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

Gold Hill's police chief faces charges of assault, coercion (The Oregonian
says David Crawford has been indicted in Jackson County on assault and
coercion charges for allegedly roughing up a dirt-biker and threatening to
arrest him for drunken driving if he complained. Chief Crawford already faces
trial April 22 on two unrelated charges of coercion after an elderly Shady
Cove couple complained that he threatened to burn down their home if they
reported a July 1996 incident of road rage.)

Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Sat, Mar 27 1999
Source: Oregonian, The (OR)
Copyright: 1999 The Oregonian
Contact: letters@news.oregonian.com
Address: 1320 SW Broadway, Portland, OR 97201
Fax: 503-294-4193
Website: http://www.oregonlive.com/
Forum: http://forums.oregonlive.com/
Author: Beth Quinn, Correspondent, The Oregonian

Gold Hill's police chief faces charges of assault, coercion

* Jackson County brings the charges after the law enforcement officer
allegedly roughed up and threatened a motorcycle rider

Gold Hill's police chief has been indicted on assault and coercion charges
for allegedly roughing up a dirt-biker and threatening arrest if he complained.

Police Chief David Crawford, 41, already faces trial April 22 on two
unrelated charges of coercion after an elderly Shady Cove couple complained
that he threatened to burn down their house if they reported a July 1996
incident of road rage.

Interim Gold Hill Mayor Hy Klaus said the City Council would review the
situation at an emergency session next week.

"We're holding an executive session with our lawyer and will follow his
direction," he said. "Gold Hill (city policy) does have a clause stating
that you can't be convicted of a crime."

The new charges filed by Jackson County District Attorney Mark Huddleston
came just three days after the City Council decided on a 4-1 vote to retain
Gold Hill's scandal-plagued police department at least through June 30,
2001. No decision was made at that meeting about Crawford's contract, which
expires on June 30.

Crawford could not be reached for comment. His attorney, Michael Jewett, was
away from the office until Monday.

Huddleston said the new misdemeanor charges of official misconduct, assault,
harassment and two counts of coercion stem from a Jan. 2 incident in which
Crawford allegedly used excessive force while arresting a motorcyclist,
Chris Brooks, after a chase alongside railroad tracks.

Crawford cited Brooks, 29, for several traffic violations and then
threatened to arrest him for drunken driving and attempting to elude a
police officer if he filed a complaint, Huddleston said, declining to detail
the excessive-force allegations.

Brooks could not be reached for comment. Lisa Brooks, however, said Crawford
kicked her husband and slammed his head against the hood of his patrol car.

"He wasn't even trying to elude," she said. "Crawford was following him at
high speed, and he was afraid of getting run over."

Crawford became chief in 1997 after then-Chief Katie Holmboe was fired amid
allegations of a variety of improper actions. Some residents of this town of
1,240 rallied to Crawford's defense when charges against him first were made
public, but others began a petition drive in support of hiring a Jackson
County sheriff's deputy to provide police protection.

Klaus said the City Council might want to re-examine the decision to retain
a city police department in light of the most recent charges against
Crawford but emphasized that the embattled chief had not been convicted of
any crime.

"We want to give him every opportunity to have his side, too," he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Do you have news of Jackson, Josephine or southern Klamath counties? You can
reach Beth Quinn at 541-474-5926 or by e-mail at bquinn@terragon.com.

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

Roseburg doctor faces penalty on pain control (The Oregonian says the Oregon
Board of Medical Examiners intends to discipline Dr. Paul A. Bilder for
failing to give six seriously ill or dying patients adequate pain
medication.)

Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Sat, Mar 27 1999
Source: Oregonian, The (OR)
Copyright: 1999 The Oregonian
Contact: letters@news.oregonian.com
Address: 1320 SW Broadway, Portland, OR 97201
Fax: 503-294-4193
Website: http://www.oregonlive.com/
Forum: http://forums.oregonlive.com/
Author: Erin Hoover Barnett of The Oregonian staff

Roseburg doctor faces penalty on pain control

* The state medical board says Dr. Paul A. Bilder failed to give seriously
ill or dying patients adequate medication

The Oregon Board of Medical Examiners intends to discipline a Roseburg
doctor for failing to give six seriously ill or dying patients adequate pain
medication.

