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

Alert - Medical Marijuana Under Attack (John Sajo of Voter Power responds to
list subscribers' alarm over news of an attempt by Rep. Mannix in the Oregon
legislature to dismantle the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act, saying Oregonians
for Medical Rights are carefully watching the legislature and are working to
prevent any changes to OMMA. Sajo also forwards the text of a resolution
drafted by Voter Power that has been introduced by Rep. Jo Ann Bowman,
calling on the federal government to reschedule marijuana under the
Controlled Substances Act. The idea behind the resolution is to have those
who won the marijuana votes last fall set the agenda, not the people who
lost. "Mannix and our other opponents will help us in the long run. We need
them to articulate their ideas, which are no longer aligned with most
voters.")

From: "johns" (johns@rosenet.net)
To: "cannabis patriots" (cp@telelists.com)
Subject: [cp] Re: ALERT-MEDMJ Under Atta
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 16:44:50 -0900

Paul Freedom wrote:

>> ALERT-MEDMJ Under Attack
>> OREGON LEGISLATURE AND KEVIN FASCIST MANNIX
>> DRAFT LEGISLATION TO STOP THE AFFIRMATIVE
>> DEFENSE.
>>
>> MANNIX IS A FASCIST PIG WHO IS RUINING THE STATE
>> OF OREGON! HE GOT MANDATORY MINIMUMS,ETC.
>> MORE PRISONS MR. MANNIX FOR YOUR POT VICTIMS!
>> TO HELL WITH KEVIN MANNIX!
>>
>> I WILL TRY TO TRANSCRIBE THE ENTIRE ARTICLE.
>> STAY TUNED!
>>
>> THIS BULLSHIT WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF PEOPLE
>> WOULD SEE THE FALLACY OF MEDICAL CANNABIS LAWS.
>> IT'S ALL OR NOTHING! TOTAL LEGALIZATION!
>>
>> PAUL

Chuck wrote:

> WHAT? how can you attack a constitutional amendment?? Well I guess
> you could try to amend the amendment. Wasn't Oregons a constitutional
> amenment?
>
>
> See ya
> Chuck

John [Sajo, of Voter Power,] wrote:

The Oregon Medical Marijuana Act was a statutory change and can be modfied
by the Oregon Legislature.

OMR is carefully watching the legislative process and is working to stop
the changes to OMMA. Voter Power drafted a resolution which has been
introduced by Jo Ann Bowman calling for rescheduling marijuana under the
Controlled Substances Act.

The idea behind this resolution is to have those of us who won the
marijuana votes last fall set the agenda on drug policy, not the people
who lost. Mannix and his supporters are presenting the notion that OMMA is
flawed and needs to be fixed (tightened up). We are presenting the notion
that the Oregon voters know that marijuana is medicine and the next step
is to make sure patients who need it can get it, and that means changing
the federal policy.

The reality is that OMMA is about the best you can do with a state law and
is extremely conservative. The real problems with medical marijuana come
from the federal policy which prohibits any supply of the medicine.
Marijuana is scheduled in Schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act
which implies that it is 1) extremely dangerous and 2) has no medical
value. These two lies are the basis for federal policy. These two lies have
caused unmeasurable suffering for hundreds of thousands of patients. It is
time for us to shift the public debate to the next level on medical
marijuana, which is to expose the federal policy that deprives sick people
of their medicine to serve political purposes.

Mannix and our other opponents will help us in the long run. We need them
to articulate their ideas, which are no longer aligned with most voters.

His bill (and the rescheduling resolution) give Oregon activists another
chance to organize. We have a chance of stopping these bad laws right in
the Republican controlled Oregon Legislature. And if we can't, and if
Kitzhaber won't veto another reckless marijuana law, we'll refer it back to
voters by petitioning. (The number of signatures required for a referendum
has actually dropped to 44,524)

More details will follow on how you can help.

Here is the resolution:

Rescheduling Resolution

A resolution from the Oregon Legislature urging the United States Congress
to reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act.
(Long Version)

Summary:

This measure would memorialize the President and the Congress of the
United States to enact appropriate legislation to permit marijuana to be
prescribed by licensed physicians and to ensure that a safe, affordable,
regulated supply of marijuana can be available at pharmacies for medical
use.

