPI) U.S. drug czar Barry McCaffrey says the nation is
winning the war on drugs, but victory is being jeopardized by the medicinal
marijuana movement.

Addressing the Council of State Governments Annual Convention in San
Antonio today, McCaffrey said, "pain management is not best done with a
joint and two vodkas."

McCaffrey, the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, says
medicinal marijuana and so-called industrial hemp movements are "silly and
sad" and that they represent an attempt to "legalize all drugs, including
marijuana, which poll after poll shows is opposed by 80 percent of the
American public."

He compared referendums on medicinal marijuana to holding local elections
on "FAA flight regulations."

McCaffrey says another factor hindering a victory in the war on drugs is a
disturbing increase in drug use among teenagers, including the use of
heroin and methamphetamine.

He says: "Our children are using drugs again. The total percentage of
Americans who use illegal drugs has dropped from 14 percent 15 years ago to
6 percent today. I'd like to cut that to less than 3 percent, but if we
continue to tolerate pot smoking, cigarette use and alcohol consumption
among young people, we will see a bubble of drug use rising again in this
country."

McCaffrey says his office will release next year a comprehensive plan to
use high technology to interdict drugs coming across the southwestern
border, including the use of radar to inspect trucks without having to stop
and search them.

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

Drug czar targets meth crisis (The San Antonio, Texas, Express-News
says General Barry McCaffrey told the annual gathering of the Council
of State Governments Tuesday that America is winning the war
against cocaine, but losing the war against chemically produced
methamphetamine. All of the speakers agreed government should focus
on rehabilitation and curbing drug use among children, but the White House
drug czar admitted that current policies had only tripled the number
of eighth-graders taking "drugs" in the past six years.)

From: adbryan@onramp.net
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 09:18:05 -0600 (CST)
Subject: ART: Drug czar targets meth crisis
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

12-8-98
San Antonio Express-News
http://www.expressnews.com
letters@express-news.net

Drug czar targets meth crisis

By Jaime Castillo
Express-News Staff Writer

America is winning the war against cocaine, but that drug is being
replaced quickly by chemically produced methamphetamine, White House
drug czar Barry McCaffrey told state government officials here Tuesday.

"Ten years ago, methamphetamine was a minor, West Coast, biker-gang
drug," McCaffrey told reporters. "Now it's a dominant drug problem in
the rural Midwest, Hawaii, Idaho and Arizona."

While casual cocaine use has dropped by as much as 70 percent, the drug
czar said, methamphetamine use and production are spreading throughout
the country.

"It has actually replaced cocaine as the principal emergency room threat
in Southern California and Hawaii," McCaffrey said. "We're very worried
about it, and I think we're going to see more of this."

McCaffrey made his comments at the annual gathering of the Council of
State Governments, a nonpartisan group that's been meeting at the San
Antonio Marriott Rivercenter hotel since Friday.

The organization devoted the last day of its five-day meeting to
discussing drug policy.

During one panel discussion, Kansas Attorney General Carla Stovall gave
a grim account of methamphetamine use in the Midwest.

Because the drug is relatively easy and cheap to manufacture, hundreds
of people are being injured each year in makeshift labs cropping up in
kitchens and homes all over Kansas, Stovall said.

"Spending $100 at Wal-Mart could let you net $23,000 in product," she
said.

In response, Kansas lawmakers want to stiffen criminal penalties
relating to the drug.

All of the speakers agreed government policy should focus on
rehabilitation and curbing drug use among children.

McCaffrey said he was concerned by the message being sent to children by
advocacy groups urging the legalization of marijuana for medicinal
purposes.

"Pain management is not best done with a joint or two vodkas - it just
doesn't ring true," he said. "Doctors should decide about medicine."

McCaffrey, who played videotape from four public service messages
designed to stop drug abuse, said the number of eighth- graders taking
drugs has tripled in the past six years.

"The challenge to America is to keep kids from about the sixth grade to
the 12th grade from smoking pot and abusing alcohol," he said.

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

Turning good kids to bad? (A letter to the editor of The Houston Chronicle
says the newspaper's recent article about inmates going to school to warn
students about drinking and "drugs" ignored the most obvious fact. As kids,
the inmates had problems before they started using alcohol and other drugs.
The article seems to say, "We were all good kids until we used alcohol
and other drugs. Now look what these substances have done to us." But it is
impossible for an inanimate object to "make" us do anything.)

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 10:14:52 EST
Errors-To: jnr@insightweb.com
Reply-To: friends@freecannabis.org
Originator: friends@freecannabis.org
Sender: friends@freecannabis.org
From: "stuart kocher" (stuart_k@hotmail.com)
To: Multiple recipients of list (friends@freecannabis.org)
Subject: Fwd: PUB: Turning good kids to bad?

Not to toot my own horn but...... I finally got one in print... HOOray
for me. Okay, I'm better.

stuart

From: adbryan@ONRAMP.NET
Subject: PUB: Turning good kids to bad?
Comments: To: dpft-l@tamu.edu
To: DPFT-L@TAMU.EDU

This is a pretty dang cool letter that takes a little different
approach to drugs. WAYTOGO Stuart. Very impressive!

(I'm running a little late in posting today)

***

From the 12-8-98 Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com
viewpoints@chron.com

Turning good kids to bad?

In the Dec. 7 article "Inmates go to school to warn students about
drinking, drugs," Cathy Gordon points out how alcohol and other drugs
had a negative impact on the lives of these young prisoners. But the
most obvious fact not testified to by any of the inmates or Gordon:
These kids had problems before they got involved in alcohol and other
drugs.

The article seems to say, "We were all good kids until we used alcohol
and other drugs. Now look what these substances have done to us." It is
impossible for an inanimate object to "make" us do anything.

I am utterly disgusted with the media, police, prosecutors, judges,
defense lawyers and social workers who foster a "drugs-made-me-do-it"
excuse in an attempt to drive up the drug crime statistics. Why not tell
the truth: "I was living a life destined for crime and found myself
using alcohol and other drugs in the course of my social decline."

This worn-out excuse for personal choice only clouds the issue of
individual guilt by allowing drug mythology to overshadow their own
responsibility.

What message would these model prisoners communicate if they stood
before the youngsters and said, "I broke the law a lot and I finally got
caught. I was greedy, too lazy to get a job and I have no self control"?

That would show what the real problem with our society is today: the
demise of personal responsibility and accountability.

Stuart Kocher, Houston

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

Methadone ruled as cause in N. Richland Hills death (The Ft. Worth
Star-Telegram says Christopher W. Bryant, 18, had started taking methadone
to kick his heroin habit days before his uncle found him dead. On the day
after Bryant's death, his mother said she had heard that he had exaggerated
the amount of his daily heroin usage when he went to a treatment clinic
in Fort Worth, Texas, for his first of four methadone doses.)

From: adbryan@ONRAMP.NET
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 08:55:32 -0600 (CST)
Subject: ART: Methadone ruled as cause in N. Richland Hills death
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

12-8-98
Ft. Worth Star-Telegram
http://www.startelegram.com
letters@startelegram.com

Methadone ruled as cause in N. Richland Hills death

By Betsy Blaney
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

A narcotic used to treat heroin addicts caused the death of a North
Richland Hills man who died in late October, according to Tarrant County
Medical Examiner's Office records.

Christopher W. Bryant, 18, had started taking methadone to kick his
heroin habit days before his uncle found him dead Oct. 23 on a living
room couch in his family's house. Police had suspected that Bryant may
have died after using heroin.

Family members declined to comment yesterday.

On the day after Bryant's death, his mother said she had heard that he
had exaggerated the amount of his daily heroin usage when he went to a
Fort Worth treatment clinic Oct. 19 for his first of four methadone
doses. Bryant's friends have said that he used heroin for about four
months before he died.

Bryant's mother said her son couldn't function or go to work after he
took his daily dose of methadone, a response that some experts said
would indicate that the dosage was too high.

Clinic officials could not be reached to comment yesterday. In a
previous interview, the clinic's director said Bryant took his last dose
of methadone at 7:30 a.m. Oct. 22. Bryant's uncle found him dead about
9:30 a.m. Oct. 23.

Death resulting from methadone is uncommon, a drug expert said.
"I've known it to happen, but in the clinics I've worked in, it's rare,"
said Lois Chatham, who has worked at the National Institute on Drug
Abuse and is associate director and senior scientist at Texas Christian
University's Institute of Behavioral Research in Fort Worth.

Methadone works by bonding to brain receptors, blocking the pain
messages that they transmit when the heroin supply stops and tricking
the brain into thinking that the cravings have been satisfied. Addicts
report that with methadone, they feel normal again, without the
rapturous highs and gut- wrenching lows of heroin.

In methadone maintenance treatment, heroin addicts can take methadone
for years, with gradually tapering doses, or, in some cases, for life.
In methadone detoxification, patients take the drug for about 30 days to
cleanse their bodies of heroin.

For those trying to kick a heroin habit, exaggerating their usage isn't
unusual, some experts say.

"But most clinics know that they do that," Chatham said of exaggeration.
"And they don't believe what they [heroin addicts] tell them."

When most addicts go to clinics, they are in withdrawal and medical
personnel will monitor their pupils, check tpupils, check their urine
and sometimes do blood work

When someone is given methadone for the first time, clinic personnel
usually request that they stay for about an hour to check that the
amount of methadone given is commensurate with their heroin usage, said
Charles Parks, a recovering heroin addict and counselor with Tarrant
County Outreach in Arlington and Fort Worth.

Within an hour of treatment, a heroin user will feel the full effects of
methadone, and the influence of the synthetic opiate lessens gradually
during subsequent hours, Parks said.

Information was unavailable yesterday about whether Bryant stayed at the
clinic so personnel could monitor the effects of the methadone.

Bob Josch, a chemical dependency counselor and director of addiction
services at Cook Children's Medical Center in Fort Worth, said heroin
addicts want to ensure that they are going to get enough methadone to
deal with their heroin withdrawal.

"So you have to get in the mind of the addict," he said. "An addict is
terrified they are never going to have enough.

"In the mind of the addict, there is never enough."

Toxicology results are pending on three other Northeast Tarrant County
residents whose deaths authorities suspect were caused by heroin.
Stephanie Holley, 18, of Bedford died Oct. 7; Kristen Taylor, 19, of
North Richland Hills died Oct. 27; and Claude Pittmon, 48, of Bedford
died Nov. 13.

Betsy Blaney, (817) 685-3821
Send your comments to ecblaney@star-telegram.com

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

Long-Ago Fugitive To Be Extradited (The Associated Press says a judge
in Detroit, Michigan, ruled Monday that Alfred Martin, a businessman
who has led "an exemplary life" since being convicted of selling $10 worth
of marijuana 25 years ago, should be extradited to Virginia,
where he once walked off a prison farm.)

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 08:40:14 EST
Errors-To: jnr@insightweb.com
Reply-To: friends@freecannabis.org
Originator: friends@freecannabis.org
Sender: friends@freecannabis.org
From: Fraglthndr@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list (friends@freecannabis.org)
Subject: Long-Ago Fugitive To Be Extradited

My Gosh, more insanity!

From: AOLNews@aol.com
Subject: Long-Ago Fugitive To Be Extradited
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 06:59:03 EST

Long-Ago Fugitive To Be Extradited

c The Associated Press

By SUSANNA LOOF

DETROIT (AP) -- A judge ruled that a businessman who has led ``an exemplary
life'' since being convicted of selling $10 worth of marijuana 25 years ago
should be extradited to Virginia, where he once walked off a prison farm.

As family and friends of Alfred Martin sobbed and wiped away tears, Circuit
Judge William Cahalan said Monday he had no choice but to honor Virginia's
request.

Martin was convicted in Virginia of selling marijuana and sentenced to 10
years in prison. After serving two days of his sentence, he walked away from a
prison farm in Martinsville, Va.

