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

Support petition to regulate cannabis, restore hemp, please! (Paul Stanford,
a chief petitioner for the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, says OCTA's political
action committee, the Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp, in
the first week of petitioning collected more than 1,000 signatures of the
90,000 needed.)

Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 03:53:58 -0700
To: DRCNet Medical Marijuana Forum (medmj@drcnet.org)
From: "D. Paul Stanford" (stanford@crrh.org)
Subject: support petition to regulate cannabis, restore hemp, please!
Reply-To: medmj@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-medmj@drcnet.org
OCTA web site: http://www.crrh.org/

Dear Activists,

The Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp (CRRH) is happy to
announce that last week we began our Oregon petition drive for the Cannabis
Tax Act. In our first week of circulation we have had over 1,000 signatures
turned in to our office, with many more organized and on the way. We need
66,748 registered Oregon voter's signatures to qualify our initiative for a
vote in Oregon, so we need to gather over 90,000 signatures to ensure
qualification. Our proposal, the Cannabis Tax Act, will comprehensively
reform cannabis laws by regulating the sale of cannabis to adults and for
medical purposes, allow adults to cultivate cannabis for personal use,
license farmers to grow cannabis for sale to a state agency and restore
unregulated industrial hemp cultivation for fiber, protein and oil.

We need your support to pay petitioners in Oregon to qualify the Cannabis
Tax Act as soon as possible and to begin our work in other states. Please
donate to our political committee to help us advance this noble cause. It
is only with contributions from supporters that we can force a debate and
vote to end cannabis prohibition. Donors in Oregon can receive an Oregon
income tax credit on your entire donation up to $50 a person for donations
to CRRH. Please send a check, money order, Visa or Mastercard donation to:

CRRH
P.O. Box 86741
Portland, OR 97286

or you can donate using your Visa or Mastercard on our secure, encrypted
web server linked from:

http://www.crrh.org/donate/secure.html

If you can collect registered Oregon voters signatures, please contact our
office to receive petitions. We can e-mail petitions using the free Adobe
Acrobat Reader and your laser printer.

The Cannabis Tax Act was designed to be upheld in the inevitable federal
court challenge it will face after passage:

http://www.crrh.org/octa/upheld.html

We need your support. Every dollar you donate helps us pay a petitioner to
gather between 2 and 3 signatures. Every signature you gather saves us 30
to 50 cents. Please help us start the debate to stop the war on drugs,
regulate cannabis and restore hemp.

Thank you.

Yours truly,
D. Paul Stanford

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

Accounts differ on Salem killings (The Oregonian says an attorney for Timothy
E. Espinoza, 17, told a jury in Espinoza's murder trial Tuesday that the
defendant was trying to sell two teen-agers marijuana when he thought he saw
one of them reach for a gun and fired in self-defense. Juan Torres, 18, and
Fidencio Ceja, 17, both students at McKay High School, died after being shot
three times each on Oct. 11. Prosecutor Diana Moffat said Espinoza approached
the two, pretending to sell marijuana in order to get them to step off the
street so he could shoot them.)

Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Wed, Apr 28 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: Cheryl Martinis, correspondent, the Oregonian

Accounts differ on Salem killings

* A prosecutor contends Timothy E. Espinoza shot two teen-agers in cold
blood, but the defendant's attorney says it was self-defense

SALEM -- Timothy E. Espinoza called two fellow teen-agers "fools" after he
gunned them down on a Salem street last fall, emptying all six shots from
his revolver into the young men he thought belonged to a rival gang, a
prosecutor charged Tuesday.

A defense attorney countered that Espinoza, 17, was trying to sell the two
victims marijuana when he thought he saw one of them reach for a gun and
fired in self-defense.

Juan Torres, 18, and Fidencio Ceja, 17, both students at McKay High School,
died after being struck three times each shortly after 9 p.m. Oct. 11. They
were walking along Sunnyview Road in Northeast Salem.

Espinoza is being tried in Marion County Circuit Court on two charges of
aggravated murder. If convicted, he could be sentenced to life in prison. He
is too young to receive the death penalty.

During opening statements Tuesday, prosecutor Diana Moffat said Espinoza
returned to two friends he had been driving around with that evening and
bragged, "I bucked the fools," meaning he shot them.

According to defense attorney John Storkel, Espinoza thought he saw the butt
of a gun, reasonably thought the two were going to kill him and "did nothing
but protect himself." He later told someone to call 9-1-1, Storkel said.

Espinoza denied any gang ties, Moffat said, although both friends he was
with that night referred to the two victims as members of a rival gang, and
one mentioned a fight a day earlier with other members of the gang. Neither
friend said he thought Espinoza would kill the pair.

Moffat said Espinoza approached the two, pretending to sell marijuana, as a
pretense to get them to step off the street so he could shoot them.

Both of Espinoza's companions that night refused to testify in the trial,
which is expected to last several weeks before Circuit Judge Albin Norblad.
However, Moffat told jurors she plans to introduce statements both made to
police.

Neither victim carried a gun although Torres had a bicycle chain wrapped
around his hand. Ceja clutched two $20 bills as he died.

Espinoza's .357-caliber Smith & Wesson never was found by police. He said he
took it apart with a screwdriver and threw the parts in two bodies of water,
including the Willamette River, Moffat said.

Do you have news of Marion, Polk and southwestern Yamhill counties? You can
reach Cheryl Martinis at 503-399-8540 or by e-mail at cheryl@open.org.

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

Men, Not Women, Grab A Smoke To Lift Mood - Study (Reuters says a study
presented at the American Lung Association conference in San Diego Tuesday
suggests that contrary to popular belief, men are more likely than women to
grab a cigarette if they are angry, anxious, sad or tired. Women are more
likely to smoke for social rather than emotional reasons. Apparently
unpublished, the study by Dr. Ralph Delfino and Dr. Larry Jamner of the
University of California at Irvine suggests possible gender differences in
the effect of nicotine on the central nervous system, possibly because of
different interactions with hormones. The researchers arrived at their
conclusions by tracking 25 women and 35 men ages 18 to 42 who made three
diary entries an hour for up to 48 hours to record their mood and smoking
behavior.)

Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 03:30:10 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Wire: Men, Not Women, Grab A Smoke To Lift Mood - Study
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: M & M Family (mmfamily@ix5.ix.netcom.com)
Pubdate: Wed, 28 Apr 1999
Source: Reuters
Copyright: 1999 Reuters Limited.

MEN, NOT WOMEN, GRAB A SMOKE TO LIFT MOOD - STUDY

SAN DIEGO - The next time all the men in your office head
out for a smoke, have some compassion. They are not just taking a
break, they are putting their emotions on an even keel.

Contrary to popular belief, men are more likely than women to grab a
cigarette if they are angry, anxious, sad or tired, according to a
study presented at an American Lung Association conference Tuesday.

For women, smoking is more closely tied to social factors while men
are more likely to say that smoking assuages anger and sadness,
according to the study by Dr. Ralph Delfino and Dr. Larry Jamner from
the University of California, Irvine.

The findings suggest possible gender differences in the effect of
nicotine on the central nervous system, possibly because of different
interactions with hormones, they said.

The study tracked 25 women and 35 men ages 18 to 42 who made three
diary entries an hour for up to 48 hours to record their mood and
smoking behavior.

Men were more likely to associate the urge to smoke with anger or
anxiety and only men linked the urge to smoke with sadness or fatigue.

Smoking seemed to lessen feelings of anger in those men who got angry
more often, and to decrease feelings of sadness in men but not in
women, the study found.

Women seemed to associate smoking with happiness, while men did
not.

``The commonly held belief before this study was that women smoked
more for emotional reasons, but this does not appear to be the case in
the real-life settings measured in this study,'' Delfino said. ``The
results are consistent with the hypothesis that women are smoking less
for mood control than men, and that social interactions may play a
more important role in why women smoke.''

The findings suggest that smoking prevention programs might be more
successful if they had different approaches for males and females, and
if they targeted people according to their personality profile,
Delfino noted.

``For instance, hostile people who smoke for mood-altering effects
might benefit from an anger-management program,'' he said.

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

Gangbangers Ordered To Move Out Of Town (The Chicago Tribune notes officials
in Cicero, Illinois, unanimously approved two ethnic cleansing ordinances
Tuesday. Individuals shown to be gang members through a "preponderance of the
evidence" can be ordered out of town, and face a $500-a-day fine if they
stick around. Cicero officials also said they plan to follow up these
ordinances by filing a $10 million lawsuit against more than 100 alleged
gang members for violating other residents' rights. Town President Betty
Loren-Maltese said the town also plans to erect gates in the most
gang-infested areas to help keep evicted gangsters from re-entering the town.
"If this is unconstitutional, then somebody ought to look at the
Constitution," she declared.)

Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:50:56 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US IL: Gangbangers Ordered To Move Out Of Town
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: unoino2
Pubdate: Wed, 28 Apr 1999
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Copyright: 1999 Chicago Tribune Company
Contact: tribletter@aol.com
Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Forum: http://www.chicagotribune.com/interact/boards/
Author: Rob D. Kaiser

GANGBANGERS ORDERED TO MOVE OUT OF TOWN

CICERO -- As Cicero officials approved two bold measures aimed at
driving gang members out of their town, they braced to defend their
efforts to forge new legal ground against a barrage of critics who
questioned the constitutionality of the effort.

"Cicero stands alone in its battle against gangs," acknowledged Cicero
Town Atty. Barry Pechter, following a spirited town meeting during
which the Board of Trustees unanimously approved the anti-gang measures.

For her part, Town President Betty Loren-Maltese spoke defiantly at
the meeting Tuesday. "If this is unconstitutional, then somebody ought
to look at the Constitution," she declared.

But legal scholars were befuddled by the town's approach. And some
residents said they were concerned the measure would prompt police to
target Latinos.

While the ordinances are clear in their intent--individuals shown to
be gang members through a "preponderance of the evidence" can be
ordered out of town--details of just how the laws will work and be
enforced remained a bit fuzzy.

The ordinances provide suspected gang members some due
process--they'll get to appear before hearing officers with an
attorney to argue their case. If they defy the town's orders to move,
they can face fines of up to $500 a day.

Cicero officials said they plan to follow up these ordinances within
the next week by filing a $10 million lawsuit against more than 100
alleged gang members the town claims have violated the rights of
residents. Loren-Maltese also said the town plans to erect gates in
the most gang-infested areas to help keep evicted gangsters from
re-entering the town.

Loren-Maltese said Cicero resorted to extreme measures because
"there's a lot of people in this town who are petrified."

Jay A. Miller, executive director of the American Civil Liberties
Union of Illinois, said the ordinances are "clearly unconstitutional"
because they charge somebody for their status--being a member of a
gang--not a crime. Miller also said the state constitution doesn't
allow for banishing a group.

"There's just so many things in it that are questionable,' said
Miller, who seemed more amused than threatened by the ordinances.

Several law school professors also said they didn't think the measures
would hold up in court.

"Have you heard of any lawyer that didn't laugh at this?" asked Daniel
Polsby, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law.
"There's absolutely nothing about this that seems to fit with anything
I know. . . . I wouldn't be surprised if . . . Cicero was itself a
gang by the definition of its own ordinance."

Other municipalities, including San Diego, San Jose and Chicago, have
approved laws aimed at curbing gang problems, though their measures
haven't gone as far as the Cicero ordinance. Instead they have
prohibited gang members from gathering in certain places such as
street corners. A legal challenge to Chicago's ordinance is before the
U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal experts said they've never heard of anything as far reaching as
the Cicero measures.