WHEREAS, an increasing body of scientific evidence conludes that marijuana
is a safe and effective medicine with low toxicity compared to most
prescription drugs and it has been shown to be effective in the treatment
of glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, muscle spasicity, the nausea,
vomiting and appetite loss associated with chemotherapies treating cancer,
certain forms of chronic severe pain, and the AIDS wasting syndrome; and

WHEREAS; the voters of Oregon have approved the concept of marijuana as a
medicine by passing the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (ballot measure 67) at
the Novemeber 3, 1998 general election, and

WHEREAS; the only way for a patient to obtain medical marijuana under
current Oregon law is to grow it themselves or find a caregiver who will
grow it for them, and

WHEREAS; this system is unlikely to help many patients who need medical
marijuana such as recently diagosed cancer patients suffering from the
nausea associated with chemotherapy who do not have time to grow a
marijuana plant to maturity or find a caregiver, and

WHEREAS; this system is unlikely to help severely ill or handicapped
patients who would benefit from medical marijuana but are physically unable
to grow marijuana or find a caregiver, and

WHEREAS; this system will not help patients who are hospitalized but whose
physicans recommend that medical marijuana will mitigate their symptoms;
and

WHEREAS; patients should have the option of obtaining medical marijuana at
a pharmacy in the same way that they obtain other prescription drugs, and

WHEREAS; doctors should be able to prescribe marijuana to patients without
fear of arrest or other penalty for conditions which the scientific
evidence shows will be amieliorated by medical marijuana, and

WHEREAS; the reason doctors cannot prescribe marijuana and pharmacies
cannot make marijuana available to patients is because it is misclassified
as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act, which
falsely holds that medical marijuana is extremely dangerous and has no
medical utility, findings contradicted by scientific evidence, and

WHEREAS; the experience of thousands of patients around the country, as
expressed in numerous affidavits and testimony at public hearings,
indicates that medical marijuana does indeed mitigate their symptoms, and

WHEREAS; in 1988 Francis Young, an administrative law judge for the Drug
Enforcement Administration, ruled based on extensive evidence that
marijuana should be resheduled, and

WHEREAS; the Drug Enforcement Administration ignored this ruling and

WHEREAS; Barry McCaffrey, the Director of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, threatened doctors with losing their ability to prescibe
controlled substances if they expressed their validly held medical
judgement that marijuana might help relieve patients' symptoms based on the
best scientific research available, and

WHEREAS; the misscheduling of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled
substance inhibits research which will further clarify the extent of
marijuana's medical utility and methods of using it most safely, and

WHEREAS; the people of Alaska, Washington, California, Nevada, Colorado,
and the District of Columbia, in addition to Oregon, every jurisdiction
that has considered and voted on this issue, voted for medical marijuana,
and

WHEREAS; properly scheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act
will ensure a regulated supply of pure unadulterated medical grade
marijuana of known potency, and

WHEREAS; not properly scheduling marijuana forces some patients to support
the illegal black market in marijuana, and

WHEREAS; rescheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act is the
compassionate way to provide medical marijuana to patients who will benefit
from it:

It is the sense of the Oregon Legislature that marijuana ought to be
rescheduled from Schedule I, under the Controlled Substances Act, and
therefore the Oregon Legislature recommends to the United States Congress
and the President of the United States that marijuana be rescheduled.

Therefore the Secretary of the Senate shall transmit copies of this
resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to each Senator and
Representative from Oregon in the Congress of the United States.

***

For information contact Voter Power 503-736-0907

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

Hyping The Drug War (A staff editorial in the Orange County Register pans the
Clinton administration's latest drug-war battle plan, saying the real issue
is whether America should continue to step up its drug war, or seek out less
politically expedient, but more promising approaches. What's missing is the
realization that most low-level drug use poses no harm to society. Most
disturbing about the administration's plan: It uses the specter of a teen
drug epidemic to maintain popular support. But the nation's drug problem is
most severe among aging baby boomers. Focusing on the teen drug problem is
dishonest.)

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:00:46 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Editorial: Hyping The Drug War
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John W. Black
Pubdate: Tues, 16 Feb 1999
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Copyright: 1999 The Orange County Register
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/

HYPING THE DRUG WAR

Judging by the Clinton administration's latest drug-war battle plan
and Republican rebuttals to it, the American people are given this odd
choice: Give the feds more money and authority to target illegal
narcotics here and overseas or give the feds even more money and
authority to do those very same things.

Earlier this month, Vice President Al Gore outlined the White House's
latest anti-drug strategy, which he called an "all-out effort to
banish crime, drugs and disorder and hopelessness from our streets,"
complete with ambitious targets, such as cutting drug availability and
use in half by 2007.

The plan calls for educating children, helping addicts get treatment,
adopting a "zero tolerance" program for testing and punishing
drug-using prisoners and parolees, stepping up border patrols and
finding ways to reduce the supply of drugs from domestic and
international sources. Congressional Republicans didn't dispute the
specifics, but mainly question whether the administration is devoting
enough resources to accomplish its goals.

Banishing, or at least slashing in half, drug use and attacking
related crime, disorder and hopelessness is no short order. It's
unlikely that any proposal would earmark enough federal funds to make
real headway into such deeply rooted and ill-defined social problems.