He faces charges of escape and conversion by larceny, which stems from
allegations he never paid off a television and stereo system he bought on an
installment plan from a Martinsville store.

The Virginia charges surfaced when Martin was stopped last month for allegedly
driving with expired plates.

Cahalan said his decision was tough because Martin, who owns Common Wealth
Mortgage in Livonia, has lived ``an exemplary life since his conviction 25
years ago.''

``It's all the more difficult when you see the family here and understand that
the family is a credit to the state and Mr. Martin has been a credit to the
state for the past 25 years,'' Cahalan said.

In a statement, Martin pleaded for an opportunity to ``exhaust all of my legal
options and continue to support my family. I'd like to be free.''

The judge granted Martin a 24-hour stay of the extradition so his attorneys
can appeal.

Virginia had tried to extradite Martin before. That attempt led then-Gov.
William Milliken in 1976 to grant Martin legal asylum in Michigan.

AP-NY-12-08-98 0658EST

Copyright 1998 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP
news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise
distributed without prior written authority of The Associated Press.

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

New Bills Would Decriminalize Marijuana, Reduce Size of N.H. House
(The Keene Sentinel, in New Hampshire, notes the 400 members
of the state house of representatives still have another week to raise issues
for consideration in January. Among the bills being drafted is one that would
permit the medical use of marijuana, and another that would decriminalize
possession of small amounts of cannabis, both sponsored
by Timothy N. Robertson. In the past, Robertson has sponsored legislation
to legalize hemp production in New Hampshire. Another effort
will be spearheaded this year by other representatives. Robertson said it was
a strategic decision to separate the hemp bill from marijuana-related
proposals because hemp cannot be used as a drug and the issues are not
related, yet many lawmakers and citizens confused the two issues.)

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:12:32 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US NH: New Bills Would Decriminalize Marijuana,
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Source: Keene Sentinel (NH)
Author: Greg Cannon
Copyright: 1998 Keene Publishing Corporation.
Contact: letters@keenesentinel.com
Mail: Box 546 60 West Street Keene NH 03431
Website: http://www.keenesentinel.com/
Pubdate: Tues, 8 Dec 1998

NEW BILLS WOULD DECRIMINALIZE MARIJUANA, REDUCE SIZE OF N.H. HOUSE

With 400 members -- one of the largest legislatures in the world -- the
N.H. House is never at a loss for new legislation.

The coming session promises bills for solving the statewide education
funding crisis, less ambitious efforts aimed at saving elderly pet owners a
few bucks, and everything in between.

Some are plans of a grand scale that will be endlessly studied and debated.
Others are an effort to remedy a problem learned about in chats with a
neighbor over the backyard fence.

As of Nov. 30, there were 454 Legislative Service Requests submitted to the
N.H. General Court, by representatives and senators alike. These requests
are nothing more than the outline of an idea -- an initial effort by a
legislator to get a bill drafted, with the details to be fleshed out later.

With the deadline for these requests still a week away, a flurry of
last-minute activity is sure to drive up the total.

With an eye toward January and the last legislative session of the century,
The Sentinel surveyed local legislators to see what kind of legislation
they'll be supporting in Concord starting next month.

The N.H. Supreme Court's April 1 deadline to the Legislature for
overhauling how New Hampshire pays for public schools looms large, bumping
the issue to the top of the agenda. The Sentinel will look at local efforts
to tackle that monster later this week.

Also to come: a look at legislation concerning the Cheshire Bridge, the
state's only toll bridge, over the Connecticut River; and campaign-finance
reform efforts.

Meanwhile, here's an overview of some of the other legislation being
sponsored by representatives of the Monadnock Region:

-- Medical marijuana and marijuana penalties. The nation is spending
billions of dollars filling its prisons with nonviolent drug offenders and
New Hampshire shouldn't contribute to the problem, says Rep. Timothy N.
Robertson, D-Keene.

Robertson is behind legislation to make possession of an ounce or less of
marijuana no more of an offense than a traffic ticket. He says repeat
offenders would still be punishable with criminal penalties.

Robertson lowered the maximum from the 1 [?] ounces that was in similar
legislation last session. "I hope to get a better hearing this time,"
Robertson said. "It's silly to prosecute someone because they have a
different lifestyle than I do."

Another piece of legislation sponsored by Robertson would allow qualified
patients or their caregivers to grow up to three marijuana plants for
personal use as medicine.

In the past, Robertson has sponsored legislation to legalize hemp
production in New Hampshire. Another effort will be spearheaded this year
by other representatives. Robertson said it was a strategic decision to
separate the hemp bill from marijuana-related proposals because hemp cannot
be used as a drug and the issues are not related, yet many lawmakers and
citizens confused the two issues.

Robertson concedes that getting support will be an uphill battle, but said,
"Every time, we convert a few people."

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

Rolling Back Stiff Drug Sentences (The Christian Science Monitor
says 25 years after New York ushered in the nation's first mandatory-minimum
drug-sentencing laws, it and several other states are considering modifying
such laws - a trend with far-reaching ramifications for the American
criminal-justice system. At the same time, however, states are enacting even
stricter sentencing laws and abolishing parole for dangerous felons,
particularly violent sex offenders.)

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 17:43:09 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Christian Science Monitor: Rolling Back Stiff Drug Sentences
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: tom@november.org (Tom Murlowski)
Pubdate: Tue, 8 Dec 1998
Source: Christian Science Monitor (US)
Contact: oped@csps.com
Website: http://www.csmonitor.com/
Copyright: 1998 The Christian Science Publishing Society.
Author: Alexandra Marks (marksa@csps.com), Staff writer of The Christian
Science Monitor

ROLLING BACK STIFF DRUG SENTENCES

Twenty-five years after the first law mandating tough prison terms,
states look for new ways to punish drug offenders.

NEW YORK - A quarter century after New York ushered in the nation's
first mandatory drug-sentencing laws, some states are showing signs of
rolling back the mandates - a trend with far-reaching ramifications
for the American criminal-justice system.

Worried about burgeoning prison populations, New York and several
other states are beginning to look at ways of punishing nonviolent
first-time drug offenders that don't require substantial jail time. At
the same time, however, states are enacting even stricter sentencing
laws and abolishing parole for dangerous felons, particularly violent
sex offenders.

The twin moves underscore a truism of American criminal justice in the
late 1990s: At a time when much of the public still wants tough
treatment of criminals, states have to deal with the implications of
those sentiments by erecting more buildings with bars and concertina
wire.

To be sure, many politicians and much of the public don't want any
retreat from mandatory minimum sentences - including for drug
offenders. They believe it is the best way to tackle America's
entrenched drug problem.

A principal problem is that [mandatory sentences] aren't targeted
sufficiently at high-level dealers.' - Jonathan Caulkins, Rand Corp.

But critics counter that the laws create an inequitable system of
justice that often punishes marijuana dealers more harshly than it
does violent felons. Largely because of these laws, they say, the
prison population has tripled since 1980. They also argue it makes the
system inflexible, taking away too much discretion from judges.

"States are clearly trying to be thoughtful about sentencing and make
sure the laws passed are resource sensitive," says Donna Lyons,
director of the criminal justice program of the National Conference of
State Legislatures in Denver.

This summer, Michigan - which had some of the toughest drug laws in
the country - set up new guidelines and rolled back its
mandatory-minimum life sentence for drug dealing. Connecticut,
Oklahoma, Arizona, and almost a dozen other states have either passed
legislation or set up commissions to revamp their criminal codes -
including minimum sentences.

And in New York, the legislature is expected to at least modify the
Rockefeller drug laws this session.

"There would certainly be symbolism in the undoing of the Rockefeller
drug laws, but it's also a practical policy decision," says Julie
Stewart, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a
Washington-based advocacy group made up of families of prisoners. The
challenges created by the Rockefeller drug laws in New York reflect
those facing other states. Initially aimed at high-level drug dealers,
they've often ended up netting low-level dealers and "mules" - those
who carry the drugs for the dealers.

Story of Thomas Eddy

Thomas Eddy was among the first to be sentenced under the Rockefeller
drug laws. Arrested in 1979 for selling two ounces of cocaine, he
expected to get a couple of years in jail, and then maybe probation.

Instead, the sophomore at State University of New York, Binghamton, a
National Merit Scholar who had his future ahead of him, got 15 years
to life.

"Even the judge said she wouldn't have given me that sentence if she
had discretion, but she didn't," says Mr. Eddy, who was granted
clemency after 13-1/2 years.

A chief concern with mandatory sentencing is that it is often missing
its intended target: big-time drug dealers.

This has occurred as discretion has shifted from judges, who are
required to mete out certain sentences regardless of circumstances, to
prosecutors, who determine whether to bring charges that carry a
mandatory-minimum sentence, experts say. Often, the higher-level drug
dealers have more information to trade and, thus, can cut better deals
with prosecutors.

"The principal problem with current mandatory minimums is that they
aren't targeted sufficiently toward the high-level dealers," says
Jonathan Caulkins, author of a Rand Corp. study on mandatory
sentences. But the numbers of low-level dealers imprisoned have
increased dramatically. In 1980, only 11 percent of the people
committed to state prisons in New York were there for drug offenses.
By 1997, 47 percent were committed for drug offenses. That increase is
reflected nationwide - and the costs associated with it are enormous.
A new study by the Washington-based Justice Policy Institute (JPI)
found that since 1988 New York has increased the amount it spends on
prisons by $761 million, a 76 percent jump. At the same time, spending
for higher education dropped by $615 million, or 29 percent. "That's a
major portent for the future," says Vincent Schiraldi, JPI director.

That trend is also national. In 1980, states spent 6-1/2 times more
for higher education than for corrections. Today, that's been narrowed
to just twice the level.

But supporters of mandatory-minimum drug laws argue such analogies are
misleading. The Manhattan Institute's William Stern says it would be
just as easy to compare corrections costs with food or energy costs,
as to education spending. "It's unpleasant for society to spend money
on prisons ... but it is clearly the way historically that societies
have protected themselves and punished the lawless," says Mr. Stern,
former chairman of the New York Urban Development Corp.

Stern and other supporters also credit the increase in the prison
population, at least in part, for the steady drop in the crime rate
over the past six years.

Link to crime rate

But critics counter that during the first 20 years that mandatory
minimums were in effect, the crime rate continued to climb. They
attribute the recent crime-rate drop to community policing and
demographic changes. They also point out that the drug problems in the
inner cities have not improved, even though the drug laws
disproportionately affect inner-city minorities.

The JPI study found that in 1980 283 whites, 260 Hispanics, and 333
blacks were incarcerated in New York prisons for drug offenses. By
1997, the number of whites had almost doubled to 545, but the number
of imprisoned Latinos had jumped over 1,600 percent to 4,459. And the
number of blacks increased more than 1,300 percent to 4,727.

"For young people of color from the inner cities, we are cutting back
funds for programs that would help them gain access to the mainstream
of society, and at the same time we continue to pour resources into
prisons," says Bob Gangi of the New York Correctional Association, a
corrections think tank.

That frustration is shared by many in the law-enforcement community. A
study last year by the Police Foundation found that 85 percent of
police chiefs said major changes in drug policy are needed, and 60
percent said the war on drugs has failed.

"There's a great deal of frustration among the police chiefs that the
problems they deal with in the inner cities are not lessening as much
as they should because poor addicts don't get treatment," says Patrick
Murphy, former New York City police commissioner. "It's not only wrong
that we don't treat addicts, ... but it's dumb."

The Rand Corp. found that mandatory minimums were the least
cost-effective way to reduce drug use and drug-related crime, when
compared with conventional sentencing and treatment.

Other studies have also questioned the effectiveness of mandatory
minimums. But Mr. Caulkins cautions that such analysis often does not
affect value judgments. "There are people who believe that a person
who sold five ounces of crack deserves this long sentence, and they
don't care whether it's an efficient way to spend taxpayers' dollars.
To them, it's matter of justice," says Caulkins.