"The form of exile we use here is prison," said Larry Alexander, a
professor at the University of San Diego School of Law. "Undesirables
may not just be kicked out of a place."

Pechter, the town attorney, said he wrote a number of "safeguards"
into the ordinances.

"We believe it will stand up to any constitutional test," Pechter
said.

Under one ordinance, the police chief will identify gang members and
pass the information along to the town attorney. A hearing will then
determine if the person is a gang member who poses "a clear and
present danger" to the community.

A second ordinance approved Tuesday allows the town to seize the cars
of evicted gang members if they return to Cicero.

But Dolores Ponce de Leon, a community organizer with the Interfaith
Leadership Project of Cicero, Berwyn and Stickney, said she fears the
measures unfairly target Latinos.

Pechter estimated of the 600 gang members identified by the town,
about 75 percent are Latino.

"It's raising a lot of confusion," said Ponce de Leon, who explained
that some Cicero parents think their children may be kicked out of
town because of what they wear or if they fall in with a bad crowd.

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

Pataki Offers Drug Law Reform (The Times Union, in Albany, New York, says New
York's harsh Rockefeller Drug Laws would undergo their first major revision
in 26 years under a soon-to-be-unveiled Pataki administration proposal that
links sentencing reform with the elimination of parole.)

Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 06:43:06 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US NY: Pataki Offers Drug Law Reform
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Walter F. Wouk
Pubdate: Wed, 28 April 1999
Source: Times Union (NY)
Copyright: 1999, Capital Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation
Contact: tuletters@timesunion.com
Address: Box 15000, Albany, NY 12212
Feedback: http://www.timesunion.com/react/
Website: http://www.timesunion.com/
Forum: http://www.timesunion.com/react/forums/
Author: Lara Jakes and John Caher, Capitol Bureau

PATAKI OFFERS DRUG LAW REFORM

Albany -- Governor's proposed revision of the harsh Rockefeller Drug Laws
would give trial judges more power in exchange for elimination of parole

The harsh Rockefeller Drug Laws would undergo their first major revision in
26 years under a soon-to-be-unveiled Pataki administration proposal that
links sentencing reform with the elimination of parole.

Gov. George Pataki, in a crime bill to be released next week, will propose
easing some portions of the controversial drug statutes in exchange for what
is called "determinate sentencing,'' according to Criminal Justice
Commissioner Katherine Lapp.

The governor's legislative package will combine Rockefeller Drug Law reform
proposals advanced by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and Sen. Dale Volker with
the goal of giving appellate judges the leeway to trim harsh sentences,
while providing prosecutors with a powerful new tool to nail drug kingpins.

However, in return, Pataki will insist the Legislature overhaul the state's
sentencing statutes by setting specific prison terms for specific felonies.
The wide-ranging crime bill would also give prosecutors the right to appeal
bail amounts they believe were set too low by a judge.

"It will reflect the governor's philosophy, which is 'tough but smart on
crime,' '' Lapp said in an interview Tuesday. "This builds on things that he
did in his first term, and in the context of determinate sentencing, this
would be the appropriate time to start considering any appropriate changes
to the Rockefeller Drug Laws.''

The Rockefeller Drug Laws, enacted in 1973, mandate minimum prison sentences
of 15-years-to-life for suspects convicted of possessing four ounces, or
selling two ounces, of a narcotic. Critics say the statutes, the toughest
drug laws in America, have done little except fill New York prisons with
nonviolent drug offenders.

Advocates have been trying to repeal, or at least reform, the Rockefeller
Drug Laws for years, and many thought 1999 would bring change. A more
diverse chorus than ever has been calling for reform this year, including
conservative and liberal lawmakers, jurists, prisoner's rights advocates,
clergy and even some of the authors of the original piece of legislation.

However, with the governor and legislative leadership still stymied on
budget negotiations, reform advocates were beginning to lose hope. The
about-to-be-released bill suggests that at least some movement is possible
this session.

Under the proposed bill, "mules'' who do nothing but act as drug couriers
and have no prior prison record could have their sentence shortened by a
midlevel appellate court, Lapp said. But kingpins, who hardly ever carry the
drugs and, therefore, usually avoid the brunt of the Rockefeller laws, could
face mandatory minimum sentences of 15 years.

Lapp estimated that about half of the 640 inmates serving sentences for A-1
drug crimes -- the most serious -- are mules. Only nonviolent inmates who
agree to attend treatment programs would be eligible for reduced sentences,
she said.

In exchange, Pataki will ask for legislative approval of his "truth in
sentencing'' plan -- a proposal to minimize the duties of the Parole Board
by setting specific, or determinate, prison terms for all convicted felons.

Under New York's current sentencing scheme, convicts are usually sentenced
to an "indeterminate'' term -- say 5 to 15 years -- with a parole board
deciding when the prisoner should be released. The actual term served might
be anywhere from 5 to 15 years.

Pataki would scrap that system and replace it with one where a felon would
be sentenced to, say, 10 years and would serve 10 years.

Assembly Democrats have consistently opposed the "truth in sentencing''
measure in the past. However, they have generally supported reform of the
Rockefeller Drug Laws, and the two measures may prove to be bargaining
chips.

Meanwhile, the governor's willingness to re-work at least some of the tough
drug laws garnered mixed reactions.

"Praise the Lord!'' whooped Deputy Assembly Speaker Arthur O. Eve,
D-Buffalo. "Mules have been treated very, very badly. Some of the major
dealers have used them to cop a plea for themselves. I hope we can do that,
because it's the right thing to do.''

However, Eve continues to oppose determinate sentencing and indicated he is
not open to a deal.

"To trade one thing for something else that's unjust is not a good trade,''
Eve said.

Eve said any reforms to the Rockefeller laws should be applied retroactively
to convicts already in prison. It was unclear Tuesday if retroactivity would
be part of Pataki's proposal.

Volker spokesman Joseph Maltese said the senator would have to take a close
look at the governor's plan before endorsing it.