The real issue is whether America should continue to step up its drug
war, as the administration's proposal would do, or seek out less
politically expedient, but more promising approaches. Two
administration proposals have merit - focusing on drug treatment and
targeting parolees - even though they are not federal matters. But the
bulk of the Clinton-Gore plan concentrates on law enforcement and
interdiction, approaches that have been largely unsuccessful in the
past. What's missing is the realization that most low-level drug use
poses no harm to society, and that attacking supply without reducing
demand only drives up drug prices and induces addicts to commit crimes
to pay for their habits.

Most disturbing about the administration's plan: It uses the specter of a
teen drug epidemic to maintain popular support for these policies. Mike
Males, the Irvine-based author of "Framing Youth: Ten Myths About the Next
Generation," told us that the nation's drug problem is most severe among
aging baby boomers and that focusing on the teen drug problem is dishonest.

In 1997, there were 12 teen-age deaths in Orange and Los Angeles
counties attributed to drug overdoses, Mr. Males said. That compares
to 768 adult deaths in both counties for all overdoses. "If I were
(drug czar) Barry McCaffrey, I would stop saying teens have a drug
problem."

Rather than doing an honest assessment of the "structure of the drug
abuse problem," and finding ways to direct effective treatment toward
hard-core addicts, Mr. Males said the administration is busy arresting
casual drug abusers and "scar(ing) suburban parents."

Mr. Males' comments confirm what we have long argued: The drug war has
become a self-perpetuating government crusade that exploits legitimate
fears to maintain its funding and to justify its oftentimes unjust
policies. The latest U.S. proposal is nothing more than a repackaging
of the same old tried-and-failed policies.

Given political realities, we don't expect U.S. officials to be
willing to abandon their misguided drug policies. But we do expect
them to tone down the battle rhetoric and calmly analyze the nature of
the problem. An honest self-appraisal might be the first step on the
road to recovery for the government's drug-war addiction.

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

Just Say So: D.A.R.E. Doesn't Work (An op-ed in the San Francisco Examiner by
Kendra E. Wright of Family Watch says drug education and prevention will
never succeed as long as DARE - the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program -
is ensconced in 70 percent of our children's schools. Over the last five
years, studies have been conducted for the federal General Accounting Office
and Justice Department and for the California Department of Education. They
describe how DARE and other anti-drug programs fail to reach the teenagers
most at risk of drug abuse. Joel Brown of Berkeley-based Educational Research
Consultants was hired by the California Department of Education to conduct
one of the most extensive qualitative studies of drug education programs to
date. He found that DARE and other programs may actually be hurting our
kids.)

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:07:52 EST
Originator: dare-list@calyx.net
Sender: dare-list@calyx.net
From: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.org)
To: Multiple recipients of list (dare-list@calyx.net)
Subject: US: SFX: PUB OPED: Just Say So: D.A.R.E. Doesn't Work
X-ListProcessor-Instructions: Send an email to listproc@calyx.net with the
subject blank and the BODY containing nothing but the word HELP for
instructions.
X-Comment: A list to discuss D.A.R.E.
Newshawk: Kevin Zeese (kevzeese@laser.net)
Pubdate: Tue, 16 Feb 1999
Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Copyright: 1999 San Francisco Examiner
Page: A15
Contact: letters@examiner.com
Website: http://www.examiner.com/
Forum: http://examiner.com/cgi-bin/WebX
Author: Kendra E. Wright
Note: The SFX wrote: Examiner contributor Kendra Wright is director of
Family Watch, a national network concerned about the impact of drug policy
on families, women and children.
We add: The Family Watch website is at: http://www.familywatch.org/ Since
1997, Kendra has served as the Chairperson of DrugSense. Kendra's bio is
at: http://www.drugsense.org/kw/

JUST SAY SO: D.A.R.E. DOESN'T WORK

DRUG CZAR Barry McCaffrey announced last week a plan to cut drug use in
half by 2007. His goal - getting mentors and role models more active in the
lives of kids - is laudable. But drug education and prevention will never
succeed as long as D.A.R.E. - the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program -
is ensconced in 70 percent of our children's schools.

Over the last five years, studies have been conducted for the federal
General Accounting Office and Justice Department and for the California
Department of Education. They describe how D.A.R.E. and other anti-drug
programs fail to reach the teenagers most at risk of drug abuse.

Joel Brown of Berkeley-based Educational Research Consultants was hired by
the state Department of Education to conduct one of the most extensive
qualitative studies of drug education programs to date. He found that
D.A.R.E. and other programs may actually be hurting our kids.

Brown's conclusions - eloquently articulated for him by the teens he
interviewed - were so disturbing that in 1995 the state education agency
buried the report. (The findings became public in 1997 when published in
the prestigious Education Evaluation and Policy Review Journal.)

If kids are taught that marijuana is as bad as heroin, and then try pot and
experience few consequences, they are often more likely to experiment with
the dangerously addictive hard drug.

There are other problems. Most teens oppose authoritarian measures used to
punish peers caught with alcohol or drugs. The teenagers Brown interviewed
questioned whether suspension from school is really the best way to deal
with kids caught experimenting with drugs.