The case, detailed in a March board order, sends a message that in an era of
heightened focus on pain control, the board is as concerned about
undertreatment as it is about overtreatment of pain.

"In the area of pain medication, it's important for physicians to stay
current and be addressing these needs for patients," said Kathleen Haley,
executive director of the state board.

The board accuses Dr. Paul A. Bilder, a 54-year-old pulmonary disease
specialist, of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct and gross or repeated
acts of negligence. Between 1993 and 1998, according to the March 19 board
order, Bilder:

* Treated an elderly man who was dying of cancer and in pain with
"substantially inadequate amounts of pain medication," contrary to a hospice
nurse's request for stronger pain drugs and anti-anxiety medication. He also
refused a hospice nurse's request to give the man a urinary catheter. Bilder
told the board he thought the catheter would cause infection. The patient
died of his cancer three weeks later.

* Ordered removal of a urinary catheter from a dying and incontinent cancer
patient, against the wishes of the patient and family. Bilder told the
hospice nurse to use diapers instead. Bilder ordered .25 milligrams of the
pain drug Roxanol every four hours, a small fraction of the amount the
hospice nurse suggested, and Tylenol for high fever. He believed the nurse's
request for additional pain drugs was excessive. The patient died that evening.

* Stopped giving sedatives and pain medication to a 35-year-old woman with
pulmonary disease while she was on a mechanical ventilator at Mercy Medical
Center in Roseburg. He ordered a paralytic agent, which relaxes the
breathing muscles to accommodate the breathing tube, without the use of
sedatives. (Sedatives are often used to combat panic from having the
breathing tube in the throat.) Bilder refused to put her back on pain
medication or sedatives later that day when the woman became restless and
fought her ventilator. The woman subsequently pulled out her breathing tube.
Bilder was asked to return to reinstall it. He did not respond in time, and
an emergency room physician performed the task instead.

* Refused a nurse's request to give morphine to treat anxiety in a
63-year-old woman with pulmonary disease and diabetes who was put on a
ventilator at Mercy Medical Center because of acute respiratory failure.
Bilder ordered paralytic agents only.

* Refused morphine or other pain medication for a hospitalized 82-year-old
patient with congestive heart failure. The patient told a nurse, "I just
can't breathe, and I'm getting tired." The patient became increasingly
agitated, and his breathing and heart rates increased. Bilder ordered Lasix,
a diuretic. The patient's symptoms continued, but Bilder again refused to
give morphine. The patient was subsequently treated and stabilized by
another physician and left the hospital several days later.

* Failed to give a 33-year-old pneumonia patient narcotic painkillers or
anxiety medication while installing a breathing tube through the patient's
nose. The medical staff made multiple attempts to get the tube in, causing
the patient's nose to bleed. The staff had to restrain the patient to
complete the procedure.

Bilder declined to comment on his case before the board. He has 21 days from
when he received the board order this week to decide whether he would like a
hearings officer to review the case. If so, the board will wait for the
hearings officer's report before deciding on disciplinary action.

Disciplinary action could range from a reprimand to revocation of Bilder's
medical license. In cases involving a doctor's knowledge in a particular
area, the board often recommends additional training and counseling. Bilder,
who was first licensed as a physician in Oregon in 1976, has no previous
disciplinary history with the board.

The Oregon Board of Medical Examiners has made it a point in recent years to
educate doctors about the need for adequate but appropriate pain control.
Board officials speak on the topic at medical conferences and served on a
statewide task force on pain issues.

The board's new approach is in contrast to its hard-line treatment of
doctors who overprescribed narcotic painkillers in the past, particularly in
the 1980s during the national "War on Drugs." Bilder's case is the first
time in recent memory that the board has gotten a complaint about
undertreatment of pain, Haley said.

The issue of adequate pain control came to the forefront with a national
study, published in 1989, that showed that more than half of seriously ill
and hospitalized patients die in pain. In recent years, the debate over
physician-assisted suicide has pushed the medical community to do a better
job with pain control in an effort to dissuade patients from wanting to end
their lives.

You can reach Erin Hoover Barnett at 503-294-5011 or by e-mail at
ehbarnett@news.oregonian.com.