"Previously, he viewed Chief Judge Kaye's proposal as somewhat reasonable
and will definitely take a closer look,'' Maltese said. "However, the caveat
is he will not take any chances that would risk public safety.''

But the most ardent of advocates lobbying for reform remain unconvinced the
governor's proposal will be enough. Robert Gangi, executive director of the
Correctional Association of New York, an organization calling for repeal of
the Rockefeller Drug Laws, said Pataki's plans "are at best tinkering around
the edges of the problem.''

Gangi said Pataki's proposal would do nothing to address what advocates view
as the key problem with the drug laws -- the fact that they take sentencing
matters out of the hands of the trial judge. He called on the Assembly to
come up with a "more substantive'' plan.

"We still need someone in a leadership position in Albany to step forward
and propose an approach that represents substantive reform,'' Gangi said.
"Our concern would be that if, through the legislative process, this is
adopted, the political leaders will then claim they have taken care of the
problems with the Rockefeller Drug Laws and move on to something else.''

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

What Happened When New York Got Businesslike About Crime (An op-ed in the
Wall Street Journal praises the "management by objective" policies of New
York police under Mayor Rudy Giuliani. The results were stunning - crime
dropped across the city's 76 precincts by 50 percent to 90 percent in three
years. But this was stunning only because governmental problems are
traditionally treated in such a way as to make them seem insoluble.
Unfailingly, governmental problems, unlike business problems, become the
occasion for "solutions" whose purpose is to please a constituency not
directly related to the problem. Thus crime has been an occasion for
promoting gun control, welfare spending, education spending, public housing,
and myriad other causes for which powerful constituencies clamor. That's how
politics works. It's not how business works.)

Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 17:18:36 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: What Happened When New York Got Businesslike About Crime
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Mark Greer
Pubdate: April 28, 1999
Source: Wall Street Journal (NY)
Copyright: 1999 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Section: Business World
Contact: letter.editor@edit.wsj.com
Website: http://www.wsj.com/
Author: Holman W. Jenkins Jr.

What Happened When New York Got Businesslike About Crime

Despite "reinventing government" and the ebb and flow of similar
management slogans equating government with business, the twain are
destined seldom to meet, as the Mayor of New York is discovering. Up
until a few months ago, Rudy Giuliani might have been known to history
as the one politician who took aim at a supposedly entrenched
condition of modern life, urban crime, and actually did something about it.

What a terrible precedent that would have been for politicians
everywhere. When it comes to crime, a whole string of court decisions
had accustomed them to the notion that police agencies were under no
particular obligation to prevent crime - investigate yes, prevent no.
The New York Police Department set out to do something outside the
normal course of police work when it set out to lower the crime rate.
It did so as a business would, "managing by objective," an axiom
popularized by management consultant Peter Drucker.

The results were stunning - crime dropped across the city's 76
precincts by 50% to 90% in three years. But this was stunning only
because governmental problems are traditionally treated in such a way
as to make them seem insoluble. Unfailingly, governmental problems,
unlike business problems, become the occasion for "solutions" whose
purpose is to please a constituency not directly related to the
problem. Thus crime has been an occasion for promoting gun control,
welfare spending, education spending, public housing, and myriad other
causes for which powerful constituencies clamor.

That's how politics works. It's not how business works.

"I'm trying to run the NYPD as you would a private corporation," said
Mr. Guiliani's first police commissioner, William Bratton. He used
words like "productivity" and made precinct captains directly
answerable for crime rates.

In any city a tiny fraction of the population, about 7%, commits most
of the crime. An even smaller fraction, 1%, the hard-core psychopaths,
commits several felonies per day per psychopath. Taking one of these
people off the street earlier rather than later in his career can
spare the public hundreds of crimes. That, in fact, makes crime an
easy problem to get leverage over, if you care to do it. In New York,
crime fell almost immediately.

Mr. Bratton took special aim at those carrying illegal handguns,
arguing that the Supreme Court gave cops plenty of room to operate.
"One of the things we don't use effectively enough in New York is the
constitutional rights given police officers going back to Terry v.
Ohio - stop and frisk," he told a TV interviewer. The Street Crime
Unit - now in trouble over the shooting of an innocent African
immigrant, Amadou Diallo--had been around since the 1970s, and in the
words of a ranking department official, "These guys have really
developed an expertise in picking out people who are packing."

Managing by objective, this handful of cops, though they accounted for
barely 0.3% of the force, was soon confiscating 40% of the guns.

Some now feel it was a mistake to triple the unit's size early in
1997, when crime had already fallen sharply. But protests by the black
community, white liberals and the odd drop-in celebrity since the
Diallo shooting greatly exaggerate how much damage 362 cops can
inflict on community relations in a city of 7.5 million. The unit made
9,500 arrests in 45,000 stops in the last two years, a hit rate of
20%. From any realistic perspective, that's not a bad ratio. Narcotics
cops do a great many more stops with fewer arrests.

Nor should it be alarming that half the unit's felony gun busts are
thrown out - those arrested were still carrying illegal guns. In a
recent case, members in plainclothes followed three Mexican men for an
hour and half, stopping them only when they were about to disappear
into the subway. The haul included fake immigration documents and an
illegal gun, but a judge objected because the cops couldn't point to a
single suspicious circumstance sufficient for stopping the men. Yet
the cops' instincts were obviously right, and criminals understand
this. Murders are down 70%, though police have hardly made a dent in
the city's one million or two million illegal guns. The city is safer
because the guns are staying home.

We're left with the complaint that 63% of those stopped in the last
two years are blacks and this amounts to racial harassment, even
though 68% of arrestees and 71% of the suspects identified by victims
are also black. But, either way, this misses the point.

One thing criminals and non-criminals have in common is that they
don't like being stopped and frisked by the police. Cops could always
stop and frisk more white people, more women, more shoppers on Madison
Avenue, but it would hardly improve their popularity or make the
practice more enjoyable for those subjected to it.