You might wonder why the Republicans haven't attacked D.A.R.E. - which the
federal government subsidizes to the tune of more than $650 million a year.
Or why the Democrats, who consider education policy their domain, haven't
created a national commission to find something better.

The reason for the silence is that D.A.R.E., which relies on uniformed
police officers and scare tactics to drum the "just say no" message into
our kids, is an effective marketing machine. By combining grassroots PR -
including T-shirts, bumper stickers and rallies - with aggressive political
lobbying of local, state, and federal governments, D.A.R.E. has become its
own special interest group.

The core of the problem is that D.A.R.E. boosters refuse to recognize that
teenagers experiment with drugs. Government surveys show, however, that
half of high school students try an illegal drug before graduation. How do
we reach these youngsters?

We can turn around drug education by abandoning the "just say no" cookie
cutter approach. We can find funds for pilot programs that seek to reduce
the harms associated with drugs, including addiction. We should focus on
the capabilities, not inabilities, of our children. Most importantly we
should understand that drug experimentation is different from drug abuse,
and seek ways to help the most at-risk kids.

As in 12-step programs, the first step toward recovery is the recognition
that we have a problem.

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

Lawmakers Consider Bills To Permit Use Of Marijuana For Medical Reasons (The
Honolulu Star-Bulletin says three committees in the Hawaii legislature
considered two different bills today that would allow the medical use of
marijuana. While commending Gov. Ben Cayetano for introducing HB 1157,
advocates for medical marijuana patients generally preferred the less
restrictive HB 1341, submitted by House Health Chairman Alex Santiago.)

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 05:24:48 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US HI: Lawmakers Consider Bills To Permit Use Of Marijuana For
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: Tues, 16 Feb 1999
Source: Honolulu Star-Bulletin (HI)
Copyright: 1999 Honolulu Star-Bulletin
Contact: letters@starbulletin.com
Website: http://www.starbulletin.com/
Author: Helen Altonn, Star-Bulletin

LAWMAKERS CONSIDER BILLS TO PERMIT USE OF MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL REASONS

Many Life Foundation clients use it to treat AIDS symptoms

Crime or compassion?

Those were the issues debated today as three legislative committees
considered bills to remove criminal penalties blocking medical use of
marijuana.

"I guess I'm here this morning to report a crime," said Paul S. Groesbeck,
executive director of the Life Foundation, Hawaii's largest AIDS program.
About one-third of the foundation's 500 active clients use marijuana to
treat AIDS symptoms, he told the House and Senate Health Committees and
House Public Safety Committee.

Groesbeck joined other groups and individuals in supporting legislation to
allow Hawaii doctors to prescribe marijuana for medical purposes.

Among opponents are the Hawaii Medical Association, American Cancer
Society, Hawaii Catholic Conference, Hawaii Ophthalmological Society and
Hawaii County Police Department.

The HMA, American Medical Association and National Institutes of Health
advocate increased research into use of medical marijuana. "Physicians
cannot in good faith recommend a drug therapy without the clinical evidence
to back them up," HMA officials said.

Supporters of medical marijuana generally favor HB 1341, submitted by House
Health Chairman Alex Santiago, rather than HB 1157, proposed by the state
administration.

While commending Gov. Ben Cayetano for introducing legislation that would
allow the medical use of marijuana, supporters criticized his measure as
too restrictive.

It would require two physicians to approve marijuana for medical reasons;
it would limit use to someone with a severe or terminal illness, and it
would require the Department of Public Safety to create a confidential
registry of qualifying patients.

If passed, it "would only lead to constant wrangling and costly
litigation," said Donald Topping, president of the Drug Policy Forum of
Hawaii.

Pam Lichty, board member of the American Civil Liberties Union, who is on
the National ACLU board, also expressed concerns about the administrative
bill -- especially the elaborate registry procedures and involvement of
public safety officials.

Lichty and Topping agreed with former Rep. David Tarnas who emphasized,
"This is a health issue -- not a public safety issue. Registries don't
work. Allow physicians to do their job." State Health Director Bruce
Anderson, noting other states are taking action to allow medical marijuana,
said "Hawaii should be equally compassionate."

Among conditions for which it has been approved in other states, he said,
are cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, seizure and spasticity disorders, severe
pain and nausea.

Hawaii County Police Chief Wayne Carvalho said both bills, as currently
written, "would not only allow, but encourage widespread abuse of legalized
medical use of marijuana." Medical Oncologist Reginald C.S. Ho said he
opposes legalizing marijuana for medical use for the same reason he would
appose any other new drug -- until it's proven safe and beneficial through
controlled research clinical trials.

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

Drugs Won't Pay (An editorial in the Cavalier Daily at the University of
Virginia, in Charlottesville, argues against the Drug Reform Coordination
Network's campaign to organize college students to overturn the ban in the
Higher Education Act on student loans to anyone convicted of possessing
marijuana or other supposedly controlled substances.)