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

Lockyer: U.S. Will End Push For Nuke Dump At Desert Site (The Sacramento Bee
says the White House drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey, threatened
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer with arrest Friday when Lockyer told
McCaffrey that state law authorizes him to conduct certain marijuana-related
research.)

Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 21:35:44 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: MMJ: Lockyer: U.S. Will End Push For Nuke Dump At
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: 27 Mar 1999
Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Copyright: 1999 The Sacramento Bee
Contact: opinion@sacbee.com
Address: P.O.Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852
Feedback: http://www.sacbee.com/about_us/sacbeemail.html
Website: http://www.sacbee.com/
Forum: http://www.sacbee.com/voices/voices_forum.html
Author: Stephen Green, Bee Capitol Bureau
Note: The meat is in the last four paragraphs

LOCKYER: U.S. WILL END PUSH FOR NUKE DUMP AT DESERT SITE

Decision on Ward Valley plan no surprise

In another blow to backers of the proposed Ward Valley nuclear waste dump,
state Attorney General Bill Lockyer said Friday the federal government is
ready to bow out of its long-running dispute with California government
over the Mojave Desert site.

Lockyer said the decision, which was not unexpected, was disclosed during a
meeting he held this week with U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt in
Washington, D.C. The development means that Gov. Gray Davis, who has long
opposed the Ward Valley dump, will have more control over its fate.

Federal officials "will not continue to fight future California efforts to
achieve a good-government solution (to the waste problem)," Lockyer said in
a conference call with reporters.

The site, on U.S. Bureau of Land Management acreage southwest of Needles,
has been controversial since it was proposed in 1985 as a repository for
low-level wastes generated by hospitals and research centers.

In 1993, on the last day of President Bush's administration, 1,000 acres
was transferred to the state for a dump. Babbitt's first act as incoming
interior secretary for President Clinton was to rescind the land shift.

Former Gov. Pete Wilson and U.S. Ecology Inc., which has a contract to
develop the dump, filed suits seeking transfer of the property and recovery
of alleged losses caused by the delays.

At the same time, environmental groups have fought the siting process,
claiming the dump could contaminate portions of Southern California's water
supply.

Native Americans, concerned about potential desecration of sacred lands,
also joined the fray.

When Davis and U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, also a long-time critic of the
site, won their elections last fall, it was widely seen as the death knell
for the project.

Davis said earlier this week that he is reconsidering the state's role in
the lawsuits.

Joe Nagle, president of American Ecology, U.S. Ecology's parent company,
said Friday he hadn't been advised of Babbitt's decision, but doubted that
the federal government could simply walk away from the controversy since
U.S. Ecology has a license to develop the site. "I hope the three parties
can sit down and have a reasonable discussion of options."

But Mike Paparian of the Sierra Club said "most observers felt (the
project) had been dead for some time. It was just a question of what exit
strategy will be used."

California remains under federal mandate to create a safe repository for
low-level nuclear waste. Agencies generating such waste currently store it
on site or ship it to a South Carolina waste dump.

Lockyer expressed confidence Friday that a safe repository can be built
elsewhere. Paparian said the governor has several options, including
convening a panel of scientists to recommend a site.

Lockyer also met in Washington with U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno and
White House drug czar Barry R. McCaffrey, to discuss California's
Proposition 215, which legalized marijuana for medical uses.

"Both were very clear that medical marijuana use violates federal law,"
Lockyer said, and McCaffrey added that a massive research effort is needed
to determine if marijuana has any medical value.

Lockyer said he told McCaffrey that state law authorizes him to conduct
certain marijuana-related research. But McCaffrey told Lockyer he'd be
violating federal law and risking arrest if he did so.

In the short term, Lockyer said, there will be no change in federal policy
and California's law should be improved so solid statutes are in place if
and when the federal government recognizes it.

***

Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 15:49:50 -0800
To: dpfca@drugsense.org, natlnorml@aol.com
From: canorml@igc.apc.org (Dale Gieringer)
Subject: DPFCA: McCafrey to Lockyer - conduct research get arrested
Sender: owner-dpfca@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/

>From: R1OBERT@aol.com
>Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:22:04 EST
>
[snip]

Note from Jim Gonzalez:

FYI -- I ran into the Attorney General at the Demo State Convention today and
he told me that that in fact General McCaffrey did state to him that any
state research/distribution programs as described by Lockyer would be in
violation of federal law and he would arrest him (i.e. Lockyer).

