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

Lawmakers consider clipping the end off Oregon's cigar tax (The Oregonian
says the Oregon House of Representatives Revenue Committee approved HB 3371
Thursday on a party line vote of 5-4. The bill would limit a voter-approved
tax increase on cigars, now 65 percent of the wholesale price, to 50 cents a
stogie. The bill's supporters point to evidence that cigar consumers in
Oregon have been avoiding prohibitory state taxes for years by making their
purchases through the mail or via the Internet. With the cigar-buying public
avoiding the tax, the increase has hurt small businesses and cost the state
money, said Rep. Bill Witt, R-Cedar Mill, the bill's sponsor. Democrats said
the bill would undermine voters and send the wrong message about tobacco.)

Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Fri, May 14 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: James Mayer, the Oregonian

Lawmakers consider clipping the end off Oregon's cigar tax

* A House committee approves a bill that would limit the tax, now 65 percent
of the wholesale price, to 50 cents a stogie

SALEM -- Owen Seaton sat in a high-backed leather chair Thursday afternoon,
enjoying a $10 cigar after a wine-tasting at Cascade Wine and Cigar in
downtown Portland.

The good life, in other words.

Life for the 28-year-old college student could get even sweeter if a bill
that would slash cigar taxes makes it through the Oregon Legislature.

"I'd like to see it happen," Seaton said. "I'd spend more money on cigars in
Oregon."

Seaton, like many higher-end cigar aficionados, buys his stogies through the
mail or via the Internet from states such as North Carolina, which -
surprise - impose no tax on cigars.

"Only a fool would buy cigars in Oregon," said Don McIntire, the father of
property tax-cutting Measure 5 and a leading force behind the cigar bill.
McIntire said he spends $2,000 a year out of state on cigars.

Cigar store owners say the trend has accelerated since Oregon voters
increased the tax on cigars in 1996. Measure 44 increased cigarette taxes by
30 cents a pack and raised the tax on other tobacco products from 35 percent
of the wholesale price to 65 percent, with the extra money going to the
Oregon Health Plan.

But with the cigar-buying public avoiding the tax, the increase has hurt
small businesses and cost the state money, said Rep. Bill Witt, R-Cedar
Mill, sponsor of House Bill 3371. Democrats said the bill would undermine
voters and send the wrong message about tobacco.

Witt's bill would limit the tax to 50 cents a cigar.

That's a big cut for smokers such as Doug Berry, a Cascade employee who
testified for the bill. His favorite cigar, a Pardon 1964 Anniversary
Series, costs $18.55 a stick. The Oregon tax is $4.75.

"I didn't have that cigar at my wedding," Berry said. "I had to have a much
cheaper one."

The House Revenue Committee approved the bill Thursday on a party line vote
of 5-4. However, two Republicans, Max Williams of Tigard and Lane Shetterly
of Dallas, reserved the right to vote differently on the floor.

The committee approved a cigar-tax cut in the waning days of the 1997
session but reversed itself the same day after a reporter for The Oregonian
started asking questions.

"I walked down the plank last session, and I'm pleased to be here again,"
said Shetterly, who served on the 1997 panel.

The committee's action appalled advocates for curbing tobacco use. "Oregon
will be the only state in the nation to lower tobacco taxes," said Tom
Novick, a lobbyist with the Oregon Coalition for a Healthy Future.

Lawmakers lacked good information about the bill's revenue effect.

Dick Yates, a Legislative Revenue Office analyst, said the original bill,
which would have done away with the 65 percent rate and imposed a tax of 25
cents on all cigars, probably would have had no effect on net revenues
because it would have raised taxes on inexpensive cigars, which account for
most of the revenue from the tax. But amendments approved Thursday brought
back the 65 percent rate and increased the limit to 50 cents.

Yates said he did not know how the changes would affect revenues. He also
said he could not estimate how much revenue had been lost because of
mail-order cigar buying, or how much might be gained by buyers returning to
local shops.

Rep. Ken Strobeck, R-Beaverton, the committee chairman, said he hopes better
information could be developed on the Senate side.

Strobeck dismissed the argument that voters had spoken with their decision
on Measure 44.

"I never heard anyone who said, 'Gee, this is great -- it raises rates on
cigars,' " he said.