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:18:08 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Editorial: Drugs Won't Pay
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: rlake@mapinc.org
Source: The Cavalier Daily (University of Virginia)
Copyright: 1999 The Cavalier Daily, Inc.
Pubdate: Tue, 16 Feb 1999
Section: Lead Editorial
Contact: cavdaily@cavalierdaily.com
FAX: (804) 924-7290
Mail: Basement, Newcomb Hall; Charlottesville, VA 22904
Website: http://www.cavalierdaily.com/
Note: Information on DRCNet's HEA reform campaign is at http://www.u-net.org/

DRUGS WON'T PAY

It used to be that only those who could afford a college education received
one. Now, more Americans than ever have college degrees, indeed, a college
diploma is almost a prerequisite for success in life. Opportunities to
receive financial aid have expanded; most people on these Grounds know
someone who has a loan or a grant. Financial aid, however, does not grow on
trees. Until approved FAFSAs start to bloom on McCormick Road gingkos, or
more money is invested in grants and loans, a government-subsidized
education will remain a privilege, not a right.

The Drug Reform Coordination Network hopes you disagree. The non-profit
group is coordinating what they bill as a "national student-led campaign to
raise awareness and opposition" to a provision in the Higher Education Act
of 1998. The provision (Section 483, subsection 'F') denies federal
financial aid to any student "who has been convicted of any offense under
any Federal or State law involving the possession or sale of a controlled
substance." The ineligibility period for a convicted possession starts at
one year for the first offense. A conviction for the sale of a controlled
substance carries a two-year ineligibility for the first offense.

Under the provision, federal financial aid applications ask applicants
whether they have ever been convicted of a drug offense. Before the Act's
passage in October, the only questions dealing with a criminal record
involved incarceration.

In opposition to the provision, DRCNet raises the question: Should drug use
be a consideration in financial aid applications where convictions for
crimes such as rape are not considered? But this disparity argues for the
punishment of convictions such as rape through financial aid applications,
rather than for the overturning of the HEA provision.

The overturning of this provision would be a disservice to higher
education. If the government subsidizes or fully funds a drug user's
education, and that student uses personal funds to support his drug use,
the government is, in effect, subsidizing the drug use.

Also, because financial aid is limited, every person who receives a loan or
grant does so at the expense of someone who was denied aid. With so many
people looking for the means to attend college, it is only fair that those
who have stayed clean are awarded aid over those who have not. It is true
that such a policy might result in the denial of aid to a few people who
are truly trying to turn their lives around, but that does not justify
withholding aid from those who have committed no crimes.

And the ineligibility periods are not set in stone. The provision includes
a clause on rehabilitation. Under this provision, a student may regain
eligibility before the end of the period provided that he completes a drug
rehabilitation program.

Keeping these in mind, we find that we cannot condone financial aid for
active drug users.

With that said, the wording of the provision could prove troublesome. The
first clause states that eligibility suspension will affect any "student
who has been convicted ... ." This leads the reader to believe that any
student who has, in the past, been convicted of a drug offense could lose
financial aid.

Punitive measures should not extend to offenses committed years before the
offender applies to college. Other than that, the provision is justifiable
and necessary.

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

Clinton Talks Of Self Renewal (An Associated Press account of the U.S.
president's visit to Mexico concludes by confirming "Stewards passed out
Hemp Golden beer" on the trip back home aboard Air Force One.)

Newshawk: GDaurer
Source: Associated Press
Copyright: 1999 Associated Press
Pubdate: Tue, 16 Feb 1999
Author: Sandra Sobieraj

CLINTON TALKS OF SELF RENEWAL

WASHINGTON (AP) -- For President Clinton, this appears a time of self-renewal
and forward focus as he claims the world stage -- and New Hampshire's
familiar political terrain -- with talk of a ``new season'' and ``this tide
of spring.''

The president's words as he sat opposite Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo on
Monday were not new. The aftermath of his impeachment and acquittal should,
for the nation, be a ``time for reconciliation and renewal,'' Clinton
reiterated during his quick trip to Merida, Mexico.

But his brimming confidence this time suggested he feels he's won not only a
second chance but a stronger hand. Clinton took off work today and, after a
long abstinence, took to the golf course with brother-in-law Hugh Rodham and
top Democratic fund-raiser Terence McAuliffe.

From commanding the world stage on his 23-hour mission to Mexico, Clinton
takes the policy helm of his Democratic Party on Wednesday, with a Social
Security forum at the White House -- the centerpiece of a day when Democrats
fan out to Social Security town meetings nationwide.

Friday, he welcomes French President Jacques Chirac at the White House and is
planning his first news conference since last summer.

In between, Clinton will spend all of Thursday making stops around New
Hampshire, where in the 1992 campaign he coined his own nickname as ``The
Comeback Kid.''