Also, AG Lockyer said that McCaffrey expressed the belief that less than three
hundred people in America were really for medical marijuana and they were
being led by Soros, Zimmerman, and Zimmer. We really need to impress on top
federal policymakers that the next so-called drug czar needs to be a medical
professional not a military-police type like General McCaffery.

***

Dale Gieringer (415) 563-5858 // canorml@igc.apc.org
2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114

***

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:59:01 EST
Originator: friends@freecannabis.org
From: R Givens (rgivens@sirius.com)
To: Multiple recipients of list (friends@freecannabis.org)
Subject: Re: Lockyer threatened with arrest for upholding California law

With one breath, McC demands "massive research" and with the next he
threatens the first person who offers to do some of that research.

McC demonstrates the same brand of integrity that made Harry Anslinger so
effective in preventing any truth from creeping into our drug policies.

The thing that's missing from the IOM study and the narcomaniac response is
- INTEGRITY!
R Givens

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

Prison Terms Change Crime Fighters (According to the Associated Press, three
former high-profile public officials who were once proud to show how tough
they were on crime spoke at a meeting Saturday of Families Against Mandatory
Minimums in Arlington, Virginia. Webster Hubbell, a former associate attorney
general in the U.S. Justice Department; former Pennsylvania Attorney General
Ernie Preate Jr., and former California Republican leader Pat Nolan said they
discovered the humanity of the prison population and the error of their
crime-fighting ways when they became prisoners themselves. Preate said "we're
on a collision course with social catastrophe" unless more is done to
rehabilitate criminals and find alternatives to prison for the 65 percent of
inmates locked up for nonviolent crime.)

Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 07:39:13 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US VA: Wire: Prison Terms Change Crime Fighters
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: General Pulaski
Pubdate: Sat, 27 Mar 1999
Source: Associated Press
Copyright: 1999 Associated Press
Author: Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer

PRISON TERMS CHANGE CRIME FIGHTERS

ARLINGTON, Va. - They were high public officials, tough on crime,
but they say they discovered the humanity of the prison population
and the error of their crime-fighting ways when they became
prisoners themselves.

"If we could get every public official in prison for a few months, the
policy would change greatly," said Webster Hubbell, once associate
attorney general in the Justice Department, now an ex-con from the
Whitewater affair facing still more legal jeopardy.

Former Pennsylvania Attorney General Ernie Preate Jr. and former
California Republican leader Pat Nolan joined Hubbell at a meeting
Saturday of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, representing family
members serving long prison terms set during a wave of legislative
efforts to crack down on crime.

Preate, once a hard-nosed advocate of mandatory sentences, spent a
year in federal prison for mail fraud and emerged in 1996 with the
belief that not only was his crime wrong, but so had been his
treatment of criminals. "I was the quintessential prosecutor," he
said. "My specialty was death penalty work."

Now, he said, "we're on a collision course with social catastrophe"
unless more is done to rehabilitate criminals and find alternatives to
prison for the 65 percent of inmates locked up for nonviolent crime.

Nolan saw his career in the California assembly turn to dust when he
was convicted of racketeering and sent to federal prison for 29 months
and a halfway house for four.

He recalled his cold response as a lawmaker when he was asked to
support workers' compensation coverage for prisoners and how his
attitude changed after he landed in a cell with a young drug criminal,
a writer of bogus checks, a leader of the Los Angeles riots and a
member of the Hell's Angels.

"These were my brothers," he said. "For the first time I saw them as
human beings."

Hubbell, a former law partner of Hillary Rodham Clinton, spent 21
months in federal custody, some of it in a halfway house, for tax
evasion and mail fraud. Still subject to more charges arising from
independent counsel Kenneth Starr's Whitewater investigation, he was
circumspect.

"Using the criminal process for political purposes is wrong," he said,
explaining he was not talking about his case specifically. Asked by
one of the many sympathetic members of the audience whether Starr
should be criminally investigated, he said pointedly: "I don't want
any more investigations."