For Eddy, it is a matter of injustice. He's about to earn his law
degree and is determined to fight the mandatory-minimum drug laws.
"What destroyed me was not drugs, it was a mandatory-minimum
sentence," he says.

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

Wrath Of Vengeance - Win At All Costs series (The ninth part
of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's 10-part series about its two-year
investigation showing that federal agents and prosecutors break the law
routinely. When Congress enacted a series of get-tough-on-crime laws in the
1980s, no one realized defense attorneys would become such easy targets. The
case of Patrick Hallinan is illustrative. Hallinan is a prominent defense
lawyer and an accomplished archeologist in San Francisco. His father was
considered to be one of the finest lawyers to emerge from the city. His
brother was head of the city's law department, and is now District Attorney.
After Hallinan reduced the sentence faced by one client to 10 years, instead
of life, federal prosecutors met with the client privately and offered to let
him walk if he could implicate Hallinan. In early 1996, Hallinan was
acquitted when his lawyers were able to prove that the government had coached
his client's testimony and that he was lying about Hallinan's direct
knowledge of his drug activities and money laundering.)

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:12:42 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Wrath Of Vengeance - Win At All Costs
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Nora Callahan http://www.november.org/
Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA)
Copyright: 1998 PG Publishing
Pubdate: Tues, 8 Dec 1998
Contact: letters@post-gazette.com
Website: http://www.post-gazette.com/
Author: Bill Moushey, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Note: This is the ninth part of a 10 part series, "Win At All Costs" being
published in the Post-Gazette. The series is also being printed in The
Blade, Toledo, OH email: letters@theblade.com

WRATH OF VENGEANCE

Prosecutors Take Aim At Defense Attorneys

San Francisco lawyer Patrick Hallinan negotiated a sweet deal for Ciro
Mancuso in 1990.

Mancuso was facing a life sentence on 49 felonies related to his massive
Reno, Nev., drug trafficking operation.

For Mancuso's "full and complete cooperation and truthful testimony" in
helping to convict others in the drug operation, the government agreed to
seek only 10 years in prison. Further, he would be allowed to keep $600,000
he had in a Swiss bank account and various properties worth more than $4
million. The best news: prosecutors promised not to indict any other
members of Mancuso's family.

Hallinan had played hardball in rancorous negotiating sessions with
Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony White and was elated with the results.

That soon changed. Within months, Hallinan would learn his client had
secretly sought out prosecutors and struck another deal.

Mancuso had agreed to link Hallinan to the drug conspiracy. In exchange,
court records show, prosecutors promised to give one of Nevada's most
notorious drug traffickers probation -- and no jail time.

In The Crosshairs

When Congress enacted a series of get-tough-on-crime laws in the 1980s, no
one realized defense attorneys would become such easy targets.

The same laws that have made it easier for prosecutors to prove money
laundering and racketeering and other conspiracy charges made it especially
easy to argue that defense attorneys had illegally conspired with their
clients.

"When defense lawyers are aggressive, or innovative in terms of the kinds
of issues that are raised, prosecutors have this tendency to assume the
criminal defense lawyer is a member of a conspiracy," said William
Aronwald, a former federal and New York state prosecutor who once
supervised the Federal Organized Crime Strike Force in the Southern
District of New York.

Aronwald is now a criminal defense lawyer in White Plains, N.Y.

"One of the problems is that prosecutors have this notion that it is
impossible for criminal defense lawyers to successfully represent
defendants in sophisticated organized crime or drug cases without getting
into bed with their clients," he said.

Such attacks were an unexpected and unwelcome outcome of get-tough-on-crime
legislation, he said, including mandatory sentencing guidelines approved in
1987.

These guidelines require tough sentences for federal crimes and give judges
little leeway in reducing them. So one of the few ways a defendant can win
a reduced sentence is to snitch on someone else in exchange for a
recommendation from prosecutors for a reduced sentence. And what easier
target for a desperate informant than his lawyer?

The Justice Department's Thornburgh Rule, which allows federal prosecutors
to ignore ethics guidelines in the states in which they operate, can
exacerbate the problem, Aronwald said.

For example, state ethics guidelines forbid contacts between prosecutors
and a defendant unless the defendant's attorney is present. The Thornburgh
Rule allows prosecutors to talk to defendants without the defense
attorney's knowledge, as happened in the Mancuso case.

A measure approved by Congress this year would require the Justice
Department to end its use of the Thornburgh Rule next year, but the Justice
Department is already asking Congress to repeal the new law.

"Thornburgh took a position which frankly shocks the conscience of most
judges and lawyers," Aronwald said. The guideline means if you were a
federal prosecutor, "you could ignore whatever ethical prohibitions there
are."

John Wesley Hall Jr., a criminal defense lawyer who lives in Little Rock,
Ark., and wrote a law book on legal ethics, said that too many prosecutors
see defense attorneys as easy targets. If charges are brought against a
defense attorney, there should be more than just an informant's
allegations, he said.

"Any prosecutor who indicts without more information than his informant
should be disbarred anyway," Hall said, "but they do it all the time.

"I'm scared. Every time I talk to a guy I'm worried that he is wired."

That's not to say some defense attorneys don't cross the line and deserve
to be targeted. But the Post-Gazette found instances where tactics used
against defense attorneys seemed to have less to do with their crimes and
more to do with their success in court.

Aronwald said Justice Department officials aren't following their own rules
regarding investigations into defense lawyers -- rules written to ensure
that lawyers receive the same due process safeguards as any American.

"You can't leave these types of decisions to some line prosecutor, or an
ambitious U.S. Attorney," he said. "But it happens all the time. It has
caused me to have this sense that while we have to continue doing the work
we do, we have to make sure to insulate ourselves as much as possible so
that we don't fall victim to false accusations," he said.

"That a lawyer zealously represents [a client] doesn't mean the lawyer's a
co-conspirator."

A Government Target

The indictment shocked South Florida's legal community.

Federal prosecutors had won indictments against Miami criminal lawyer Frank
Quintero, a leader in the local law community. Quintero had become so
involved in the businesses of his cocaine cartel clients, the indictment
charged, that he finally became one of them.

He was accused of buying a boat that was used to haul cocaine from Colombia
to South Florida. In addition to one count of conspiracy to import cocaine,
Quintero also faced one count of conspiring to distribute cocaine and eight
counts of laundering drug money.

The government contended its witnesses would place Quintero in the middle
of various drug deals involving his clients.

But Quintero maintained the only evidence against him had been bought by
prosecutors through promises of leniency and payments to drug smugglers
he'd helped defend.

His first trial ended with acquittals on most of the charges in August
1996. The jury deadlocked on four other drug and money laundering charges.
Last February, the government began its efforts to try him again, but
Quintero's attorneys have fought the effort in court.

They contend the government's actions have been so laced with misconduct
that their client could never receive a fair trial and have asked a judge
to dismiss all charges.

Quintero's lawyers, Robert C. Josefsberg and C. Richard Strafer, argued
that after the case began to disintegrate, the federal government began
breaking the rules in their efforts to convict him.

One of these incidents was documented earlier in this series. Federal
agents asked marina owner Peter Roca if Quintero owned any boats linked to
drug smugglers or had arranged the lease payments on them. Roca said no.

Under discovery rules, prosecutors should have made that statement known to
Quintero, but didn't.

As the second trial approached, Quintero's lawyers learned of Roca's
statement and listed him as a witness, to reveal the government's tactics.
But just a few days before Roca was scheduled to testify, federal agents
obtained a search warrant for Roca's business. They had the warrant sealed
so no one could determine what they were trying to find.

Agents seized his business records and created such an uproar that Roca's
landlord evicted him, effectively shutting down his business and eventually
forcing him into bankruptcy. Roca was never charged with a crime.

In a motion to dismiss the charges against Quintero, attorneys cited
several other incidents of misconduct.

The key prosecution witness against Quintero at his first trial was Alex
Sanz, an imprisoned drug smuggler who said Quintero had been involved in
money laundering. In exchange for testifying, federal prosecutors promised
Sanz he would be released from prison.

Prosecutors insisted in pre-trial motions that it had carefully documented
that Sanz's testimony had been truthful as it fought an attempt by
Quintero's lawyers to put on a witness -- an attorney Sanz had once hired
-- who would challenge Sanz's statements.

"The government ... would rather still believe the accusations of a
convicted drug trafficker, Alex Sanz, who is 'cooperating' only in order to
buy his own freedom, over the testimony of an officer of the Court, Vincent
Flynn, who has no axe to grind whatsoever in this case," Quintero's
attorneys wrote.

Quintero's attorneys also pointed out that the government's own documents
showed Sanz had lied.

"Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Pelletier's own files [that were turned over
to defense attorneys in a case not involving Quintero] showed that Sanz was
lying," Quintero's argument stated.

Quintero's attorneys also noted that a Dade County sheriff's deputy who had
testified against Quintero made four false statements in his first trial.
One lie concerned a message slip the deputy found in Quintero's office -- a
message that purportedly proved Quintero knew the real name of a drug
fugitive he had associated with.

The government would learn that the message, in fact, was from someone else
-- yet hid that fact from the jury. Only as the second trial approached did
prosecutors finally concede that fact, Quintero's lawyers said.

Quintero also noted that prosecutors had intentionally mingled certain
documents submitted as evidence to make it appear that Quintero had
numerous contacts with the drug fugitive.

"The deplorable sleight-of-hand tactics employed by the government should
not be condoned,' " Josefsberg, said. "The government sought to fool the
jury into buying into its theory of the case by manipulating exhibit
numbers, all the while affording itself plausible deniability."

Finally, Quintero's lawyers said, the government's intimidation of
Quintero's wife, who is also a lawyer, during a grand jury probe was
unconscionable.

"The government, knowing Mr. Quintero's marriage was on the rocks, sought
to prod her into making accusations against Mr. Quintero by referring
openly about his (alleged) affairs with 'other women,' and his (allegedly)
excessive gambling," the lawyers argued. "When she proved more feisty than
anticipated and complained in front of the grand jury about the
prosecutors' conduct, they lectured her and announced that, 'in a grand
jury proceeding, a defendant has no rights.'

"This glimpse into the prosecutors' grand jury tactics is relevant, not
because, standing alone, it would require the dismissal of the indictment,
but rather because it reveals the beginning of a pattern of conduct which
permeates this entire prosecution.

"At trial, the government put on false testimony and it continues to defend
its witnesses, despite irrefutable evidence -- including a tape recording
-- of the falsity of that testimony. Conversely, those who stand up for Mr.
Quintero are humiliated (Mrs. Quintero) or subject to retaliatory searches
and accused of perjury (Peter Roca). The same prosecutors, who apparently
believe their targets have 'no rights' in grand jury proceedings, have, by
their conduct, evinced the belief that defendants have no rights in trials
either."

Prosecutors have consistently denied wrongdoing, saying there were
legitimate reasons to search Roca's marina, that Sanz did not perjure
himself on the witness stand and that the government did not abuse anyone
before the grand jury.

"These nefarious allegations are symptomatic of an attempt to tilt the
adversarial tables from a trial of the defendant's culpability for the
crimes charged to a trial of the government," wrote Pelletier.

There has been no decision on Quintero's motion to have the charges
dismissed.

Giving Up His Clients

Defense attorney Ronald Minkin did join his clients in crime.

For two decades, the San Francisco attorney counseled drug-smuggling
clients, including operators of the largest marijuana smuggling operation
in that region.

Eventually, he did more - helping them launder drug money and assisting
them in bringing freighter loads of marijuana into the country.

When federal agents caught up with him in 1990, he cut a deal with
prosecutors: He would deliver his clients in exchange for his freedom.

Minkin not only allowed the feds to wire his office but wore electronic
surveillance equipment himself as he met with various clients to discuss
legal work, violating the most important tenet of bar association ethical
standards - the confidentiality of the lawyer-client relationship.