``I never saw him act like a man in trouble in the first place,'' Rep.
Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Monday evening as he boarded Air Force One
behind Clinton en route home from Mexico. ``But he sure had a great day
today.''

Thousands and thousands of Mexicans, many setting up mariachi-style bands on
the sidewalk, lined the streets of Merida to cheer Clinton's motorcade with
flags and banners wishing him and ``su esposa (your wife) Hillary'' happy
returns.

``This joy, this warmth, this affection is reserved only for our dearest
friends,'' Zedillo said.

Clinton basked in that affection.

He thanked the congressional delegation with him -- including Republican
Reps. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Rob Portman of Ohio and Kevin Brady of
Texas, each of whom voted in favor of Clinton's impeachment -- for their show
of ``America's commitment for the common future we will make together.''

To officials from both Mexico and the United States, Clinton proclaimed:
``This tide of spring has brought a new season of friendship.''

He was talking about U.S.-Mexican relations, but the sentiment appeared to
apply more broadly.

On the return flight to Washington late Monday, Clinton lingered with members
of Congress in the guest cabin. While the president signed pages of Air Force
One stationery for one guest, others showed off to Clinton the T-shirts and
other Mexican souvenirs they'd picked up.

Stewards passed out Hemp Golden beer, whose label boasted the ``smooth, mild,
mellow herbal flavor'' of having been brewed with hemp seeds.

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

Panel Finds Too Many Crime Laws (The Associated Press says a 56-page report
prepared over two years by a blue-ribbon task force sponsored by the American
Bar Association and chaired by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III has
concluded that the avalanche of new laws Congress has passed since 1970 to
make America's streets safe has failed. "There is no persuasive evidence that
federalization of local crime makes the streets safer for American citizens,"
says the report. More than 40 percent of all federal criminal laws enacted
since the Civil War were passed since 1970.)

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 01:08:39 EST
Errors-To: jnr@insightweb.com
Reply-To: friends@freecannabis.org
Originator: friends@freecannabis.org
Sender: friends@freecannabis.org
From: RandallBart (Barticus@att.net)
To: Multiple recipients of list (friends@freecannabis.org)
Subject: Re: Meese Panel Decries Crime Laws (AP)

This is a later cut on the same story. I still don't have a URL or EMail
address or official document number on this. The official name of the
report appears to be "Federalization of Criminal Law" and it was sponsored
by the American Bar Association. Their website at http://www.abanet.org is
one of the more useless sites on the web.

http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2558474975-fb8

10:42 AM ET 02/16/99

Panel Finds Too Many Crime Laws

By RICHARD CARELLI
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The avalanche of new laws Congress has passed
since 1970 to make America's streets safe has failed, a report
concludes.

``There is no persuasive evidence that federalization of local
crime makes the streets safer for American citizens,'' says a
report prepared by a blue-ribbon task force sponsored by the
American Bar Association and chaired by former Attorney General
Edwin Meese III.

``Crime legislation is popular. Most of the time it's just
feel-good legislation'' because existing state and local laws are
sufficient to address the targeted problems, Meese told reporters
today as the report was made public.

Such duplication ``undermines the critical role of the states
and local law enforcement,'' said Meese, the nation's top
law-enforcement officer during the Reagan administration.

The 16-member task force says a Congress worried about being
called ``soft on crime'' actually may be hurting the fight against
street violence by passing federal laws that duplicate state and
local efforts nationwide.

The 56-page report, backed up by hundreds of pages of
statistical findings, calls on Congress to resist its political
impulses.

``There is an understandable pressure on Congress not to vote
against crime legislation even if it is misguided, unnecessary and
harmful,'' the report's executive summary says. ``But there must be
a recognition that a refusal to endorse a new federal crime is not
a sign that a legislator is soft on crime.''

The product of a two-year study, the report notes with alarm
that more than 40 percent of all federal criminal laws enacted
since the Civil War were passed since 1970.

``Highly publicized criminal incidents are frequently
accompanied by proposals for congressional responses for no reason
other than that the conduct is serious, even if the activity is
already handled by state law,'' the summary says.

The ``Federalization of Criminal Law'' report mirrors criticism
raised by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist in his year-end report
on the federal judiciary in December. He blamed the trend on
pressure in Congress ``to appear responsive to every highly
publicized societal ill or sensational crime.''

The report states: ``Increased federalization is rarely, if
ever, likely to have any appreciable effect on the categories of
violent crime that most concern Americans, because in practice
federal law enforcement can reach only a small percent of such
activity.''

State law enforcement accounts for about 95 percent of all
prosecutions nationwide.

``Inappropriate federalization'' can contribute to ``long-range
damage to real crime control'' by diverting federal money better
spent on state law-enforcement systems, the report says, and can
deplete funding of federal law-enforcement efforts not duplicated
by the states.