Mr. Bratton once said criminals were his "competition," but he was
wrong. In politics the competition is always other politicians.

From day one, former Mayor David Dinkins made it his special cause to
criticize the expanded use of stop-and-frisk. He and others (lately
including failed mayoral candidate and arch-opportunist Al Sharpton)
have worked hard to make sure blacks especially would see the
procedure as an assault on their rights, rather than as a step aimed
at their safety. In this, they play on the black community's
exaggerated, baroque idea of "respect," itself a defense against the
city's former chaos and lawlessness. But neither has the
stop-and-frisk policy been uniformly popular with police, who have
reasons for preferring to investigate crimes after they occur rather
than confronting criminals on the street. Sotto voce, they have been
attacking the street crime unit in anonymous comments to the press.

And so the spheres are back in their normal orbits, with political
logic displacing business logic. As a sop to the protestors, the
street crime unit has been taken out of plainclothes, its work garb
since the 70s, and put in uniform. This in no way addresses any real
problem, but it does make sure criminals will be able to see the
police coming. No longer are cops able to use their street smarts to
shadow criminals until an opportunity presents itself to stop and
frisk them. With that, undoubtedly, will disappear the fear criminals
had about carrying guns or committing crimes.

And the other winners? Politicians everywhere, who can go back to
railing about life's intractable realities: crime, bad schools, high
taxes, whatever - no longer haunted by an example suggesting that such
problems may not be so intractable after all.

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

Con Says He Ran a Pot Ring Inside Jail (An Associated Press article in the
Daily Press, in Virginia, says the attorney for Michael Fulcher tried to
separate his case from those of 21 prison guards and other defendants
implicated in drug trafficking at Bland Correctional Center by claiming
Fulcher was working for the government's war on drugs. The only problem is
that authorities say they didn't know about it.)

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 23:35:42 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US VA: Con Says He Ran a Pot Ring Inside Jail
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Anonymous
Pubdate: Wed, 28 Apr 1999
Source: Daily Press (VA)
Copyright: 1999 The Daily Press
Contact: letters@dailypress.com.
Website: http://www.dailypress.com/
Note: Byline by The Associated Press

CON SAYS HE RAN A POT RING INSIDE JAIL

A longtime informant and convicted felon claims he headed a marijuana ring
inside Bland Correctional Center as part of an undercover operation to help
the United States government's war on drugs.

The only problem, federal authorities say, is that they didn't know about it.

Michael Fulcher's defense was raised Monday in U.S. District Court, where
his attorney sought to separate his case from the other 21 defendants
accused in a drug-trafficking and money-laundering conspiracy. The other
defendants include prison guards and inmates and their friends and relatives.

Defense attorney David Whaley said Fulcher was gathering evidence for the
government that he believed would help him to get his 1993 burglary
convictions overturned.

"He (Fulcher) was more or less gathering information as he'd been trained to
do for 20 years," Whaley said.

Rebuffing Fulcher's claim, Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Mott said, "It was
only when we found out about it, that he was selling marijuana, that he
tried to spin it."

Judge Jackson Kiser said he would rule later on Fulcher's motion to separate
his trial.

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

The DEA Takes The Wraps Off Its New Training Facility (UPI briefly notes the
Drug Enforcement Administration will open a 100-acre, $30 million training
academy today in Quantico.)

Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 13:51:52 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Wire: The DEA Takes The Wraps Off Its New Training Facility
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: EWCHIEF@aol.com
Pubdate: Wed, 28 Apr 1999
Source: United Press International
Copyright: 1999 United Press International

THE DEA TAKES THE WRAPS OFF ITS NEW TRAINING FACILITY

(QUANTICO) - The Drug Enforcement Administration takes the wraps off
its new, 30-Million-dollar training academy in Quantico today. The
100-acre site is less than a mile from the FBI Academy, allowing
both agencies to share shooting ranges and mock-up buildings for
specialized training. The DEA training center's first class of
agents will graduate in August.

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

Therapeutic Marijuana Use Supported While Thorough Proposed Study Done (The
Journal of the American Medical Association says the March 17 Institute of
Medicine report on medical marijuana provided "advocates" support by
recommending that clinical trials and drug development proceed. But
marijuana's acceptance as a prescribed drug appears to be years away - if it
happens at all. A brief summary of the IOM report includes the investigators'
six recommendations.)

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 18:27:43 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Therapeutic Marijuana Use Supported While Thorough
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: David Hadorn (hadorn@dnai.com)
Pubdate: Wed, 28 Apr 1999
Source: Journal of the American Medical Association (US)
Copyright: 1999 American Medical Association.
Contact: JAMA-letters@ama-assn.org
Website: http://www.ama-assn.org/public/journals/jama/
Author: Mike Mitka

THERAPEUTIC MARIJUANA USE SUPPORTED WHILE THOROUGH PROPOSED STUDY DONE

Advocates for the medical use of marijuana received support recently
from Institute of Medicine (IOM), recommendations that clinical trials
and drug development should proceed. But its acceptance into the
general population of prescribed drugs appears to be years away-if it
happens at all.

The coinvestigators of the report, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the
Science Base, said advances in cannabinoid science over the last 16 years
offer opportunities for the development of medical marijuana. The report
summarizes and analyzes what is known about the medical use of marijuana,
emphasizing evidence-based medicine.

The investigators said the data suggest marijuana may help with pain
relief, nausea, and appetite stimulation. Still, there are downsides
to marijuana, said John A. Benson, Jr, MD, coprincipal investigator of
the report and dean and professor of medicine emeritus at Oregon
Health Sciences University School of Medicine in Portland.