Then federal prosecutors went one step farther. They began steering
defendants or potential defendants to Minkin and recorded their
conversations, too.

Eventually, all of Minkin's cohorts were arrested, and he prepared to
testify against them.

Defense lawyers argued that all evidence should be suppressed because of
Minkin's violation of the attorney-client privilege, and the misconduct
by prosecutors in steering new clients his way, then taping them.

In 1993, a federal judge decided that simply suppressing evidence in the
matter was insufficient. He dismissed all the charges against defendants
that Minkin had helped snare.

Minkin quit practicing law and could not be found for comment.

A Blood Feud

When Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony White brought charges against Ciro
Mancuso in 1990, it was hailed as one of the largest drug conspiracy cases
ever brought in Reno, Nev.

The indictment alleged that Mancuso used a multi-state cocaine- and
marijuana-smuggling operation to buy ranches, mountaintop retreats,
beach-front estates and anything else he might want.

White, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was acclaimed once again as a hero for
taking down Mancuso, who was known not only as a drug smuggler, but for the
cagey ways he had avoided arrest and prison time for nearly two decades.

Mancuso would come close to succeeding again. He had information that might
tempt prosecutors to cut him a break.

Mancuso could lay out the intricate smuggling network he used to bring
drugs from the far reaches of South America into this country via Mexico.
He knew the names and the roles of dozens of insiders in the operation,
many of them bigtime and longtime smugglers.

But providing such information involved risks. Snitching against these
people could get Mancuso killed. Instead, he laid out a deal implicating
his lawyer, which involved far fewer risks. White bit on the proposal.

Patrick Hallinan was a prominent defense lawyer and an accomplished
archeologist from San Francisco. His father was considered to be one of the
finest lawyers to emerge from the city. His brother was head of the city's
law department.

Mancuso was one of the wealthiest of Hallinan's longtime clients.

Hallinan filed a flood of paperwork after Mancuso's indictment, citing what
he considered to be illegal and unethical actions by White. The animus
between the two lawyers grew, and Hallinan had soon forced a deal in which
Mancuso would be granted leniency for informing on others.

Then Hallinan became the unlikely target after Mancuso re-negotiated his
deal to include, he has said in court papers, a probationary sentence. He
would walk free instead of doing the 10 years he'd been promised earlier.

Within months, Hallinan, and 11 Mancuso confederates, were indicted for
drug smuggling, money laundering and racketeering. All of Mancuso's
colleagues ranked below him in his drug ring hierarchy.

White and other prosecutors in Reno had a history of trying to get
high-powered lawyers disqualified from criminal drug prosecutions. But this
was the first time a criminal defense lawyer had become the subject of an
investigation because a client had turned on him.

In letters, the Post-Gazette sent specific questions about the Mancuso case
to the U.S. Attorney in Las Vegas and to Justice Department officials but
got no response.

"My perspective is that, when you lie down with dogs, you get fleas," John
Keker of San Francisco, who was Hallinan's lawyer, said in an interview.
"In Reno, that prosecutor had been running so wild for so long that they
just lost all track of what's important and what the truth was.

"It was like the inquisition. It didn't matter what you'd done. You could
be the devil, but if you confessed in this case, you'd get the sweetest
deal. And if you could give them someone like Patrick Hallinan, you could
walk."

From the start, Hallinan and his lawyers accused Mancuso of lying to weasel
out of his prison time. And as Hallinan and Keker quickly found out, White
had just begun.

Less than a month before the trial, White moved to oust Keker from the case
because he had once represented Mancuso's wife in a minor criminal matter.

"Anybody who would try to disqualify me at this late date is a chicken who
is afraid to try a case against me," Keker told the local media.

Keker responded in court with a scathing petition to dismiss the Hallinan
indictment because it was filled with misconduct by the prosecutors.

As motion after motion was filed showing the weaknesses of the government's
case, federal prosecutors tried another tack against Hallinan.

In June 1994, federal agents raided his San Francisco home, hoping to find
evidence that Hallinan had smuggled Peruvian artifacts and was illegally
trafficking in ancient art.

Hallinan had been an art collector since his undergraduate days at the
University of California at Berkeley, when he studied for an archaeology
degree.

No charges were ever filed against Hallinan based on the search warrant. He
still has not recovered hundreds of documents and valuable pieces of art
taken during the raid.

And in early 1996, Hallinan was acquitted when he faced Mancuso in court.
His lawyers were able to prove that the government had coached Mancuso's
testimony and that he was lying about Hallinan's direct knowledge of his
drug activities and money laundering.

Mancuso was sentenced to a 10-year prison term.

In November 1996, Mancuso's lawyers filed an appeal of the sentence,
contending that White had promised him "little or no jail time" for
testifying against his lawyer. Mancuso's attorneys said the government
breached its plea agreement with Mancuso.

A 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel disagreed with Mancuso's lawyers.
He is now serving his sentence at the federal penitentiary in Yankton, S.D.

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

Court Rules Against Car-Search Law (The Associated Press
says the US Supreme Court, in a rare win for privacy rights, unanimously
struck down an Iowa law Tuesday that allowed police to search people
and their cars after merely ticketing them for routine traffic violations.
The decision overturned the conviction of Patrick Knowles, who was pulled
over for speeding in 1996. An officer gave him a ticket and then searched
Knowles and his car. He was charged with possessing marijuana, convicted,
and sentenced to 90 days in jail.)

Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 19:11:20 -0500
From: Scott Dykstra (rumba2@earthlink.net)
Reply-To: rumba2@earthlink.net
To: Scott Dykstra (rumba2@earthlink.net)
Subject: CanPat - Court Rules Against Car-Search Law
Sender: owner-cannabis-patriots-l@smtp.teleport.com

Damn.....can you believe it? A little piece of....... "We've kicked
the hell out of rights, now we better give a scrap back just to look
like we're "rights" advocates"....(Supreme Court)

***

02:41 PM ET 12/08/98

Court Rules Against Car-Search Law

By LAURIE ASSEO
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - In a rare win for privacy rights, the Supreme
Court ruled Tuesday that police cannot search people and their cars
after merely ticketing them for routine traffic violations.

Such a search - without suspicion of other wrongdoing - is
unreasonable and unconstitutional, the court ruled unanimously in
an Iowa case.

The justices said police unlawfully searched an Iowa man's car
after he was stopped for speeding. The search found marijuana and a
pipe in Patrick Knowles' car.

The decision amounted to ``a pretty resounding no'' to police,
said Knowles' lawyer, Paul Rosenberg. Allowing the search would
have created a ``very big category of permissible searches,'' he
said.

``Which of us has not at some point gone over the speed limit or
made an illegal left turn?'' added Brooklyn Law professor Susan
Herman, who signed a friend-of-the-court brief on Knowles' behalf.

During arguments in the case last month, Iowa's lawyer
acknowledged that the state law would even let police search
someone stopped for jaywalking.

The ruling disappointed the National Association of Police
Organizations. Traffic stops are ``one of the least predictable and
most dangerous duties of a law enforcement officer,'' said Robert
Scully, the group's executive director.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that police can search people
after arresting them, citing a need to disarm suspects and preserve
evidence.

But Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court
Tuesday that those needs are not as great when someone is simply
being given a traffic citation.

Concern for officer safety may justify ordering a driver and
passengers out of the car but ``does not by itself justify the
often considerably greater intrusion attending a full field-type
search,'' Rehnquist said.

Police already have the authority to perform a patdown search of
motorists if the officer has reason to suspect they may be armed,
the chief justice noted. He also discounted prosecutors' argument
that officers needed to search Knowles' car to preserve evidence.

``No further evidence of excessive speed was going to be found
either on the person of the offender or in the passenger
compartment of the car,'' Rehnquist said.

The decision ran counter to the court's trend over the past
several decades of dramatically narrowing the privacy rights
afforded by the Constitution's Fourth Amendment.

Just last week, the justices ruled that people who briefly visit
someone's home do not have the same protection against a police
search as an overnight guest or their host.

Privacy rights have been judged most vulnerable when someone is
in a vehicle. The court has said drivers and passengers can be
ordered out of a car during a traffic stop, and officers can frisk
them if they are suspected of concealing a weapon.

A series of Supreme Court decisions also has made it easier for
police to search seized vehicles without first getting a court
warrant. Police generally do not need warrants before searching
cars they reasonably believe are carrying narcotics, even if no
emergency exists.

Knowles was pulled over for speeding on March 6, 1996, in
Newton, Iowa. An officer gave him a speeding ticket and then
searched Knowles and his car's passenger compartment. He was
charged with possessing marijuana, convicted and sentenced to 90
days in jail.

An Iowa law lets police either make an arrest or issue a
citation for any traffic violation. If they issue a citation, they
can make an ``otherwise lawful search.''

The Iowa Supreme Court interpreted that provision to let police
conduct a search whenever they could have arrested someone, even if
they decide to issue a citation instead. An Arkansas court recently
allowed similar searches in that state, said Rosenberg.

Doug Marek, Iowa deputy attorney general, said his office was
disappointed but not surprised by the ruling. He said he did not
expect it to have a major effect on officers' practices because the
law's search provision was little-used.

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

US Supreme Court Bans Searches In Traffic Cases (The Reuters version)

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 17:17:12 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Wire: U.S. Supreme Court Bans Searches In Traffic Cases
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Dave Fratello (amr@lainet.com)
Pubdate: 8 Dec 1998
Source: Reuters
Copyright: 1998 Reuters Limited.
Author: James Vicini

U.S. SUPREME COURT BANS SEARCHES IN TRAFFIC CASES

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that
the police may not do a full-blown search of motorists and their vehicles
if they have only been stopped and ticketed for routine traffic violations.

The high court, in an opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, refused
to give the police the same power to conduct a search in cases of traffic
citations as has existed since 1973 for motorists who have been arrested.

The ruling was unusual in that the conservative-controlled court in recent
years has generally expanded the power of the police to conduct searches
and seizures of evidence, especially in traffic-stop situations.

The ruling was a victory for the American Civil Liberties Union and a
defeat for police groups. The National Association of Police Organizations
told the high court that traffic stops were inherently dangerous and posed
a significant threat to the safety of law enforcement officers.

The ruling's impact, however, will be limited as Iowa has been the only
state to allow a search of someone stopped for a traffic citation -- a law
that has been in effect since 1983.

The case involved an Iowa police officer who stopped Patrick Knowles for
speeding on March 6, 1996, in Newton, Iowa, and issued him a citation
rather than arresting him.

The officer then conducted a full search of the car, without Knowles'
consent or suspicion a crime may have been committed. He found marijuana
and a pot pipe, and arrested Knowles.

Knowles was convicted of possession of marijuana and sentenced to 90 days
in jail. He sought to suppress the evidence on the grounds that it was an
illegal search.

Rehnquist said the search was authorized by state law, but nonetheless
violated the constitutional guarantee under the Fourth Amendment protecting
privacy rights and guarding against unreasonable searches and seizures of
evidence.

Rehnquist said searches have been allowed when a suspect has been arrested
because of concern for officer safety and because of the need to discover
and preserve evidence. These two conditions do not apply to traffic
citations, he said.

``While concern for officer safety ... may justify the 'minimal' additional
intrusion of ordering a driver and passengers out of the car, it does not
by itself justify the often considerably greater intrusions attending a
full ... search,'' Rehnquist wrote in the six-page opinion.

He said officers have other independent ways to search for weapons and
protect themselves from danger, and concluded that the search was not
justified to get evidence.

``Once Knowles was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all the
evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained,'' Rehnquist
said.

``No further evidence of excessive speed was going to be found either on
the person of the offender or in the passenger compartment of the car,'' he
said.

If a police officer suspects the driver of an undetected crime, the
motorist then should be arrested, Rehnquist said.