But Ellen Lowe, a Measure 44 author, said sponsors knew what they were doing
when they included cigars in the measure.

"One reason we raised the tax was to encourage lower consumption," Lowe said.

You can reach James Mayer at 503-221-8234 or by e-mail at
jimmayer@news.oregonian.com.

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

Panel approves rollback on cigar taxes (The Associated Press version)

Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Fri, May 14 1999
Source: The Associated Press (OR)
Copyright: 1999 The Associated Press
Website: http://www.oregonlive.com/
Forum: http://forums.oregonlive.com/
Author: Brad Cain, AP

Panel approves rollback on cigar taxes

SALEM, Ore. (AP) -- An Oregon House panel has agreed to roll back a
voter-approved tax increase on cigars after hearing testimony that tobacco
stores are losing business to out-of-state cigar sellers.

Opponents of the move said it would thwart voters' wishes and cause a
potential loss of tax revenue at a time when lawmakers are scrambling to
find money for schools and other programs.

The measure endorsed Thursday by the House Revenue Committee would replace
the current tax -- which amounts to 65 percent of the wholesale price of
cigars -- with a maximum tax of 50 cents per cigar.

Cigar store owners and other supporters of the change said the current tax
has prompted many cigar smokers to buy their stogies from mail order houses
or over the Internet to avoid Oregon's taxes.

Among those who submitted testimony was David Hodgert, owner of a cigar
store in downtown Bend, who said he's been losing business ever since voters
raised taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products in 1996.

Hodgert said his retail business employed five people before the tax was
increased but that he's been forced to lay off three of those employees.

"This excessive tax is seriously hindering my ability to survive as a
business," he said.

Also weighing in on the tax cut was political activist Don McIntire, the
chief sponsor of a 1990 property tax limit and a cigar aficionado who said
Oregon's high tax has turned him and others into tax evaders.

McIntire said he spends $1,000 a year on cigars -- all of it out of state.

But a coalition of public health groups that worked for passage of the 1996
tax increase on tobacco products called the bill a slap at voters.

Tom Novick of Oregon Health Leadership Against Tobacco said voters approved
the tax hikes on tobacco products as a way to raise more money for the
Oregon Health Plan and anti-tobacco education programs.

"Plus, we know that one of the best ways to reduce tobacco use is to
increase the price," Novick said.

The tax cut won the House revenue panel's approval over the complaints of
several members who noted that legislative fiscal analysts weren't able to
say how much the measure would reduce state tax revenue.

"I find that a really sloppy process," said Rep. Anitra Rasmussen, D-Portland.

The measure, HB3371, now advances to the full House.

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

Judge cuts damages in Portland tobacco suit (The Oregonian says Multnomah
County Circuit Court Judge Anna J. Brown reduced a Portland jury's recent
assessment of $79.5 million in punitive damages against Philip Morris to $32
million, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's insistance that punishment has to be
proportionate to the level of wrongdoing. The $32 million, which is still the
largest judgment against a tobacco company, could have been reduced even
further but Judge Brown found that Philip Morris had not taken steps to keep
from lying in the future, interpreting the multistate settlement sponsored by
state attorneys general as lacking "substantial remedial steps" to prevent
wrongdoing.)

Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Fri, May 14 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: Patrick O'Neill, the Oregonian

Judge cuts damages in Portland tobacco suit

* The $79.5 million in punitive damages against Philip Morris is slashed to
$32 million because of legal obligations

A Portland judge on Thursday slashed a $79.5 million punitive damages award
from a lawsuit against Philip Morris to $32 million.

But the reduced amount is still the largest judgment ever against a tobacco
company.

Judge Anna J. Brown of Multnomah County Circuit Court said her decision was
a difficult one and was not a criticism of the jury's verdict to punish the
cigarette-maker for the death of longtime Marlboro smoker Jessie Williams of
Portland. Rather, she said, her decision was the result of legal obligations
imposed by both state and federal law.

"By no means is my personal point of view substituted for that of the jury,"
she said.

The $79.5 million award was granted by a jury on March 30 to the family of
Williams, a former school janitor who died of lung cancer in 1997 at age 67
after smoking for 42 years. Jurors said they were infuriated by documents
showing that Philip Morris executives had lied for decades about the link
between smoking and cancer.