``The expanding coverage of federal criminal law, much of it
enacted in the absence of a demonstrated and distinctive federal
justification, is moving the nation rapidly toward two broadly
overlapping, parallel and essentially redundant sets of criminal
prohibitions. ... Such a system has little to commend it and much
to condemn it,'' the report says.

``Sampling of the latest available statistics demonstrates that
several recently enacted federal statutes, championed by many
because they would have a claimed impact on crime, have hardly been
used at all,'' the task force found.

Some of the laws cited dealt with drive-by shootings, interstate
domestic violence, failure to report child abuse and murder by
escaped prisoners.

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

Many Anti-Crime Laws Not Needed, Study Says (The Orange County Register
version)

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:00:48 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Many Anti-Crime Laws Not Needed, Study Says
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John W. Black
Pubdate: Tues, 16 Feb 1999
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Copyright: 1999 The Orange County Register
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Section: News,page 12

MANY ANTI-CRIME LAWS NOT NEEDED,STUDY SAYS

A task force led by former Attorney General Edwin Meese 11 says Congress is
sometimes pushed to pass "misguided, unnecessary and harmful" anti-crime
laws out of fear of being considered soft on crime if it fails to act.

The panel calls on Congress to resist its political impulse. It notes with
alarm that more than 40 percent of all federal criminal laws enacted since
the Civil War were passed since 1970.

The task force was sponsored by the American Bar Association. After a
two-year study, its 56-page report will be made public today.

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

Meese Panel Urges Curbs on Federal Offenses (The New York Times version)

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:12:34 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Meese Panel Urges Curbs on Federal Offenses
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: rlake@mapinc.org
Pubdate: Tue, 16 Feb 1999
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 1999 The New York Times Company
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Forum: http://forums.nytimes.com/comment/
Author: Steven A. Holmes

MEESE PANEL URGES CURBS ON FEDERAL OFFENSES

WASHINGTON -- An American Bar Association panel led by former Attorney
General Edwin Meese III warned lawmakers Monday against the "misguided,
unnecessary and harmful" tendency of showing they are tough on criminals by
turning more offenses into federal crimes.

In a report, the panel said that the penchant for federalizing crimes that
had been the purview of the states -- like murder, drug possession and
trafficking, rape and robbery -- ran counter to the nation's historic
reluctance to concentrate broad powers in a national police force.

"Enactment of each new federal crime bestows new federal investigative
power on federal agencies, broadening their power to intrude into
individual lives," the report said. "Expansion of federal jurisdiction also
creates the opportunity for greater collection and maintenance of data at
the federal level in an era when various databases are computerized and
linked."

The task force's reports said the federalization of crime was quickening as
lawmakers, seeking to be perceived as being tough on crime, were approving
an increasing number of federal criminal statutes.

The report said 40 percent of all federal criminal laws that had been
enacted since the Civil War were passed since 1970. In the previous
congressional term, more than 1,000 bills dealing with federal criminal
statutes were introduced through July.

Indeed, the task force said, so many federal criminal statutes are now on
the books that "there is no conveniently accessible, complete list of
federal crimes."

The report, titled "The Federalization of Criminal Law," is similar in tone
to comments made in December by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. In his
year-end report to the judiciary, Rehnquist criticized Congress, saying
that it was buckling under pressure to "appear responsive to every highly
publicized societal ill or sensational crime."

Monday's report is also noteworthy since the task force was headed by
Meese, who, during his tenure as President Ronald Reagan's attorney
general, had the reputation as being a prosecutor tough on crime.

The report warned in dire language of the potential threats of the
explosive growth in federal criminal statutes. It noted that federal
criminal justice system expenditures grew by 317 percent from 1982 to 1993,
compared with a 163 percent increase in state criminal justice financing in
the same period. And the report said the number of federal prosecutors in
U.S. attorneys offices increased to 8,000 from 3,000 in the last 30 years.

Several new laws that were passed amid heightened publicity, like
legislation in 1994 making "drive-by shootings" federal offenses, did not
result in the filing of even a single charge in 1997.

The report said that of the 59,242 federal charges that were made against
individuals in 1997, 16,629, or 28 percent, were for only one type of
offense -- drug trafficking.

"Increased federalization is rarely, if ever, likely to have any
appreciable effect on the categories of violent crime that most concern
Americans, because in practice federal law enforcement can only reach a
small percent of such activity," the report said.

It noted that despite the huge increase in financing for federal anti-crime
efforts, 95 percent of all prosecutions are still handled by state and
local authorities.

The report said the increase number of federal crimes placed new strains on
federal courts. Scarce resources for the federal courts were increasingly
being soaked up by criminal trials, sentencing hearings, post-sentencing
matters and appeals. "Civil litigants therefore suffer because of the
priority that must be given to any increase in federal prosecutions," the
report said.