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

Knowles v. Iowa (A list subscriber forwards the summary
and posts a URL with the full text of the US Supreme Court's ruling
that police cannot search people and their cars merely on the basis
of a ticket for a routine traffic violation.)

Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 15:52:09 -0500
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: Jon Gettman (Gettman_J@mediasoft.net)
Subject: KNOWLES v. IOWA
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that issuing a traffic
citation does not allow police to search cars. At the moment only Iowa had
allowed such a practice. However the decision prevents any state from
utilizing this practice. In this case, a marijuana conviction has been
thrown out by the court because the search was unreasonable. The syllabus
of the case is below.

Jon Gettman

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-7597.ZS.html

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

KNOWLES v. IOWA
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

***

No. 97-7597. Argued November 3, 1998-Decided December 8, 1998

***

An Iowa policeman stopped petitioner Knowles for speeding and issued him a
citation rather than arresting him. The officer then conducted a full
search of the car, without either Knowles' consent or probable cause, found
marijuana and a "pot pipe," and arrested Knowles. Before his trial on state
drug charges, Knowles moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that because
he had not been arrested, the search could not be sustained under the
"search incident to arrest" exception recognized in United States v.
Robinson, 414 U.S. 218. The trial court denied the motion and found Knowles
guilty, based on state law giving officers authority to conduct a
full-blown search of an automobile and driver where they issue a citation
instead of making a custodial arrest. In affirming, the State Supreme Court
applied its bright-line "search incident to citation" exception to the
Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, reasoning that so long as the
officer had probable cause to make a custodial arrest, there need not in
fact have been an arrest.

Held: The search at issue, authorized as it was by state law, nonetheless
violates the Fourth Amendment. Neither of the two historical exceptions for
the "search incident to arrest" exception, see Robinson, supra, at 234, is
sufficient to justify the search in the present case. First, the threat to
officer safety from issuing a traffic citation is a good deal less than in
the case of a custodial arrest. While concern for safety during a routine
traffic stop may justify the "minimal" additional intrusion of ordering a
driver and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify the
often considerably greater intrusion attending a full field-type search.
Even without the search authority Iowa urges, officers have other,
independent bases to search for weapons and protect themselves from danger.
Second, the need to discover and preserve evidence does not exist in a
traffic stop, for once Knowles was stopped for speeding and issued a
citation, all evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been
obtained. Iowa's argument that a "search incident to citation" is justified
because a suspect may try to hide evidence of his identity or of other
crimes is unpersuasive. An officer may arrest a driver if he is not
satisfied with the identification furnished, and the possibility that an
officer would stumble onto evidence of an unrelated offense seems remote.
Pp. 3-6.

569 N. W. 2d 601, reversed and remanded.
Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

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

Search Warrant Should Not Be A Press Pass (An op-ed by Robyn Blumner
of the St. Petersburg Times in The Arizona Daily Star notes
the US Supreme Court will decide this term whether a being served
with a search warrant means suspects have to let true-crime television
cameramen or other media who tag along with police enter their homes
to record and then publicly broadcast or print photographs of their bust
for private profit. In a ruling that defies common sense, the 4th US Court
of Appeals, by a 6-5 vote, said inviting the press into a private home
to photograph an innocent couple in their nightclothes did not violate
their constitutional rights.)

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 15:15:25 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US AZ: PUB OPED: Search Warrant Should Not Be A Press Pass
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Alan Randell
Pubdate: Tue, 8 Dec 1998
Source: Arizona Daily Star (AZ)
Contact: letters@azstarnet.com
Website: http://www.azstarnet.com/
Author: Robyn Blummer, Columnist and Editorial Writer- St. Petersburg
(Fla.) Times.

SEARCH WARRANT SHOULD NOT BE A PRESS PASS

As a nation of voyeurs, we have grown accustomed to watching people's
personal business offered up on the screen. On shows like Jerry Springer
and Ricki Lake, the participants have voluntarily appeared to air their
dirty laundry. But what about reality-based shows like "Cops," where the
cameras follow police into homes?

These shows make personal and family tragedies into entertainment for the
masses, and the cameras intrude into private living rooms and bedrooms
where they are not invited or welcome. Obscuring faces, which "Cops" does
when it can't get the subject's consent to broadcast, isn't enough to
ensure privacy. Neighbors and friends easily recognize voices and a home's
interior.

Is a search warrant also a press pass? Should police be allowed to use the
authority of a warrant to invite the press into places it couldn't
otherwise go? That question will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court this
term.

I hope the voyeurs lose.

There aren't many times the right to press freedom should bend to the right
to privacy. Following Princess Diana's death, three bills were introduced
in Congress designed to limit the paparazzi. They were all patently
unconstitutional and didn't pass. Anyone in public is fair game for the
media, even pesky shutterbugs who shadow the famous.

But the home should be a sanctuary from intrusion. Cameras may be free to
be trained on the outside, even through cracks in the blinds, but the
threshold should be inviolate. Not surprisingly, police don't agree.

Police agencies across the country feed the reality-based television
machine by inviting reporters and photographers along on their patrols.
Sometimes, police aggressively promote this form of journalism by calling
reporters to join them when a big bust is about to occur. It's good PR. No
doubt the police like to see their derring-do broadcast on the evening
news or on a nationally syndicated info-tainment show.

Of course, the press has some responsibility for these real-life television
spectacles. Its willingness to invade privacy often shows no ethical
bounds. But the media don't have a legal right to break into people's
homes. Only the police have that right, when properly armed with a warrant,
and with that access comes the corresponding constitutional duty to limit
the intrusion as much as possible. Which is why I hope the Supreme Court
will tell police they can't turn a raid into an open house.

One of two cases on this question before the court involves the forced
entry into the home of Charles and Geraldine Wilson.

At 6:45 a.m. on April 14, 1992, a team of Montgomery County, Md., police
and deputy U.S. marshals entered the Wilsons' home with a Washington Post
reporter and photographer in tow. They had an arrest warrant for the
couple's adult son, Dominic Jerome Wilson. Charles Wilson was in his
underwear, and his wife Geraldine was in a sheer nightgown at the time. The
Washington Post photographer snapped pictures, and the reporter scribbled
notes while Charles Wilson was forced to lie on the floor, with a deputy's
knee in his back and a gun to his head. Deputies left when it became clear
Dominic was not in the home.

The Wilsons, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, sued the
police and marshals for a violation of the Fourth Amendment's ban on
unreasonable searches. Notably, the attorney volunteering for the case is
Richard Willard, who was an assistant attorney general under Edwin Meese,
President Ronald Reagan's attorney general.

In a ruling that defies common sense, the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals, by a
6-5 vote, found the officers not liable. The court said inviting the press
into a private home to photograph an innocent couple in their nightclothes
was not a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Huh? How about four centuries of jurisprudence in England and later here
that says a man's home is his castle? No place is more sacrosanct than the
home under our laws and traditions. It is why the Supreme Court has ruled
that even some illegal products, like obscene material, may be legally kept
in the privacy of one's own home.

The unwarranted intrusion of the home is the reason we have a Fourth
Amendment. The Townshend Acts of 1767 reauthorized the British to use
general warrants that allowed customs agents to snoop around any home they
wished to search for smuggled goods. As a response, the Founders required
warrants to be specific as to location and items to be searched or seized.
Anyone serving the warrant must be acting in furtherance of it or have a
legitimate law enforcement purpose.

Reporters don't fit into this process. Often they don't even provide a
check to abusive police practices, since over time reporters can get
co-opted by police, exchanging favorable stories for better tips. And when
the cameras are rolling, police are just as likely to heap on the swagger
and macho-man antics as to tame their behavior.

The 4th Circuit's decision in the Wilson case put it on a collision course
with two other federal appellate courts that have ruled the other way,
prohibiting police from bringing the media along on intrusive searches and
seizures.

The U.S. Supreme Court will resolve this split in the circuits, and in
doing so will, one hopes, remind police that their job is to protect the
public, not put on a show.

Robyn Blumner is a columnist and editorial writer for the St. Petersburg
(Fla.) Times.

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

Full Text of Marinol Hearing Request Available (The full text of the request
by High Times and Jon Gettman that the DEA conduct hearings
on the rescheduling of Marinol is online at the magazine's web site,
http://www.hightimes.com/ht/new/petition/index.html.)

Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 23:39:08 -0500
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: Jon Gettman (Gettman_J@mediasoft.net)
Subject: Full Text of Marinol Hearing Request Available
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

The full text of the request by High Times and Jon Gettman that the DEA
conduct hearings on the rescheduling of Marinol is now available at the
High Times web site.

The Detailed Statement to the DEA Requesting Hearings
http://www.hightimes.com/ht/new/petition/index.html

Jon Gettman

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

Re: Marinol Rescheduling (Jon Gettman and other list subscribers
discuss the request by High Times and Jon Gettman that the DEA
conduct hearings on the rescheduling of Marinol.)

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:34:31 -0500
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: Jon Gettman (Gettman_J@mediasoft.net)
Subject: Re: Marinol Rescheduling:
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

At 12:25 AM 12/10/98 EST, Dave Ford wrote:

> Might it make
>sense to NOT stand in the way of Unimed being allowed to have Marinol
>(dronabinol--synthetic pot in a capsule) moved from Schedule Two to a
>Schedule Three drug? Couldn't that then be a positive argument for
>rescheduling marijuana from Schedule One, to a Schedule Three drug? The
>DEA's own judge Francis Young in 1988 stated: "Marijuana, in its NATURAL
>FORM is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."
>So far as breaking international treaties, the US is an expert at that. Ask
>any native American.

Whether the potential rescheduling of Marinol is a positive argument for
rescheduling marijuana or not depends on how it is done. The DEA and I
have different interpretations of the provisions of the Controlled
Substances Act.

They believe that substances should be scheduled in the most restrictive
schedule possible according to their accepted medical use, and that
substances with no medical use should be prohibited by placement into
schedule 1.

I believe that substances should be scheduled in the least restrictive
schedule possible according to their potential for abuse and safety for
use, and that substances with no accepted medical use can only be
prohibited if their manufacture, sale, and distribution presents extreme
dangers to public health.

Unfortunately for the DEA my interpretation originates from a 1977 US Court
of Appeals ruling (NORML v. DEA) that explicitly rejected their
interpretation.

What if Marinol belongs in Schedule 4 and it is being placed in Schedule 3
solely because of it is the same chemical as contained in Schedule I
marijuana? Accepting that proposition carries with it acceptance of two
subsidiary propositions - that marijuana's schedule 1 status is justified
and that there are legitimate reasons to treat Marinol and THC to different
standards under the law.

As far as the treaty issue goes - consider this. What if DEA has ruled
that Marinol can be rescheduled without amending international treaties,
but that marijuana rescheduling is justified under US law but will have to
wait 3 - 5 years for international treaties to be amended and approved by
the US Senate?

Here is another interesting question. What if the DEA proposes that
marijuana be treated according to the same standard they have set for
Marinol, but that this entails conditions. What if the US proposes
creative interpretations of international treaties that allow schedule 3
status for marijuana without requiring treaty amendments, despite legally
valid arguments for less restrictive classifications that would require
treaty amendment spreading the repeal of prohibition virtually worldwide?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I know the stakes are
high. Dave raises a good and obvious question. Why not just let them
proceed and then use the precedent to support marijuana rescheduling?
Because the stakes are high and I want to make sure the fine print is
examined.

That said, there is also this. When it comes to placing marijuana in
schedule 2 (the Judge Young recommendation), research on industria hemp,
industrial hemp cultivation, physician compliance with Proposition 215 in
California, cannabis buyers' clubs, and medical marijuana initiatives the
DEA insists on strict, hair splitting, compliance with the Controlled
Substances Act. Why then should it be okay for them to cut corners on
Marinol?

I feel very obstinate about this. Questions, Criticism, and Commentary are
welcome.