Brown made her decision after a two-day hearing between attorneys for the
Williams family and tobacco giant Philip Morris, makers of Marlboro. Her
decision did not affect $821,485 in compensatory damages the jury awarded
for medical costs and pain and suffering.

Attorneys for both the family and the cigarette company declined comment on
the ruling immediately after the hearing.

But William Gaylord, who represented the Williams family during the hearing,
appeared distressed by the decision.

"It's a significant award, Bill," Jay Beattie, one of the tobacco company
attorneys, told Gaylord after the hearing.

"I'm not going to say anything because I'll regret it later," Gaylord said.

Gaylord had said during the hearing that any reduction in damages would be a
public relations coup for the company.

The judge faced a fiendishly complex problem. The jury, acting under the
judge's instructions, had slapped the company with the huge punitive
verdict. But under the U.S. Constitution, punishment has to be proportionate
to the degree of wrongdoing.

Brown acknowledged that jurors might feel slighted by her decision, but she
said they acted appropriately, within the limits of their responsibilities.
Their job was to decide on a punitive damages figure based on the evidence
in the trial, she said. But although Oregon law sets no limits on the amount
of punitive damages a plaintiff can seek, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it
clear that the sky is not the limit.

"The U.S. Supreme Court said there are limits," she said. "They're not going
to tell us what they are."

Brown said previous cases involving punitive damages were too unlike the
Portland case to be of much use for comparison.

The $32 million figure, she said, is "my best call."

The punitive damages could have been reduced even further if Brown had found
that Philip Morris had taken steps to keep from lying in the future.

Beattie argued that the company's participation in a multistate settlement
sponsored by state attorneys general guaranteed that the company would
behave itself.

But Brown found that the multistate agreement did not amount to "substantial
remedial steps" to prevent further wrongdoing.

Gary Black, a tobacco-stock analyst with the New York investment firm of
Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., said investors are returning to cigarette stocks
because of favorable verdicts in other parts of country.

A Missouri jury found in favor of defendant tobacco company Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp. on Thursday.

"Most of the country, except the West Coast, says smokers should bear the
burden of their own actions," Black said.

Since 1959, he said, tobacco companies have lost only six of 32 suits filed
against them by individual smokers. Of the six, four have been overturned on
appeal. Only two - a San Francisco verdict and the one in Portland - are
still standing. The San Francisco verdict, in which a judge reduced $50
million in punitive damages to $25 million - is under appeal.

Tobacco company attorneys said Thursday it was too early to tell whether
they would appeal Brown's decision.

You can reach Patrick O'Neill at 503-221-8233 or by e-mail at
poneill@news.oregonian.com. The fax number is 503-294-4150. The mailing
address is 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland, OR 97201.

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

Judge cuts tobacco verdict from $79.5 million to $32 million (The Associated
Press version)

Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Fri, May 14 1999
Source: The Associated Press (OR)
Copyright: 1999 The Associated Press
Website: http://www.oregonlive.com/
Forum: http://forums.oregonlive.com/
Author: no byline

Judge cuts tobacco verdict from $79.5 million to $32 million

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- A judge has slashed a $79.5 million jury verdict
against cigarette-maker Philip Morris to $32 million, still the largest
judgment ever against a tobacco company.

Multnomah County Circuit Judge Anna J. Brown said her decision was the
result of obligations imposed by federal law, not a criticism of the verdict.

"The U.S. Supreme Court said there are limits," Brown said. "By no means is
my personal point of view substituted for that of the jury."

The $79.5 million award was granted March 30 to the family of Jesse
Williams, a former school janitor who died of lung cancer in 1997 at age 67
after smoking Marlboro cigarettes for 42 years.

Jurors said they were infuriated by documents showing that Philip Morris
executives had lied for decades about the link between smoking and cancer.

Brown made her decision Thursday after a two-day hearing between attorneys
for the Williams family and tobacco giant Philip Morris, maker of Marlboro.
Her decision to cut the punitive damages awarded by the jury did not affect
$821,485 in compensatory damages awarded for medical costs and pain and
suffering.