A federal appeals court reinstated a tax evasion case against Hubbell
in January, stemming from hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to him
by friends of the Clintons in 1994 after he left the Justice
Department. Starr theorized the payments were meant to keep Hubbell
quiet during the Whitewater probe.

The three fallen public figures at the conference were not subjected
to mandatory sentences, a device used more for drug and gun offenses
than white-collar crime, and their incarceration was more comfortable
than that experienced by people doing hard time.

He faulted himself for not doing enough while in the Justice
Department to stand against the tide moving in favor of tougher
sentences and an expanded list of federal crimes.

Congress and many states have enacted laws requiring minimum sentences
since mandatory terms began coming into favor in the 1970s, but legal
experts say a move to revert is growing. Michigan last year relaxed a
law that mandated life in prison, with no parole, for anyone
delivering, or intending to deliver, 650 grams, about 1.4 pounds, of
cocaine or heroin.

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

Teacher Busted For Pot (UPI says Kaye Seymour, 44, was busted at Ravenswood
Middle School in Orlando, Florida, for having marijuana in her car after a
suspicious principal called police.)

Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 12:51:10 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US FL: Wire: Teacher Busted For Pot
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: General Pulaski
Pubdate: Sat, 27 Mar 1999
Source: United Press International
Copyright: 1999 United Press International

TEACHER BUSTED FOR POT

ORLANDO, Fla. - An Orange County teacher was arrested
on marijuana possession charges at work Friday morning.

The principal of Ravenswood Middle School called police because of
suspicions 44-year-old Kaye Seymour was smoking the illegal weed.

Police say they found three grams of pot and a pipe for smoking it in
her car.

She is charged with possession of drugs on school property and
possession of drug paraphernalia.

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

Re: Water pistols with bong water to fool drug sniffing dogs (A list
subscriber shares a recycling tip.)

Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 10:07:29 -0500
To: restore@crrh.org
From: Keith Brilhart (kbrilhart@mindspring.com)
From: "CRRH mailing list" (restore@crrh.org)
Subject: Re: Water pistols w/ bong water to fool drug sniffing dogs

I gotta applaud the clever notion of going aroung airports, police
stations, schools, and other places where drug sniffing dogs are used,
squirting away with bong water (or other fragrent stuff). Now, Hal
mentions that carrying something shaped like a pistol could get one in
trouble. A friend's 4-year-old son has these great little water squirters
shaped like dolphins, sea horses, and other stuff. They're really cute,
fully made of plastic, and can hold enough water to do quite a few squirts.

Another idea (but more problematic) I picked up on an old classic movie
"The Counterfeit Traitor" (1962, William Holden, Lilli Palmer; shown Friday
on AMC), was where this guy used a powder of dried blood mixed with
cocaine. The dogs went nuts sniffing it and then had their olfactory
nerves anaesthetised. It might also work with more commonly available
topicals like benzocaine, novocaine, etc. But it would require that the
powder be free to float up into the nostrils.

Just an idea for the merry pranksters among us,

Keith

***

To subscribe, unsubscribe or switch to immediate or digest mode, please send
your instructions to restore-owner@crrh.org.

***

Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp
CRRH
P.O. Box 86741
Portland, OR 97286
Phone: (503) 235-4606
Fax:(503) 235-0120
Web: http://www.crrh.org/

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

Institute Of Medicine Says Marijuana Has Benefits (The Lancet, in Britain,
summarizes the report released March 17 in the United States.)

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 18:58:54 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: MMJ: Institute Of Medicine Says Marijuana Has Benefits
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: Sat, 27 Mar 1999
Source: Lancet, The (UK)
Contact: lancet.editorial@elsevier.co.uk
Website: http://www.thelancet.com/
Author: Alicia Ault
Note: From Volume 353, Number 9158

INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE SAYS MARIJUANA HAS BENEFITS

On March 17 the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) said that smoking
marijuana had benefits for the terminally ill, and recommended
immediate development of an inhalation device to provide a safe
alternative for those who needed the drug.

The 11-member expert panel urged further study of the biochemical
properties of the active ingredient D-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and
other cannabinoids, and new trials to assess potential clinical benefits.