"Marijuana's potential as medicine is seriously undermined by the fact
that people smoke it, thereby increasing their chance of cancer, lung
damage, and problems with pregnancies, including low birth weight,"
Benson said. "For that reason, we do not recommend smoking marijuana
for long-term medical use. While we see a future in the development of
chemically defined cannabinoid drugs, we see little future in smoked
marijuana as a medicine." Cannabinoids are the group of compounds
related to 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive
ingredient in marijuana.

TWO POINTS OF VIEW

Quick to pick up on the smoking comments was the White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), whose director, Gen Barry R.
McCaffrey, has been critical of legalizing marijuana for medical use.
In a statement, the ONDCP said it was "delighted that science is the
basis of the discussion of this issue," and said it would carefully
study the recommendations and conclusions of the IOM report. The ONDCP
added, however, "We note in the report's conclusion that 'the future
of cannabinoid drugs lies not in smoked marijuana, but in chemically
defined drugs that act on the cannabinoid systems that are a natural
component of human physiology.'" The IOM report is the result of a
request from the ONDCP in January 1997 to review the scientific
evidence to assess the potential health benefits and risks of
marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids.

[An IOM report says marijuana may have a future in medicine, but not in
a smoked form. Credit: Tony Stone ]

On the other side of the legalization issue is the Marijuana Policy
Project, which said the IOM report presents ample scientific evidence
confirming the benefits of marijuana as medicine and proves McCaffrey
wrong on his statements over the years in opposition to legalization.

Marijuana was not found effective in several areas in which anecdotal
evidence said otherwise. The report stated that data did not support
using marijuana to treat glaucoma. It noted that smoked marijuana can
reduce some of the eye pressure associated with glaucoma, but only for
a short time, and that its benefit did not outweigh the hazards
associated with regular long-term use. There is also little evidence
for marijuana's potential for treating movement disorders like
Parkinson disease or Huntington disease, although some studies were
presented showing THC reduced, to varying degrees, muscle spasticity
associated with multiple sclerosis.

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

The IOM report investigators made six recommendations:

Research should continue into the physiological effects of synthetic
and plant-derived cannabinoids and the natural function of
cannabinoids found in the body. Because different cannabinoids appear
to have different effects, research should include but not be
restricted to effects attributable to THC alone.

Clinical trials of cannabinoid drugs for symptom management should be
conducted with the goal of developing rapid-onset, reliable, and safe
delivery systems.

Psychological effects of cannabinoids, such as anxiety reduction and
sedation, that can influence medical benefits should be evaluated in
clinical trials.

Studies to define the individual health risks of smoking marijuana
should be conducted, particularly among populations in which marijuana
use is prevalent.

Clinical trials of marijuana use for medical purposes should be
conducted under the following limited circumstances: trials should
involve only short-term use (less than 6 months); be conducted in
patients with conditions for which there is reasonable expectation of
efficacy; be approved by institutional review boards; and collect data
about efficacy.

Short-term use of smoked marijuana for patients with debilitating
symptoms (such as intractable pain or vomiting) must meet the
following conditions: failure of all approved medications to provide
relief has been documented; the symptoms can reasonably be expected to
be relieved by rapid-onset cannabinoid drugs; such treatment is
administered under medical supervision in a manner that allows for
assessment of treatment effectiveness; and use involves an oversight
strategy, comparable to an institutional review board process, that
could provide guidance within 24 hours of a submission by a physician
to provide marijuana to a patient for a specified use. Stanley J.
Watson, Jr, MD, PhD, coprincipal investigator and codirector and
research scientist at the Mental Health Research Institute, University
of Michigan, said the goal of medical marijuana clinical trials should
be to develop an inhaler to deliver the drug because capsule or pill
forms take too long to work.

"There are many symptoms for which a quick-acting drug is ideal, such
as pain, nausea, and vomiting," Watson said. "For that reason, we
recommend development of a rapid-onset but nonsmoked delivery system,
such as an inhaler. Something like an inhaler would deliver precise
doses without the health problems associated with smoking."

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

Denying Education Is No Answer to Drug Use (A list activist invites you to
point your browser to www.RaiseYourVoice.com to make a constructive protest
against the provision in the Higher Education Act that bars financial aid to
college students caught possessing marijuana or other supposedly controlled
substances.)

From: "Troy Dayton" (troyjanman@hotmail.com)
From: "CRRH mailing list" (restore@crrh.org)
To: restore@crrh.org
Subject: Denying Education Is No Answer to Drug Use
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 09:49:49 PDT

www.RaiseYourVoice.com

Over 10,000 emails and faxes have been sent to Congress in support of
H.R. 1053, Rep. Barney Frank's bill to overturn the discriminatory
drug provision in the Higher Education Act that delays or denies
federal financial aid to any and every drug offender.

www.RaiseYourVoice.com

Your help is needed. If you haven't already taken five minutes to
visit www.RaiseYourVoice.com, please do so today!

www.RaiseYourVoice.com

There is a good chance that we can get Congress to take a step back on
this one. Already six college student governments have signed a
resolution to oppose the provision. Also, two State student
associations have signed on. More importantly our sign on resolution
boasts such organizations as the NAACP, N.O.W., Center for Women
Policy Studies, American Public Health Association, Friends Committee
On National Legislation, Unitarian Universalists, and many more!
H.R. 1053 already has 11 co-sponsors.

www.RaiseYourVoice.com

For a full listing of co-sponsors, a list of over 50 press clippings
and other information on how you can get your local university active
log onto www.u-net.org.

http://www.RaiseYourVoice.com

Thanks to your help, thousands of college educations can be saved from
the wrath of Drug War politics.

In peace and justice,
Troy M. Dayton

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

McGuinty, Hampton Admit To Past Marijuana Use (The Ottawa Citizen says both
of Ontario's opposition leaders admitted yesterday to smoking marijuana in
the past, and urged that possession of the drug be decriminalized. The
admissions from Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty and NDP Leader Howard Hampton
came immediately after Premier Mike Harris vowed that his Progressive
Conservative government's zero-tolerance policy on crime will continue to
include the herb. Yesterday, a private members bill was introduced by Reform
MP Keith Martin from B.C. in the House of Commons to decriminalize marijuana
in an attempt to free valuable police resources and backlogged courts so they
can deal with more serious criminal cases.)

Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 09:13:10 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Canada: McGuinty, Hampton Admit To Past Marijuana Use
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: Wed, 28 Apr 1999
Source: Ottawa Citizen (Canada)
Copyright: 1999 The Ottawa Citizen
Contact: letters@thecitizen.southam.ca
Website: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/
Author: Natalie Armstrong, The Ottawa Citizen

MCGUINTY, HAMPTON ADMIT TO PAST MARIJUANA USE

Liberal, NDP Leaders Urge Decriminalization

TORONTO -- Both Ontario's opposition leaders admitted yesterday to smoking
marijuana in the past, and urged that possession of the drug be decriminalized.

The admissions from Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty and NDP Leader Howard
Hampton came immediately after Premier Mike Harris vowed that his
Progressive Conservative government's zero-tolerance policy on crime will
continue to include the drug.

Mr. McGuinty, who says he experimented with marijuana as a teen, and Mr.
Hampton, who says he tried it in university, want possession of marijuana
handled outside the Criminal Code.

Mr. Harris, who is expected to call an election within weeks, says he "found
booze a little more attractive" than marijuana as a youth and does not
condone drug use today.

Asked whether he had ever inhaled, Mr. Harris, 54, replied: "No, I haven't.
But I grew up in an age where we tried all these things. I found booze a
little more attractive to me."

Asked how he would feel if his 14-year-old son, Michael Jr., was caught with
marijuana, Mr. Harris replied: "I would feel that he had broke the law and
would have to suffer the consequences."

At a news conference staged to focus on crime prevention, Mr. Harris said
that "we shouldn't be making it easier for our children to get drugs, but we
should be, in fact, making it harder."

Decriminalizing possession of even small amounts of marijuana would be
"sending our kids the wrong message," added Mr. Harris.

Mr. Harris raised the issue of marijuana use when he disagreed publicly
yesterday with the Association of Canadian Police Chiefs, who want the
federal government to legalize simple possession of marijuana and hashish.

"Normally, I agree with the chiefs of police but on this one I feel they are
throwing in the towel," said Mr. Harris.

The premier said he understands their frustrations with the justice system.

Later, Mr. McGuinty, who is 43, said he tried marijuana "in my late teens
... twice." He said he doesn't condone drug use of any kind when it comes
to his own teenage children.

"They should not be doing any drugs of any kind at any time. And I don't
want them smoking, either."

The fact is marijuana users are from all kinds of socioeconomic conditions
across the province, said Mr. McGuinty.

"It is simply too heavy a penalty to saddle young people with a criminal
record," said Mr. McGuinty, adding they have trouble getting jobs later on.

The current penalties for possession just aren't working, he said.

"We should be looking at a fine, or some alternative-sentencing mechanism,
which I think is supported by most Ontarians," said Mr. McGuinty, adding the
province should be devoting more resources to crack down on traffickers who
prey on Ontario's children.

"A criminal record is too great a sanction," said Mr. McGuinty.

Mr. Hampton, who is 46, said New Democrats believe simple possession should
not be illegal because criminalizing it doesn't change behaviours and has
proven to be a very expensive and ineffective approach.

Mr. Hampton admitted that he smoked the drug "way back in university."

"I think I was like most people who went to university in the late '60s and
'70s -- marijuana was something that virtually everyone tried," said Mr.
Hampton. "Speaking personally, it wasn't worthwhile for me. I didn't enjoy
the experience of not being in full control of my faculties."

Mr. Harris said there's a very clear difference between himself and his
opponents -- Mr. McGuinty in particular -- who Mr. Harris said was "out of
touch with reality."

"He (Mr. McGuinty) makes excuses for those who break the law, he says
they're not really to blame, he blames poverty or he blames despair or he
blames society at large, not the offender," said Mr. Harris, adding his
government will spend money to beef up the justice system.

"We're prepared to spend the dollars and to beef up the justice system," Mr.
Harris said. "All Ontarians must accept responsibility for their actions."

Yesterday, a private members bill was introduced by Reform MP Keith Martin
from B.C. in the House of Commons to decriminalize marijuana in an attempt
to free valuable police resources and backlogged courts so they can deal
with more serious criminal cases.

Police and the courts would be better able to pursue the real criminals such
as rapists, murderers, and armed robbers, Mr. Martin said in a news release
late yesterday.

"This is not a case of legalizing marijuana ... it is a case of crime
prevention," said Mr. Martin in the release, adding guilty individuals could
be ticketed and made to pay a fine. That money would go to drug education
and counselling for substance abuse.

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

Party leaders come clean on pot (The Toronto Star version)

Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:29:47 -0400
To: mattalk@islandnet.com
From: Dave Haans (haans@chass.utoronto.ca)
Subject: TorStar: Party leaders come clean on pot
Newshawk: Dave Haans
Source: The Toronto Star (Canada)
Pubdate: Wednesday, April 28, 1999
Page: A7
Website: http://www.thestar.com
Contact: lettertoed@thestar.com
Author: Caroline Mallan, Toronto Star
Queen's Park Bureau

Party leaders come clean on pot

Who inhaled? Harris only one to say: `Not me'

Ontario Premier Mike Harris says he has never smoked marijuana, and he's
not about to support plans to decriminalize the possession of small amounts
of pot.

Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty and NDP leader Howard Hampton both admit
they inhaled in their younger days, and both say they're all for lowering
the penalty for possession to a ticket and a fine.

The subject came up after Harris told reporters Ontario will fight any
federal government move to decriminalize possession of small amounts of
marijuana - a recommendation that came from the Canadian Association of
Chiefs of Police.

But had he ever inhaled, he was asked.

``No, I haven't, but I grew up in an age when we tried all these things,''
Harris responded.