Attorneys for both the family and the cigarette company declined comment.

But William Gaylord, who represented the Williams family during the hearing,
appeared distressed by the decision. He had said during the hearing that any
reduction in damages would be a public relations coup for the company.

"It's a significant award, Bill," Jay Beattie, one of the tobacco company
attorneys, told Gaylord after the hearing.

"I'm not going to say anything because I'll regret it later," Gaylord said.

Beattie argued that Philip Morris participation in a multistate tobacco
settlement sponsored by state attorneys general guaranteed that the company
would behave itself.

But Brown found that the multistate agreement did not amount to "substantial
remedial steps" to prevent further wrongdoing.

Gary Black, a tobacco-stock analyst with the New York investment firm of
Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., said investors are returning to cigarette stocks
because of favorable verdicts in other parts of country.

Since 1959, tobacco companies have lost only six of 32 suits filed against
them by individual smokers, he said. Of the six, four have been overturned
on appeal. Only two -- a San Francisco verdict and the one in Portland --
are still standing. The San Francisco verdict, which a judge reduced to $25
million in punitive damages from $50 million -- is under appeal.

"Most of the country, except the West Coast, says smokers should bear the
burden of their own actions," Black said.

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

Bill Prevents Cities From Banning Smoking In Bars (The Associated Press says
the Oregon House of Representatives voted 36-22 Friday to approve HB 2806,
which would prevent cities in Oregon - except Corvallis - from enacting
smoking bans in bars and taverns. Some representatives said they found it
ironic the House voted earlier in the day to let cities zone sex businesses
into restricted areas, but then passed a bill taking away their rights to
enact tavern smoking bans. The bill now goes to the Senate.)

Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 14:04:38 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US OR: Bill Prevents Cities From Banning Smoking In Bars
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Fri, May 14 1999
Source: Associated Press
Copyright: 1999 Associated Press
Author: Brad Cain, the Associated Press

BILL PREVENTS CITIES FROM BANNING SMOKING IN BARS

SALEM, Ore. - A bill to prevent cities from enacting bans
against smoking in bars and taverns won approval Friday in the Oregon
House.

The bill would not affect Corvallis, which enacted a ban on smoking in
bars last year, but it would prevent other cities from doing the same
thing.

Backers of the bill said Oregon already restricts smoking in many
public places, including restaurants, and that it's going too far to
tell bar customers they can't smoke in public.

Rep. Ryan Deckert, a Beaverton Democrat who sponsored the bill, said
bars are patronized only by adults and that they should be free to
decide whether they want be in a place that allows smoking.

"Bars and taverns should be the one last place in which smokers are
able to congregate in public," said Deckert, who's a non-smoker.

But opponents said the Legislature should not try to prevent cities
from taking actions to protect bar employees as well as patrons from
the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.

"It certainly isn't a matter of personal choice for the people who
have to work in these places," said Rep. Diane Rosenbaum, D-Portland.

The American Cancer Society and other public health groups said Friday
they would work to defeat the bill in the Senate.

"The only winners today were the tobacco industry and those who profit
from them," said cancer society spokesman Jerry Spegmen. "The losers
are local communities and those whose health will suffer from the
effects of second-hand smoke."

Some representatives said they found it ironic that House voted
earlier in the day to let cities zone sex businesses into restricted
areas but then passed a bill taking away their rights to enact tavern
smoking bans.

Rep. Lane Shetterly, R-Dallas, also said that cities should be given
the freedom to be "quirky" and adopt ordinances that reflect local
sensibilities.

"Communities should have the right to establish their own identities,"
Shetterly said.

But supporters of the measure said allowing cities across the state to
ban smoking in bars and taverns would hurt Oregon's hospitality industry.

"Often people come to taverns because they want to smoke and drink,"
said Rep. Jackie Winters, R-Salem.

The bill, HB2806, was sent to the Senate on a 36-22 vote.

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

Bill curbs medical marijuana - Senate OKs pot limit, mandatory registry (The
Anchorage Daily News says the Alaska state senate voted 15-5 Thursday in
favor of SB 94, a bill that limits the medical marijuana law 60 percent of
voters approved last fall. Most significantly, the bill would require
patients to register with the state, and preclude a medical defense for
nonregistered patients. It would also limit the amount of marijuana a patient
can possess to one ounce or six plants. The bill now moves to the state house
of representatives.)

Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 12:09:04 -0800
From: Charles Rollins Jr (chuck@mosquitonet.com)
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: Alaska sen. Passes SB-94
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

Anchorage daily News may 14 1999
http://www.adn.com

Bill curbs medical marijuana Senate OKs pot limit, mandatory registry

By LIZ RUSKIN
Daily News reporter

JUNEAU - The state Senate passed a bill Thursday placing new limits on
the medical marijuana law voters adopted last fall.

"I assure members that this does not repeal the law," the bill's
sponsor, Sen. Loren Leman, said. "It makes it work."

Senate Bill 94 passed 15-5, with the minority Democrats voting no. It
moves to the House.

The voter initiative allows people with terminal or debilitating
diseases to use marijuana if they have a recommendation from their
doctor. It passed with nearly 60 percent of the vote in the November
election.

Leman, an Anchorage Republican, angered proponents of the marijuana
initiative in March, on the day the new law went into effect, by
introducing a bill to change it. He said he was trying to make it easier
for police to determine who is a legal user of marijuana and who isn't.
He said he wanted to prevent arrests of innocent patients.

On the Senate floor Thursday, Leman told his colleagues he had
compromised with the Alaskans for Medical Rights, the group that
campaigned for the voter initiative. The bill before them was different
from the one he originally proposed, he said.

The revised bill would still change the initiative in several ways.
Most significantly, it would require patients who want to use marijuana
for medical purposes to register with the state. The voter initiative
established an optional registry to give patients an identification card
that would ward off arrest. It would also limit the amount of marijuana
a patient can possess to one ounce or six plants. The initiative allowed
patients to seek an exemption if they could show they had a medical need
for more.

Sen. Kim Elton, a Democrat from Juneau, where the marijuana initiative
passed overwhelmingly, said he didn't think he should second-guess the
will of the voters.

"I think it's somewhat presumptuous of me to change an initiative that
got more votes than I did," he said.

After the vote, Senate Minority Leader Johnny Ellis of Anchorage said
the electorate liked the initiative they approved.

"The idea that the citizens didn't know what they were doing or that
they were ignorant or that legislators know best is pretty arrogant and
obnoxious," he said.

David Finkelstein, a former legislator who is working for Alaskans for
Medical Rights, said he still doesn't like the bill but it's much
better than it was. It's true that SB 94 doesn't repeal the initiative,
he said, but it burdens the patient with new requirements.

Many medical marijuana users planned to register, he said, but some -
particularly AIDS patients - feel they have to keep their condition a
secret and won't sign up. If Leman's bill becomes law, the medical
marijuana initiative will offer no protection from prosecution to
patients who refuse to register.

"To make it mandatory just isn't fair," Finkelstein said. "They're not
criminals. They're not sex offenders."

Bill Kozlowski said he doesn't like the mandatory registration or the
strict limits on how much medical marijuana is allowed. Kozlowski is a
27-year-old Juneau man with severe hemophilia. He testified to a
committee this week that he smokes about an ounce of marijuana every
10 days. That's not so much, he said, considering the doses of morphine
and other narcotics he's been prescribed to control the pain from his
internal bleeding. Marijuana, he said, lets him sleep at night and
makes the days more bearable.

"It doesn't take away the pain, but it makes it so, in my head, the
pain isn't the only thing that's there," he said Thursday.

He declined to say how he gets his supply. Both the initiative and
Leman's bill allow patients and caregivers to grow marijuana, but they
don't say where the plants or seeds would come from in the first place.

"I don't know how this all works, but the people wanted it," Sen. Robin
Taylor, R-Wrangell, said during Senate debate.

Kozlowski said part of the reason he doesn't want to register is that
no matter what the state does, marijuana use still violates federal law.

"Why should I risk my already short and difficult life to be put on a
list that can be used against me?" he asked.

Even though the registry would be confidential, his disease wouldn't be
listed and law enforcement officers could use it only for certain
purposes, Kozlowski is skeptical that his privacy would be respected. He
doesn't want to put his name on a government list because of his medical
condition and legislators wouldn't want to either, he said.