The report's authors also worried that increased federal responsibility in
the criminal arena might confuse and discourage local law enforcement
efforts. "In light of federal assumption of jurisdiction, some state
entities may hesitate in pursuing the conduct in question," the report
said. "Such hesitation or withdrawal by local law enforcement would
undermine the primary role played by state law enforcement."

The panel suggested several means to help Congress refrain from enacting
more federal criminal statutes.

It recommended, for example, that Congress consider the costs to the
federal and state systems of any new federal criminal law before any new
criminal statutes are enacted. The panel suggested that the Congressional
Budget Office or the Congressional Research Service could conduct such an
analysis. The panel also recommended that new federal criminal laws contain
a "sunset provision" of no more than five years that would force lawmakers
to take another look at the need for the law after passions had cooled.

Failure to halt the trend, the report said, could have dire constitutional
consequences.

"The current federalization trend presents a troubling picture with
far-reaching consequences," the report concluded. "It reflects a phenomenon
capable of altering and undermining the careful decentralization of
criminal law authority that has worked well for all of our constitutional
history."

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

Medicinal Marijuana Battle to Heat Up with Release of Long-Awaited Institute
of Medicine Report Next Month (A press release from the Marijuana Policy
Project, in Washington, D.C., says MPP is preparing to challenge the likely
interpretation of the Institute of Medicine's long-awaited medicinal
marijuana report, to be released in mid-March. Government officials are sure
to misrepresent the report's findings in order to justify the existing laws
prohibiting the use of medicinal marijuana.)

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:46:26 -0500
From: Marijuana Policy Project (MPP@MPP.ORG)
Organization: Marijuana Policy Project
Reply-To: MPP@MPP.ORG
Sender: owner-mppupdates@igc.apc.org
Subject: IOM report release coming soon
To: MPPupdates@igc.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FEBRUARY 16, 1999

Medicinal Marijuana Battle to Heat Up with Release
of Long-Awaited Institute of Medicine Report Next Month

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) is preparing to
challenge the likely interpretation of the Institute of Medicine's
(IOM's) long-awaited medicinal marijuana report, to be released in
mid-March. Government officials are sure to misrepresent the report's
findings in order to justify the existing laws prohibiting the use of
medicinal marijuana. MPP plans to make it clear that the report's
findings will not contradict MPP's position that the laws should be
changed so that patients will no longer be arrested for using medicinal
marijuana.

The report was commissioned by the White House Office of National
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) in January 1997. IOM -- part of the
non-profit National Academy of Sciences -- accepted $1 million to
conduct a "comprehensive review" of "the health effects and potential
medical use of marijuana." Three public hearings were held during the
winter of 1997-98.

MPP made sure that dozens of patients attended the hearings to
testify about their fear of being arrested. (For details, please see
http://www.mpp.org/mpp-iom.html.) Indeed, many of them had been arrested
and incarcerated for using medicinal marijuana. Unfortunately, ONDCP
explicitly forbade IOM from addressing policy and legal issues in the
report. IOM must focus exclusively on scientific and clinical issues,
even though the biggest concern to the thousands of patients nationwide
who already use medicinal marijuana is the threat of being arrested and
sent to prison.

Based on MPP's experience at the IOM hearings, MPP predicts the
following:

1. The report will note that there are existing scientific and
clinical data, as well as numerous case histories, indicating
that marijuana does work as a therapeutic agent for some patients
with certain ailments.

2. The report will note that more research is needed before the FDA
can approve marijuana as a prescription medicine.

3. The report will not discuss the appropriateness of the existing
federal and state laws which establish harsh criminal penalties
for the thousands of patients who are already growing and using
their own medicinal marijuana.

"ONDCP director Barry McCaffrey is very clever," said Chuck Thomas,
director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project. "He forbade
IOM from discussing the existing criminal laws against medicinal
marijuana users, knowing that anyone with any compassion would surely
conclude that patients should not be arrested. McCaffrey will
misrepresent the report's finding that `more research is needed' in his
arguments against ballot initiatives and legislation -- which are merely
efforts to remove criminal penalties for patients."

"Because IOM was not allowed to discuss criminal penalties, nothing
in the report should be construed as opposing MPP's efforts to change
the laws," said Thomas. "To the contrary, the report will clearly show
that marijuana works as a relatively safe and effective medicine for
many patients. MPP asserts that these patients are not stupid or crazy,
and they should not be arrested."

MPP will be available for comment and hold a news conference on the
day the report is released.

				- END -

***

HOW TO SUPPORT THE MARIJUANA POLICY PROJECT:

To support MPP's work and receive the quarterly newsletter,
"Marijuana Policy Report," please send $25.00 annual
membership dues to:

Marijuana Policy Project (MPP)
P.O. Box 77492
Capitol Hill
Washington, D.C. 20013

http://www.mpp.org/membrshp.html
202-232-0442 FAX