``I found booze a little more attractive.''

The straight-laced McGuinty surprised many observers in his own party when
he conceded he'd tried marijuana as a teenager.

``I was in my late teens, I did it twice,'' he said.

The Liberal leader added that he encourages his own four children not to
take drugs or smoke cigarettes.

McGuinty said he would support the call by the chiefs of police to penalize
simple possession of marijuana with a fine.

``What we should be doing is devoting more resources to cracking down on
those who prey on Ontario children - traffickers,'' he said.

The NDP's Hampton said he smoked marijuana in university. His party has
long supported decriminalizing possession of pot.

Hampton said the best defence against drug use is effective education
programs.

Harris accused the opposition of being soft on crime and called for a
``tough love'' approach to young people who smoke pot.

``Normally I agree with the chiefs of police, but on this one I feel they
are throwing in the towel,'' Harris said while visiting a downtown Toronto
convenience store to trumpet his party's crime-fighting record just days
before an election call is expected.

The premier said the police chiefs - considered an influential voice on the
issue - are acting out of frustration with the light sentences that result
from a conviction for possession.

``But I believe we shouldn't be making it easier for our children to get
drugs, that we should be in fact making it harder.''

Harris said handing out a ticket for possession sends a message that drugs
are acceptable.

``I think that's the wrong way to go, I think the right way is to be tough,
tough love if you like, zero tolerance right at the start.''

The association of Canadian police chiefs told the federal government last
week that the current law does not act as a deterrent to marijuana and bogs
down police officers.

The police association believes the government should change the law so
that possession of 1 gram of cannabis resin or 30 grams of marijuana would
be subject to a regulatory ticket and fine.

The association says a fine more properly reflects the offence and does not
leave the stigma of a criminal record. Federal Justice Minister Anne
McClelland said she would seriously consider their recommendation.

Under the 1997 Controlled Drugs and Substances Acts, simple drug possession
is a summary conviction offence, subject to a maximum fine of $1,000 and/or
six months jail - a sentence rarely imposed.

Carolyn Nutter, of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto,
said several U.S. states that have decriminalized the possession of pot
have not seen a noticeable rise in marijuana use or related drug crime.

Nutter said that in terms of causing damage to society, other, legal vices
are the worst offenders.

``It's quite clear that from a cost to society perspective, research
clearly indicates that tobacco and alcohol are the main concerns.''

***

Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 11:19:16 -0400
To: mattalk@islandnet.com
From: Dave Haans (haans@chass.utoronto.ca)
Subject: Harris photo to go along with Star article

Hi, all.

Check out the picture that went along with the TorStar article:

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~haans/pics/Harris_Prefers_Smoking_Banana_Peels
.jpg

Cheers,

Dave.

***

Dave Haans
Graduate Student, University of Toronto
WWW: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~haans/

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

Pot Isn't Harris' Cup Of Tea (The Toronto Globe and Mail version)

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 16:44:21 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Canada: Pot Isn't Harris' Cup Of Tea
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Carey Ker
Pubdate: 28 Apr 1999
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Copyright: 1999, The Globe and Mail Company
Contact: letters@globeandmail.ca
Website: http://www.globeandmail.ca/
Forum: http://forums.theglobeandmail.com/
Page: A1
Author: Jane Coutts

POT ISN'T HARRIS' CUP OF TEA

Two out of three leaders of Ontario political parties admit they've smoked
marijuana -- but Premier Mike Harris says he always got his kicks from
alcohol.

Mr. Harris triggered a round of confessions yesterday at Queen's Park when
he invited reporters on an election-style visit to a convenience store
where he called for a "tough love" legal response to even minor offences,
such as simple possession of marijuana.

Asked if he ever tried marijuana, Mr. Harris, 54, said no.

"I grew up in an age when we tried all those things and I found booze a
little more attractive to me," he said.

Later, both Opposition Leader Dalton McGuinty and New Democratic Party
leader Howard Hampton admitted to reporters that they had tried it a couple
of times each, Mr. McGuinty in his late teens and Mr. Hampton while at
university.

And while the Premier made a point of rejecting a call for
decriminalization of marijuana possession, his two rivals endorsed the idea.

The call to decriminalize came from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of
Police.

"I think it's simply too heavy a penalty to saddle young people with a
criminal record, who then have trouble getting a job," Mr. McGuinty said.
He thinks that fines, or some form of alternative sentencing is more
appropriate as long as no trafficking is involved.

Mr. Hampton said the NDP has long supported decriminalizing marijuana.

But Mr. Harris said those are the kinds of attitudes that lead youngsters
to believe they can get away with crime. It's better to clamp down hard
right at the beginning, he said.

The marijuana issue overshadowed the Premier's effort to remind voters of
his tough stance against crime during his first term in office.

There were strong campaign overtones to yesterday's event, where, for the
second time in as many days, Mr. Harris returned to a place where he made a
promise in the 1995 election to proclaim the success of his policies.
Monday, it was workfare; yesterday, cracking down on crime.

While he admitted most statistics show crime is falling, he said people are
living in fear and no one is measuring how they have changed their
lifestyles because of it.

"There is a fear of crime and people are altering their lifestyles and we
think criminals should be altering their lifestyles," he said.

He also took a swipe at Mr. McGuinty, suggesting that his background as a
defence lawyer who worked for young offenders gives him a different
perspective on crime tha Mr. Harris's small-business background has given him.

"He makes excuses for those who broke the law, he says they're not really
to blame, he blames poverty or he blames despair or he blames society at
large -- not the offender," Mr. Harris said, adding that "I think he's out
of touch with society .... The offender is not the victim."

Mr. McGuinty told reporters he learned about the reality of crime working
in courtrooms. "When [Mr. Harris] was out on the ninth green, I listened to
a lot of victim impact statements in court. I think I have a ... more
profound understanding of criminal justice in Ontario."

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

[End]