"Would they want to be put on a list for their heart medication or
their diabetes medication?" he asked. "I don't think so, because it is
nobody's business."

Finkelstein said there is at least one thing he likes about SB 94:
money. The funds for the patient registry aren't in the House or Senate
versions of next year's operating budget. If SB 94 becomes law, it would
provide $58,000 for the administration costs.

"We want the money. We want the registration system," he said. "We just
don't want it mandatory."

Reporter Liz Ruskin can be reached at lruskin@adn.com.

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

Third Massachusetts News (UPI says Stephen Greaney, a police detective in New
Bedford, Massachusetts, has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges
of taking $3,500 from a drug dealer for the name of an undercover police
agent who had infiltrated his operation.)

Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 09:12:43 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US MA: Wire: Third Massachusetts News
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: EWCHIEF
Pubdate: Fri, 14 May 1999
Source: United Press International
Copyright: 1999 United Press International

THIRD MASSACHUSETTS NEWS

A New Bedford police detective has been indicted by a federal grand jury on
charges of taking $3,500 in bribes from a drug dealer. Prosecutors say
Stephen Greaney in exchange gave the drug dealer the name of an undercover
police agent who had infiltrated his operation.

Subscribers with questions or suggestions are urged to call UPI-Boston at
781- 324-2511. The fax number is 781-324-3711. For line or equipment
problems, call the UPI Customer Service Desk at 800-795-4874.

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

Pot ruling indictment of Health Canada (A staff editorial in the Toronto
Star, excerpted from an editorial in the Montreal Gazette, says Jim Wakeford,
a 54-year-old Toronto resident dying of AIDS, should not have had to sue the
Canadian government to safeguard his use of marijuana to relieve his pain and
suffering. An Ontario Superior Court judge's ruling this week that he has
waited long enough is a damning indictment of Health Canada's approval
process for the medical use of pot.)

Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 09:20:48 -0400
To: mattalk@islandnet.com
From: Dave Haans (haans@chass.utoronto.ca)
Subject: TorStar: Pot ruling indictment of Health Canada
Newshawk: Dave Haans
Source: The Toronto Star (Canada)
Pubdate: Friday, May 14, 1999
Page: A26
Section: Editorials and Opinion: Worth Repeating
Website: http://www.thestar.com
Contact: lettertoed@thestar.com

Pot ruling indictment of Health Canada

The terminally ill should not have to go to court to get relief from their
pain and suffering. But that's just what Jim Wakeford was forced to do to
get the marijuana he needs for medicinal purposes.

Mr. Wakeford, a 54-year-old Toronto resident, is dying of AIDS. Smoking
marijuana has helped to keep him alive by counteracting the nausea and loss
of appetite brought on by his medication.

Yet, after he applied for special exemption from criminal prosecution under
Canada's drug laws, Mr. Wakeford spent months in bureaucratic limbo waiting
for his application to be approved by Health Canada.

This week, an Ontario Superior Court judge ruled that he has waited long
enough.

The judge granted him a constitutional exemption from prosecution while
Health Minister Allan Rock figures out what to do about Mr. Wakeford's
request. It is a significant victory for those who believe in the medicinal
value of marijuana, but it is a damning indictment of Health Canada's
approval process for the medical use of pot.

Mr. Wakeford's lawyer has estimated that at least 20 other Canadian
patients who medicate themselves with marijuana are in the same position,
waiting for a Health Canada exemption under the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act. The court's ruling is likely to trigger many more legal
cases like this one.

Fortunately, Mr. Rock has said he will not appeal the court's decision.
That would only have condemned other suffering Canadians to the same
interminable delays.

The court has come down on the side of compassion and common sense.

Evidence, still largely anecdotal, indicates that marijuana can be
effective in easing pain and nausea, relieving glaucoma and cutting the
incidence of epileptic seizures.

Not every doctor will agree that prescribing marijuana is the right thing
to do from either a health or ethical standpoint. (The tar in a marijuana
cigarette alone is enough to give the medical community pause.) But doctors
who prescribe it in good conscience should be able to do so, free of the
fear that they and their patients might be prosecuted.

This is an excerpt from an editorial first published in the Montreal
Gazette.

***

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