Jon Gettman

***

To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: Robert Goodman (robgood@bestweb.net)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 20:23:14 -500
Subject: Marinol Rescheduling
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

This could be very interesting. In such a hearing, as the moving party, the
DEA would have the burden of proof for any facts in contest. The whole
question of "abuse" would be opened again.

I anticipate trouble with standing. You may have trouble with the
threshold criterion to get a hearing: showing that you'd be adversely
affected by less restrictive control of dronabinol. If you can show a
financial interest in marihuana, that might suffice, by making it less
likely you can make money with this competitor having looser controls. To
have such a financial interest, all you'd need is to say that you're
contemplating going into the medical marihuana business.

Robert

***

Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 01:12:19 -0500
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: Jon Gettman (Gettman_J@mediasoft.net)
Subject: Re: Marinol Rescheduling
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

There are a couple of dimensions to the issue of standing. Because of my
own petition involving dronabinol as well as marijuana and THC, I am
already certified by DEA as an interested party with standing in this area.
Another dimension derives from flaws in the basis upon which DEA and
Unimed wish to reschedule. In this area my standing is also derived from
the same basis that gave the National Federation of Parents standing to be
involved in the hearings before Judge Young. Then there is the matter of
the pre-HHS review treaty determination that may have a negative impact on
my broader petition.

But there are dimensions to standing to request a hearing in an
administrative rule-making procedure. One of them involves raising issues
that can only be addressed by a hearing, issues that require
cross-examination of witnesses to arrive at the truth and that can't be
decided on by examination of written materials.

Another dimension involves DEA's discretion to develop and apply
interpretations of the requirements of statutes and prior case decisions.
The Court has maintained that agencies can interpret the law all they want,
but these determinations carry no weight with the Court and are subject to
judicial review. A related area involves agency decisions that have the
effect of rules but have been derived at without public comment or other
aspects of the rule-making process. Agencies call these policy statements
because they do not require public comment.

The Courts have developed standards for determining what's a policy
statement and what is a rule. However of greater importance is that the
Courts have established precedents stating that they need to have a hearing
record in order to evaluate agency interpretive rulings and agency policy
statements.

In the Marinol rescheduling matter the DEA is relying on a policy statement
for which there is no evidentiary record or hearing record to review.
Furthermore the proposal that dronabinol has a lower potential for abuse
than THC when it is in fact the same chemical as THC is an interpretive
ruling that is inconsistent with various DEA policy statements on THC.

If my request for a hearing is denied I will appeal, and the Court of
Appeals will likely remand for a hearing if for no other reason than to
produce an adequate record upon which to subject the treaty and
interpretive issues to judicial review. I believe the Court will be
especially interested in DEA's argument explaining why the agency's
disregard for a prior ruling of the Court (prohibiting pre-HHS review
treaty determinations) should not be subject to that Court's review.

The resolution of these issues could adversely affect the disposition of my
petition. We'll see if the DEA prefers to respond to my concerns before an
administrative law judge or the judges of the US Court of Appeals.

Getting back to Robert's opening point -- DEA's standards for determining
the abuse potential of a drug are an interpretive ruling. It has been an
open question all along whether marijuana's abuse potential will be
determined according to the standards I have based my petition on or
whether DEA will apply other standards designed to thwart this challenge to
prohibition. Regardless of how this issue is addressed in the Marinol case
I will be able to reargue it based on the facts and record of my petition
as if follows this one through the rule-making process.

It will indeed be interesting.

Jon Gettman

***

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 23:59:59 -0500
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: Jon Gettman (Gettman_J@mediasoft.net)
Subject: Standing in Marinol Proceedings
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

From the Comments and Request for Hearing filed 12/4/98
(A) Standing.

The Code of Federal Regulations states that the Administrator shall hold a
hearing "if requested by any interested person" (21 CFR S1308.42) who is
"adversely affected or aggrieved" (21 CFR S1301.01 (a)(19)) by a proposed
rule. An interested person may also file a petition to propose or repeal a
rule (21 CFR S1301.44 (a)).

Jon Gettman and Trans-High Corporation have filed a petition for the repeal
of the rules placing marijuana, THC, dronabinol, and nabilone in schedules
I and II of the Controlled Substances Act, and for their rescheduling
according to rulemaking procedures.

The DEA accepted this petition for filing on July 27, 1995 and notified
petitioners of its referral to the Department of Health and Human Services
(DHSS) on December 19, 1997. Referral of the petition to DHHS certifies
Gettman and Trans-High as interested parties in rule-making proceedings
involving any cannabinoid substance, particularly in proceedings involving
the potential rescheduling of a substance, dronabinol, that is included in
their own petition for repeal of administrative rules.

The rescheduling of dronabinol as presently proposed advances interpretive
rulings by DEA that require judicial review and clarification, as well an
examination of adjudicative and other issues upon which these interpretive
rulings are based. Failure to intervene in this case could result in our
loss of standing to litigate these issues at a later date (National
Wildlife Fedn. V. Gorsuch, No. 83-5753, United States Court Of Appeals For
The Third Circuit, 744 F.2d 963, 1983). Public comment prior to adoption of
a rule is essential to the integrity of the administrative rulemaking
process. (Mason Gen. Hosp. V. Secretary Of The DHHS, No. 86-1011, United
States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit, 809 F.2d 1220; 1987, United
States V. Gavrilovic, Nos. 76-1219, 76-1220, 76-1242, 76-1379, 76-1381,
76-1382, United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit, 551 F.2d
1099; 1977). Adjudicative facts are more likely to warrant a hearing than
legislative facts. (Broz V. Schweiker, Nos. 81-7140, 81-7143, 81-7336,
81-7370, 81-7466, United States Court Of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 677
F.2d 1351; 1982

Gettman and Trans-High Corporation are potentially adversely affected by
the proposed rulemaking, due to their general concern for the integrity of
the rulemaking process and their specific concern for issues that may have
a bearing on the outcome of their own petition

[Section B describes 15 specific issues - see full text of complaint at:
]

(C) The following statement briefly states our position with regard to the
objections and issues above.

We are adversely affected, we believe, by:

(1) any action that reschedules one cannabinoid substance without
consideration of other cannabinoid substances.

(2) agency policies derived from determinations selectively withheld from
public comment and rulemaking procedures.

(3) agency determinations regarding scheduling of substances and treaty
compliance prior to DHHS reviews.

(4) scheduling substances in the most restrictive rather than the least
restrictive schedule allowed by law.

The rescheduling of Marinol into Schedule III is potentially unreasonable,
arbitrary, and capricious. It would be unreasonable to hold that the abuse
potential of Marinol is lower than that of THC in marijuana. It would be
arbitrary to make a premature determination regarding treaty compliance and
obligations, and to schedule dronabinol differently than THC with regard to
its potential for abuse. It would be capricious to accept such arbitrary
and unreasonable findings that are self-serving to existing agency policy
and appear to benefit two privately held companies at the expense of the
criminalization of millions of individuals who use marijuana for medical
and other reasons.

We request a hearing to establish an evidentiary record regarding these
issues and to solicit the opinion and recommendation of an administrative
law judge. We believe that this hearing needs to evaluate evidence as to
whether dronabinol satisfies the criteria necessary for Schedule III
status--particularly whether it has a lower potential for abuse relative to
Schedule I and II substances, and whether the proposed rescheduling of
dronabinol is consistent with treaty obligations.

Jon Gettman

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

Our National Epidemic (In These Times magazine says the United States,
the world leader in imprisoning its own people, is in the midst of an
incarceration epidemic. Nearly 1.9 million people are behind bars.
According to the Sentencing Project, the rate is now 645 inmates per 100,000
people - six to 10 times the rate of most European countries. The rate in
Britain, for example, is 100 per 100,000. In Norway and Greece it's 55
per 100,000. In Japan it's 37. Although China has about 10 times the US
population, we imprison nearly half a million more people. Because crime
rates have been falling, the incarceration explosion seems wildly
incongruous. It can be explained in three words: war on drugs.)

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 08:46:59 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Editorial: Our National Epidemic
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Jerry Sutliff
Source: In These Times Magazine (US)
Contact: itt@inthesetime.com
Website: http://www.inthesetimes.com/home.html
Pubdate: Tue, 08 Dec 1998
Author: Salim Muwakkil, Senior Editor, In These Times

OUR NATIONAL EPIDEMIC

The United States, the world leader in imprisoning its own people, is in the
midst of an incarceration epidemic. Nearly 1.9 million people are behind
bars here.

This astonishing level of imprisonment is a recent development. For most of
this century, the incarceration rate remained at about 110 inmates per
100,000 people, which is comparable to other industrialized countries. But
in the mid-'70s, the rate began rising, and, by the 180s, it had doubled. In
the '90s, it doubled again. According to the Sentencing Project, a
Washington-based prison watchdog group, the rate is now 645 inmates per
100,000 people-six to 10 times the rate of most European countries. The rate
in Britain, for example, is 100 per 100,000. In Norway and Greece it's 55
per 100,000. In Japan it's 37. Although China has about 10 times the U.S.
population, we imprison nearly half a million more people.

Each year the United States adds another 50,000 to 80,000 inmates to its
prison population. Based on an average growth rate of 6.5 percent since
1990, the inmate population in this country will easily surpass 2 million by
the millennium.

Because crime rates have been falling since incarceration explosion seems
wildly incongruous. It can be explained in three words: war on drugs. The
"get tough" policies of the federal government and nearly every state are
responsible for the inmate boom. Figures from the justice Department reveal
that between 1988 and 1994, the number of prison inmates convicted of drug
offenses increased by 155 percent. Thirty-one states now require mandatory
prison sentences for drug offenses.

While African-Americans make up 12 percent of the total U.S. population,
they comprise 51 percent of the nation's prison population. Black inmates'
dispro-portionate presence in prisons is directly linked to the drug war.
From 1985 to 1996, the proportion of African-Americans busted for drugs shot
up 707 per-cent. Nationally, an estimated 1.4 million African-American males
are disenfranchised from voting as a result of a felony conviction. This
represents 14 percent of the adult black male population.

Although the most reliable studies indicate that African-Americans
constitute about 13 percent of monthly drug users, they make up 35 percent
of arrests, 55 percent of convictions and 74 percent of prison sentences for
drug possession. This is largely a result of a federal law passed in 1986
that established harsher penalties for offenses involving crack cocaine than
for those involving cocaine powder.

Defendants caught with 50 grams of crack are sentenced to a mandatory 10
years-5,000 grams of powder are required for the same sentence. This 100-
to-one sentencing disparity is echoed in many state laws. The U.S.
Sentencing Commission found that African-Americans accounted for 88 percent
of those convicted of federal crack offenses. And although the commission
recommended in 1995 that federal sentences for crack and powder be
equalized, its recommendation was rejected by Congress.

In this issue, we look at two other disastrous aspects of the criminal
justice system: the epidemic of rape inside women's prisons and the shocking
number of innocent people sentenced to death for crimes they did not commit.
Such horrifying stories demand real reforms.

Already, the astounding waste of human resources reflected in these figures
and stories is attracting the attention of human rights groups and sparking
the beginning of a genuine prison reform movement. Increasingly, social
analysts are condemning a criminal justice system that seems to be
fueling--rather than dampening--crime.

Last September, a conference in Berkeley, Calif, brought together leading
activists and experts in an attempt to jump-start a prison movement that's
been moribund since the early '70s. Organized by Angela Davis, a former
political prisoner and current professor at the University of California,
Santa Cruz, the conference sought to publicize the plight of the nation's
nearly two million inmates and jolt the American public into a realization
of its complicity in a self-perpetuating dynamic that severely threatens the
country's traditions of civil liberty.