The panel also said cannabinoids stimulate the appetite, combat
nausea, and might also control pain. The drug also acts as a sedative
and reduces anxiety, which may itself have a therapeutic effect, they
added.

The main problem is the delivery mechanism--namely smoking--which may
contribute to respiratory cancer.

There may be other risks too, which also need to be rigorously
studied, said the panel.

It added that there is no evidence that marijuana is a 'gateway' to
harder drugs, or that it was addictive. However, the panel's findings
may end up collecting dust. The White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy asked for the scientific review of risks and benefits
more than a year ago. And although agreeing on the need for further
study of alternatives to smoking the drug, the Office said it would
not call for legalisation and instead backed out of the debate saying,
"we will continue to rely on the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and the
Surgeon General on all issues related to the medical value of marijuana".

Outside Washington there has been a push to legalise the medicinal use
of marijuana. So far voters in six states have approved measures to do
so. In November, 1998, residents in Washington DC voted on allowing
medicinal use, but the results have been kept secret by a
congressional order.

On a federal level there is unlikely to be any approval for the drug.
Federal laws banning marijuana use, or possession, supersede state
mandates. Several measures were introduced in Congress last year, to
specifically outlaw medicinal use. But on March 2, US Representative
Barney Frank introduced a bill to let states authorise prescriptions.

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

Let them smoke pot (The version in Britain's New Scientist)

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:09:17 +0000
To: editor@mapinc.org
From: Peter Webster (vignes@monaco.mc)
Subject: New Scientist: Let them smoke pot
Newshawk: Peter Webster
Pubdate: March 27, 1999
Source: New Scientist (UK)
Page: 14
Copyright: New Scientist, RBI Limited 1999
Contact: letters@newscientist.com
Website: http://www.newscientist.com/
Author: Nell Boyce, Washington DC

LET THEM SMOKE POT

A new report rejects American government policy on therapeutic cannabis

MARIJUANA can treat nausea, pain, the wasting caused by AIDS and other
symptoms, a controversial report paid for by the US government concludes.

In November, six states legalised marijuana for medical use following
referendums, but doctors generally do not recommend the drug because the
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy has said that users will
be arrested.

In 1997, however, the drug control office commissioned a scientific review
of the therapeutic uses of marijuana from the Institute of Medicine (IOM),
the medical branch of the National Academy of Sciences in Washington DC.

Its report, released last week, rejects several of the drug control
office's long-held positions. The IOM found no compelling evidence that
marijuana acts as a "gateway" drug that makes people more likely to take
drugs such as heroin. And it does not believe that letting sick people
smoke marijuana would increase use among the general public. The report
recommends that if nothing else can help them, patients with debilitating
symptoms should be allowed to smoke marijuana in clinical trials.

However, the IOM warns that smoking is not the ideal drug-delivery system,
because of the respiratory problems it can cause. "We see little future in
smoked marijuana as medicine," says John Benson of the Oregon Health Sciences
University School of Medicine in Portland, who cochaired the panel that wrote
the report.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy and the National Institutes of
Health have seized on this aspect of the report, noting that clinical
trials of marijuana smoking would only be done as a first step towards the
development of more sophisticated cannabinoid delivery systems. Several
companies are working on delivery systems similar to asthma inhalers.

Patient groups have welcomed the report's positive assessment of marijuana
as medicine. "All of the major myths that the government has been espousing
for the past few decades to justify putting patients in jail have been shot
down by this report," says Chuck Thomas of the Marijuana Policy Project in
Washington DC.

But some groups claim it doesn't go far enough. "In many ways it was a
political compromise," says Paul Armentano of the National Organization for
the Reform of Marijuana Laws in Washington DC. "It gave enough cover to the
administration that they could essentially take this report and do
nothing." He contrasts it with a report in Britain from the House of Lords,
published in November, which called for the law to be changed to allow
doctors to prescribe cannabis (This Week, 14 November 1998, p 24). The
British government has rejected this proposal.