The expanding prison-industrial complex is a scavenger enterprise feeding on
social decay. Social conditions are channeling large numbers of inner-city
African-Americans into the underground economy of drug commerce and,
consequently, into prison. But instead of focusing on solutions to this
waste of potential, our nation directs resources toward a new growth
industry that depends on inmates as raw material. A society that links its
economic success to its social failures is engaged in cultural cannibalism
and is headed toward a harrowing future.

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

Scientists urge expanded use of methadone (An Associated Press article
in The Houston Chronicle notes today's issue of The Journal
of the American Medical Association includes a report by a panel
of scientists who call heroin addiction a "treatable disease," and who urge
the government to expand the availability of methadone treatment
and allow more doctors to dispense the synthetic narcotic.)

From: adbryan@ONRAMP.NET
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 06:31:41 -0600 (CST)
Subject: ART: Scientists urge expanded use of methadone
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

12-8-98
Houston Chronicle, Dallas Morning News and
many others.

http://www.chron.com
viewpoints@chron.com
http://www.dallasnews.com
letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com

Scientists urge expanded use of methadone

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Labeling heroin addiction a "treatable disease," a
panel of scientists is urging the government to expand the availability
of methadone treatment and allow more doctors to dispense the synthetic
narcotic.

The recommendation, to be published today in the Journal of the American
Medical Association, comes as the White House's drug policy office seeks
to boost money for methadone in next year's budget.

"I think that most political leaders have a strong interest in seeing
crime go down and productivity go up in their neighborhoods," said James
McDonough, chief strategist at the drug policy office. "You get that
with methadone treatment."

The office hopes for a consensus on how to increase the availability of
treatment -- for example, by offering an accreditation program for
clinics -- so it can push for legislation in Congress by fall.

But some elected officials, including New York City Mayor Rudolph
Giuliani, have denounced methadone, saying the treatment simply
substitutes one addiction for another.

The 12 scientists convened by the National Institutes of Health
acknowledge that methadone is not a panacea for substance abuse. But
they say it can enable addicts to lead productive lives, if coupled with
counseling and stable work.

An estimated 810,000 chronic heroin users live in the United States, and
115,000 receive methadone.

First used widely some 30 years ago, methadone is a narcotic that blunts
heroin addicts' craving for heroin and eases painful withdrawal. It has
some of the same physiological effects on the brain as heroin, but
without the "high" that addicts crave.

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

Human safety in medical studies inadequate, experts say
(According to The Associated Press, a report published in Wednesday's edition
of The Journal of the American Medical Association says people
used as subjects in medical studies are inadequately protected from risks,
with hazards often poorly explained and scientists often snared in conflicts
of interest.)

From: "Bob Owen@W.H.E.N." (when@olywa.net)
To: "_Drug Policy --" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: Human safety in medical studies inadequate, experts say
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 18:31:22 -0800
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net

Human safety in medical studies inadequate, experts say

By BRENDA C. COLEMAN
The Associated Press
12/08/98 6:39 PM Eastern

CHICAGO (AP) -- People in medical studies are inadequately protected from
risks, with hazards often poorly explained and scientists often snared in
conflicts of interest, a panel of experts says.

Federal regulations designed to ensure human subjects' safety are outdated
and limited in reach, the panel said in Wednesday's edition of The Journal
of the American Medical Association.

Further, the review boards at medical centers whose job it is to oversee
human safety in studies are often undertrained, overburdened and swamped
with paperwork, according to the panel from the Center for Bioethics at the
University of Pennsylvania Health System.

"The current system is straining and in danger of falling apart," said
Arthur L. Caplan, a co-author and director of the center. "It costs too
much, is too bureaucratic and doesn't give the kind of protection to
subjects that people have a right to expect."

Caplan said the first step should be to gather data on what happens to
research subjects and on how review boards do their work of overseeing
patient safety, Caplan said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

Then, steps need to be taken -- including possible federal legislation -- to
streamline the system under which research is conducted and to strengthen
the rules that govern it, Caplan and his colleagues wrote.

Currently, the only regulations are the ones developed 17 years ago by the
Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug
Administration, and they only apply to government-funded research.

"If you're privately funded, you can ignore all those rules, and that's a
major problem," Caplan said.

Medical centers increasingly get funding from drug companies and other
for-profit entities rather than the federal government, the ethicists wrote.
Concerns have mounted that researchers may be paid by the number of subjects
they enroll, which gives them an incentive to put the sponsor's interest
ahead of the subjects' interests, they said.

Also, the forms used to obtain subjects' consent to be studied have "become
vehicles for reducing legal liability for researchers and institutions,
rather than empowering subjects to make good choices about being in
research," Caplan said.

"They're also too long, too technical, and most importantly too abstract,"
he said. "If no one reads it, or if there's no intent to talk to subjects
about what really happens in research, there's a problem."

He said people who serve on institutional review boards need to get out of
board rooms and talk with study subjects, a goal that their heavy
bureaucratic workloads may currently make impossible.

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

A radical idea - Why can't people sue politicians for their deadly programs?
(A news release from Libertarian Party headquarters in Washington, DC,
says that if attorneys general in 41 states can sue tobacco and gun companies
for alleged damages to the public, why can't members of the public
sue politicians for specific damage caused by bad laws?)

Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 10:55:55 -0500
From: Scott Dykstra (rumba2@earthlink.net)
Reply-To: rumba2@earthlink.net
To: "cannabis-patriots-l@teleport.com" (cannabis-patriots-l@teleport.com)
Subject: CanPat> [Fwd: Release: Sue the Government?]
Sender: owner-cannabis-patriots-l@smtp.teleport.com

Date: Tue, 08 Dec 98 01:02:13 PST
From: announce@lp.org
Subject: Release: Sue the Government?
Sender: announce-request@lp.org
Reply-To: announce@lp.org
To: announce@lp.org (Libertarian Party announcements)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

***

NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037

***

For release: December 8, 1998

***

For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: 76214.3676@Compuserve.com

***

A radical idea: Why can't people sue
politicians for their deadly programs?

WASHINGTON, DC -- If politicians can sue gun and tobacco
companies for damages caused by their products, why can't ordinary
Americans sue politicians for the destruction caused by their products:
Government programs?

"Government programs -- such as wars, exploding automotive air
bags, and grisly radiation experiments -- have killed and maimed tens
of thousands of Americans over the years," said Steve Dasbach, national
director of the Libertarian Party.

"Americans shouldn't tolerate a double standard of justice, one
for the politicians and one for the people. It's time to start holding
the government accountable."

What started Libertarians thinking in this direction? The fact
that 41 state governments are about to divvy up a $40 billion
settlement against tobacco companies, said Dasbach -- and the fact that
several big-city mayors are deciding whether to join New Orleans in its
lawsuit against gun manufacturers.

With those legal actions serving as an inspiration, he said,
why not prosecute the government for:

* War deaths: "Recent military actions totally unrelated to
U.S. national security -- like those in the Persian Gulf, Lebanon,
Panama, and Somalia -- have claimed hundreds of American lives,"
Dasbach said. "If gun company executives can be held liable when
criminals use guns irresponsibly, why not hold presidents and
Congressmen liable when they use American troops irresponsibly?"

* Cancer deaths: "The federal government admitted last year
that Cold War nuclear tests exposed 230,000 Americans to high levels of
radioactive iodine, and may cause 75,000 people to develop fatal
thyroid cancer," Dasbach said. "If it's fair to force tobacco companies
to pay for smoking-related illnesses, it's fair to force the government
to pay for legislation-related illnesses -- like thyroid cancer."

* Air-bag deaths: "According to the federal government, 49
children have been killed by government-mandated air bags," Dasbach
said. "Their grieving parents ought to file wrongful-death suits
against the Congressmen who demanded this law and the Transportation
Department bureaucrats who wrote it."

* Alcohol-related deaths: "Eighteen state governments control
the liquor stores that operate within their borders," Dasbach said. "So
why aren't those state politicians and bureaucrats sued for the cost of
every alcohol-related car crash?"

* Deaths caused by gun-control laws: "According to a landmark
study last year by criminologists John R. Lott and David B. Mustard,
the refusal of 24 state governments to pass concealed-carry laws caused
an additional 1,414 murders, 4,177 rapes, and 60,363 aggravated
assaults in 1992 alone," Dasbach said. "Residents of these states ought
to file an immediate injunction to prevent these victim-disarmament
laws from causing more innocent blood to be shed."

* Deaths caused by criminals on parole: "According to
Department of Justice figures, murderers are freed from prison an
average of 11.6 years before their full sentence expires; armed robbers
are sprung 5 years early; and rapists are back on the streets 5.9 years
early," Dasbach said.

"The politicians who handed these murderers, robbers, and
rapists get-out-of-jail-early cards -- usually so they could fill the
jails with people convicted of victimless crimes -- ought to be charged
as an accessory to every crime these violent thugs commit."

* Gambling-related suicides: "Heavily advertised
state-sponsored lotteries siphon billions of dollars a year from
America's poor, and are directly responsible for uncountable numbers of
gambling-related bankruptcies, suicides, and broken homes," Dasbach
said. "Since politicians addicted to taxes are harming vulnerable
Americans addicted to gambling, shouldn't the state officials who run
these destructive lotteries be held personally responsible?"

But Libertarians aren't holding their breath waiting for the
government to be brought to justice, Dasbach admitted.

"Courts have consistently ruled that government is protected
from prosecution by the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity," he said.
"According to the courts, death-by-government programs are not against
the law.

"But wouldn't America be a much safer country if politicians
were held to the same standard as any other individual?

"Unfortunately, unless that happens, prosecution-proof
politicians will continue to escape the consequences of their
actions -- while hypocritically sending ordinary Americans off to
jail."


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBNmzhy9CSe1KnQG7RAQES5wP6Ap6aRD4XRSWEEnC+2Vz5+ix8aQg4ss+3
srlja3yDIqsh94SIo1xoIESwZ/61DEpXyvhO/PdJ0xt6wtcFWNkAGbt1VVyr26Tx
O+2Qv3NMcHq7ISSMV1SGHYuuRsCuAg/om+PU39NxNfj60eTMpEkPDz0wyAm9XFxu
3c0bMkh+0Zwqedo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

The Libertarian Party
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
http://www.lp.org/
voice: 202-333-0008
fax: 202-333-0072

For subscription changes, please mail to  with the
word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line -- or use the WWW form.

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

Students protest strip-search (A Canadian Press article in The Edmonton Sun
says about 200 high school students in Kingsville, Ontario, staged a walkout
yesterday to protest the strip-search of about 20 teenage boys.)

From: creator@islandnet.com (Matt Elrod)
To: mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com
Subject: Students protest strip-search
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 09:49:57 -0800
Lines: 47
Newshawk: creator@mapinc.org
Source: Edmonton Sun (Canada)
Contact: sun.letters@ccinet.ab.ca
Pubdate: Tuesday, December 8, 1998

Students protest strip-search

By CP

KINGSVILLE, Ont. -- About 200 high school students staged a walkout
yesterday to protest the strip-search of about 20 teenage boys.

A vice-principal and teacher have been ordered to stay away from
students in connection with the incident at Kingsville District High
School last Friday morning.

"In my 33 years in education I've never heard anything like this,"
said Val Pistor, director of education for the board in southwestern
Ontario.

The incident began when a student reported $90 missing following a
Grade 9 boys' gym class.

The students say their phys-ed teacher, Dan Bondy, demanded the money
be returned. When no one came forward, he searched everyone's gym bags
but found nothing.

Vice-principal John MacDonald was then called to the locker room,
where he and Bondy ordered the boys one at a time to go into an office
and take off their pants so the two men could search their pockets for
the missing money.

The teachers also told the boys to take off their underwear and bend
over to make sure they weren't hiding the money. Apparently most
complied with the order.

"Man, it just was not right," said protester Tyson Gyurkovics, 18.
"Why didn't they call the police to do that?"

Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled teachers and principals
have the right to search students on school premises if they believe
school rules are being broken. But it also set guidelines on when
searches are reasonable and how they should be conducted.