Armentano also argues that the IOM is naive in thinking that patients will
be able to obtain marijuana through clinical trials. It took five years for
Donald Abrams of the San Francisco General Hospital to get approval for one
trial of marijuana in AIDS patients, he notes. Abrams says he had to play
down his goal of studying the drug's medical benefits to obtain the green
light. "We had to decoy our study as a safety study," he says.	

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

You're Under Arrest, And On TV (The Economist, in Britain, says the U.S.
Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in two cases that raise the
question of whether media "ride-alongs" with police carrying out search or
arrest warrants violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against
unreasonable searches and seizures. If the court decides to restrict the
practice, many local-news and tabloid television shows will, at a stroke, be
deprived of a staple subject. An amicus brief was filed by 26 media
organisations.)

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 19:02:58 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: You're Under Arrest, And On TV
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: D. Paul Stanford http://www.crrh.org/
Pubdate: 27 March 1999
Source: Economist, The (UK)
Copyright: 1999. The Economist Newspaper Limited.
Contact: letters@economist.com
Website: http://www.economist.com/

YOU'RE UNDER ARREST, AND ON TV

JERKY camera movements, shouts, cops rushing through a darkened doorway,
guns drawn. It all makes great television. "Reality-based" programming has
mushroomed in America and it is easy to see why. Almost everyone comes out
a winner. The police look like heroes. Journalists get a great story. TV
firms get an endless stream of cheap programmes. And audiences love such
in-your-face entertainment. Perhaps the only loser is the person being
searched or arrested in the full glare of publicity. What if the target
turns out to be innocent?

On March 24th the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases which ask
whether media "ride-alongs" with policemen executing search or arrest
warrants is a breach of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of "unreasonable
searches and seizures". If the court decides to ban or sharply restrict the
practice, many local-news and tabloid TV shows will, at a stroke, be
deprived of a staple subject.

Lower courts have issued a series of contradictory rulings on the subject.
In the two cases before the Supreme Court, for example, federal appeals
courts came to diametrically opposite conclusions.

In 1993 federal wildlife agents raided the Montana ranch of Paul and Erma
Berger looking for evidence that Mr Berger was poisoning eagles to protect
his livestock. The agents were accompanied by a CNN crew, which failed to
identify itself but recorded the all-day search. In a subsequent criminal
trial, Mr Berger was acquitted of violating endangered-species laws, but
convicted on the lesser charge of misusing a pesticide. Nevertheless, CNN
later used the footage in two environmental-news programmes. The Bergers
sued the agents and CNN. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals let the lawsuit
proceed, ruling that the Bergers' Fourth Amendment rights had been violated
because the search had been "designed to enhance its entertainment, rather
than its law-enforcement, value."

In 1992 Charles and Geraldine Wilson were abruptly awakened early one
morning by a team of US marshals and local policemen, accompanied by a
Washington Post reporter and photographer. The police were looking for the
Wilsons' son, for whom there was an outstanding arrest warrant. An enraged
Mr Wilson was wrestled to the ground in his underwear in front of the
reporter and photographer. Their son was not in the house. Although the
photographs were never published, the Wilsons later sued the police. The
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 6-5 majority, granted the police
officers immunity from the suit.

Lawyers for the Bergers and Wilsons argue that media ride-alongs serve no
useful law-enforcement purpose. Search and arrest warrants, they say, are
licences limited to the police only, not a general permission for the press
to observe and record freely on private property.

Lawyers for the police, supported by an amicus brief from 26 media
organisations, argue that ride-alongs can help law enforcement, and so
should be allowed by the Fourth Amendment. By publicising the government's
efforts to fight crime, they help to deter it, as well as strengthening
public confidence in the police. They also deter improper behaviour by the
police themselves, a greater threat to both the targets of searches and the
public than media exposure. Courts should judge the reasonableness of
ride-alongs on a case-by-case basis, maintain the media firms. Any blanket
restriction, they say, would clash with First Amendment press freedoms and
make it difficult for the public to monitor what the police do on its behalf.

In the recent past the Supreme Court has been reluctant to second-guess the
police on how to execute warrants, giving them ever greater latitude. But
media firms are nervous. The justices could decide that entertainment is
not the same as edification, requiring viewers to settle, once again, for
the pretend "busts" of shows like "NYPD Blue" rather than the real thing.

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

[End]