Kingsville is 30 km southeast of Windsor.

Copyright (c) 1998, Canoe Limited Partnership.

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

Charges Dropped In Drug Sting (The Toronto Sun says a Crown attorney
abruptly stayed hashish smuggling charges against a Toronto woman yesterday
following testimony from Constable Lorelei McIvor, which showed
the undercover cop to be lying.)

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 17:24:08 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Canada: Charges Dropped In Drug Sting
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: creator@mapinc.org
Pubdate: Tuesday, December 8, 1998
Source: Toronto Sun (Canada)
Contact: editor@sunpub.com
Website: http://www.canoe.ca/TorontoSun/
Copyright: 1998, Canoe Limited Partnership.
Author: Philip Lee-Shanok, Toronto Sun

CHARGES DROPPED IN DRUG STING

A Crown attorney abruptly stayed drug charges against a Toronto woman
yesterday following questionable testimony from an undercover cop.

Natalie Bennett, 26, was charged with drug-related offenses 31/2 years ago
after Toronto Police set up a sting operation to nab whoever claimed a bag
laden with 41/2 kilos of hashish sent from Jamaica.

Charges against Bennett were dropped by federal prosecutor John Healy
shortly after Const. Lorelei McIvor, an undercover cop who works with
Det.-Const. Rick Shank, testified in Brampton Court.

McIvor was also the central note-taker during the ill-fated takedown that
led to the shooting death of convicted drug dealer Hugh Dawson last Easter.
Const. Shank will face a re-trial April 19 on a manslaughter charge in
Dawson's death.

In yesterday's case, Bennett's lawyer, John Struthers, grilled McIvor --
revealing a number of gaps in her testimony.

"Initially she said she was in the kitchen and observed the drugs being
pulled out. By the end of her testimony she couldn't be sure if she was in
the kitchen or that she made any of the observations she claimed to,"
Struthers said after court.

McIvor's notes also weren't kept in accordance with Police Act rules and
weren't signed off by the officer in charge, Struthers said.

"There was evidence she was keeping a second set of notes and she was using
other police officers' notes to make up her notes," Struthers said.

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

Drugs And Weapons Seized As Police Arrest 70 In Dawn Raids (The Scotsman
says prohibition agents in Lothian and Borders claimed a big victory
in the fight against heroin dealers yesterday. An operation aimed at stopping
a huge rise in the use of the drug snared 70 people, more than £300,000
in illegal substances and assets, and an arsenal of weapons.)

Newshawk: Martin Cooke (mjc1947@cyberclub.iol.ie)
Source: Scotsman (UK)
Contact: Letters_ts@scotsman.com
Website: http://www.scotsman.com/
Copyright: The Scotsman Publications Ltd
Pubdate: 8 Dec 1998
Author: Andrew Walker

DRUGS AND WEAPONS SEIZED AS POLICE ARREST 70 IN DAWN RAIDS

POLICE claimed a big victory in the fight against heroin dealers yesterday
after an operation aimed at stopping a huge rise in the use of the drug.

Lothian and Borders police arrested 70 people, seized more than UKP300,000 in
illegal substances and assets and confiscated an arsenal of weapons during
Operation Foil.

The action, which took place over four days, was a direct response to a huge
increase in heroin supplies in the past year. Increasing numbers of drug
users are smoking heroin instead of injecting it, but force commanders said
they did not want the authorities to be caught out as they had been in the
early 1980s, when the drug flooded the capital.

The chief constable, Roy Cameron, said a large number of so-called "Mr Bigs"
had been arrested and he said that other dealers who had escaped the
crackdown would continue to be targeted.

The police said the operation had severely disrupted the supply chain and
promised to continue the crackdown.

Large quantities of the drug have flooded the Lothians and the Borders over
the past year. Police said the supplies are very pure but one "wrap" costs
little more than an ecstasy tablet.

Mr Cameron said: "Many people out there are chasing the dragon but our
mission and aim is to slay the dragon. The message to dealers is simple.
They can cancel this year's Christmas."

The operation, which took months to plan, involved 800 uniformed and
specialist officers who carried out a number of pre-dawn raids across the
region over the past four days.

Police said that some of the 100 homes and other premises raided were heavily
fortified but they managed to seize drugs, mostly heroin, worth UKP250,000,
as well as UKP100,000 cash. Weapons, including handguns and a crossbow, were
also captured. Other drugs seized included ecstasy, amphetamines, cocaine and
cannabis.

Mr Cameron said: "This has been the biggest co-ordinated operation in the
history of Lothian and Borders police and directly targeted heroin dealers.
There has been a 400 per cent increase in reported heroin use since 1996,
when we had fewer than 20 cases. Now we have over 100. We were anxious not
to return to the bad old days in the 1980s and all the problems associated
with that period.

"This action sends out a message that we will be the champions of communities
in a sustained endeavour to render our streets drug-free for the benefit of
everyone. We regard the people we have arrested as very significant players
in terms of the drug network in Lothian and Borders. The term 'Mr Big' is
relative, but for us they are 'Mr Bigs'."

The assistant chief constable, Tom Wood, who is in charge of force
operations, said that heroin supplies were arriving in Edinburgh from Turkey
but the operation had put a major spanner in the works for many dealers. He
said the raids were carried out across the region as a reflection that the
drug was available not only in the city housing estates. The raids took place
in Livingston, Dalkeith, Gilmerton and Craigmillar in Edinburgh and in towns
and villages in the Borders. Mr Wood said: "We went into the Borders after we
received intelligence reports, which shows just how widespread this problem
is. It is a problem in small villages just as much as in the city."

Officers said they were keen to halt the progress of the drug trade in
Edinburgh before the problem mirrored that which is being experienced in
Glasgow at the moment.

Mr Wood said: "We do not have the gang warfare over turf that is visible not
too far from here. But we wanted to nip it in the bud before the situation
escalated to that, a threat which was very real.

"It could be argued that in the late 1970s and early 1980s we were caught
napping by the drug problem. We are determined that will not happen again and
is something we will simply not accept. This operation was not a flash in the
pan."

Detective Chief Superintendent Douglas Watson, the head of CID, said: "This
was a difficult operation to execute and we encountered some heavily
fortified houses during these raids. But that does not put us off and many
dealers were woken up with us kicking their doors down at 6 am.

"At first our information was that the drug was simply being smoked. But we
now fear increasing numbers of people are beginning to inject heroin."

Armed officers also stood by during the raids, during which two officers were
bitten by guard dogs.

The chief constable has written to all agencies involved in the fight against
drugs to highlight the tough police action.

Meanwhile, a conference in Glasgow yesterday addressed Scotland's drug
problem and how it could be tackled.

In the first forum of its kind since Scotland Against Drugs was convened,
politicians, young people, drug workers, recovering addicts, doctors and the
police met to discuss the way forward.

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

O'Donoghue Rules Out Decriminalising Drugs (The Irish Independent
says the comments by the Irish justice minister, John O'Donoghue,
came in response to a statement by the National Crime Forum
that it would be happy to see the issue discussed in a calm
and dispassionate manner.)

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 03:04:28 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Ireland: O'Donoghue Rules Out Decriminalising Drugs
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Martin Cooke (mjc1947@cyberclub.iol.ie)
Pubdate: Tue, 8 Dec 1998
Source: Irish Independent (Ireland)
Contact: independent.letters@independent.ie
Website: http://www.independent.ie/
Copyright: Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd
Author: Fergus Black

O'DONOGHUE RULES OUT DECRIMINALISING DRUGS

JUSTICE Minister John O'Donoghue yesterday firmly ruled out any move
towards decriminalising drugs declaring it should not happen in any
circumstances.

The Minister was commenting after the National Crime Forum said it would be
happy to see the issue discussed in a calm and dispassionate manner.

Mr O'Donoghue, who was presented with a copy of the Forum's report, said
the document did not come down on one side or the other on the question of
decriminalisation.

AGAINST

But he said that he personally was against the decriminalisation of
controlled substances, and would not go along with the idea.

The Forum said it had received submissions for and against the
decriminalisation of some or all drugs. Those who advocated such a course
did so out of a conviction that it was the very illegality of certain drugs
which gave rise to many of the problems arising from them.

However, those opposed to the notion said the move would encourage the use
of drugs at a time when the need was to discourage it.

While most of the Forum members were open to persuasion on the subject,
they did not have an opportunity to undertake the necessary study in depth
which would enable them to reach an informed judgment.

"All agreed, however, that the issue was important and required careful
study. It is anticipated that this matter will be more fully debated and
the Forum would be happy to see the issues discussed in a calm and
dispassionate manner."

Dealing with drugs and crime the report says that there was considerable
and understandable public concern at the damage which the recent growth in
drug abuse was doing.

Those addicted to the use of opiates were tied into a habit which could
conservatively be estimated to cost them IEP500 - IEP700 a week to maintain.

"Since many of those in that situation are young people with minimal means,
that cost inevitably drives them to criminal activity to find the money."

An enormous task remained to identify those most at risk of becoming
involved in drugs and crime, targeting them with a strategy of prevention
and early intervention and establishing the necessary treatment facilities
at community level.

The report says that perhaps the greatest disquiet related to what was
perceived, correctly or incorrectly, as a lack of response in terms of
Garda arrests and prosecutions. There was, however, widespread agreement
that the gardai were doing an enormous amount of good work, both in
enforcing the law and diverting young people from a life of drug-related
crime.

THREE MEASURES

It was evident that any comprehensive approach to tackling the problem
involved three measures limitation of the supply, reduction of the demand
and treatment for those who became involved with drug use.

"The public is favourably disposed towards a firm policy on bringing drug
dealers to justice indeed, the public expects it. Quite authoritarian
measures are deemed acceptable in an effort to combat what is perceived as
the social blight of drugs."

The biggest single contribution to reducing the scourge of drugs would be
an effective drive to remove social and economic disadvantage within
certain communities.

Partnership approaches involving the community, local authorities, health
boards, gardai, youth services and other agencies were strongly advocated
in submissions.

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

Think About It (A staff editorial in The Irish Independent
says that when a body with the status of the National Crime Forum
comes out in favour of discussing the de-criminalisation of so-called
soft drugs we should take heed. Drugs are a huge issue for society,
yet one which is rarely if ever debated in a non-hysterical or unemotional
way. The Forum is correct, if science has a case it should be heard.)

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 10:54:11 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Ireland: Editorial: Think About It
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Martin Cooke (mjc1947@cyberclub.iol.ie)
Pubdate: Tue, 8 Dec 1998
Source: The Irish Independent
Section: Editorial
Contact: independent.letters@independent.ie
Website: http://www.independent.ie/
Copyright: Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd

THINK ABOUT IT

WHEN a body with the status of the National Crime Forum comes down in
favour of discussing the de-criminalisation of so-called soft drugs we
should take heed.

Drugs are a huge issue for society, yet one which is rarely if ever debated
in a non-hysterical or unemotional way. The Forum is correct, if science
has a case it should be heard.

For instance, is it not anomalous that doctors may prescribe opiates or
heroine substitutes but not cannabis, although it has been recognised by
medical associations around the world as being extremely effective in the
treatment of pain in a number of illnesses?

The matter is also worth examining from the law and order perspective.
Those in favour of legalising drugs claim that a ban is meaningless as it
can never be completely enforced.

It is simplistic to argue that decriminalising drugs would put an end to
pushers or organised crime. There will always be groups who would need to
be protected and therefore open to be exploited by pushers.

Those in favour of lifting the ban will also raise the question of social
hypocrisy. Why should it be perfectly legal for an individual to abuse
alcohol, which is arguably as harmful and addictive as cannabis?

In an ideal world such a debate would not be necessary, but as the growing
number of addicts will attest we are a long way from that, and therefore at
the very least have an obligation to hear both sides of the debate.

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

[End]