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

On The Road To Addiction? (A letter to the editor of the Oregonian expresses
curiousity about whether Oregon's first authorized medical-marijuana user,
No. 00001, will suffer all the dire consequences the government has been
warning about for the last 75 years.)

Newshawk: Portland NORML http://www.pdxnorml.org/
Pubdate: Sun, Jun 06, 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: Gerald Reed, Myrtle Creek

ON THE ROAD TO ADDICTION?

Now that Oregon's first authorized medical-marijuana user, No. 00001, has
her card (May 22 article), is she going to become addicted to pot? Then is
she going to go on to harder drugs and go out and commit some terrible
crimes, as we have for so long heard?

Or, has the government been lying to us about marijuana for 75 years?

Gerald Reed
Myrtle Creek

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

Smokers, not industry, pay (A letter to the editor of the Oregonian points
out who is really paying for the multistate tobacco-industry settlement - $4
a carton more since December. And it looks like none of the settlement money
will be be used to address smokers' health problems.)

Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Sun, Jun 06, 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: A.J. Warren, Northwest Portland

Smokers, not industry, pay

I would like to make a little correction to the May 24 editorial covering
the tobacco settlement. This concerns the statement, "Remember where this
cash came from." I believe it should have read, "Remember where the cash
comes from."

It comes from the dedicated cigarette smokers who have been paying an
additional $4 per carton since December 1998 and who will continue to pay
for some time.

The tobacco companies have placed the financial burden for paying the
"settlement" on the cigarette smokers, and in the long run it will not cost
the tobacco people, as was intended.

I thought the settlement was originally negotiated to cover a health
problem. I would think that it should be used for the people who are paying
for it.

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

Prisons Near Capacity (According to the Oakland Tribune, Robert Presley, a
former cop and California state senator who heads the state's correctional
agency, says that in just two years, "every nook and cranny" in the state's
huge prison system will be filled with inmates. There are 160,000 inmates
now, eight times the 1980 prison population. And despite massive prison
construction in the 1980s and early 1990s, all but a few inmates are doubled
up in cells designed for one person or housed in gymnasiums and other
temporary quarters. Legislative Democrats quickly trashed Gov. Davis' prison
construction program. Republicans are not displeased with Democrats'
no-prisons posture. "Let's say a federal judge steps in and begins releasing
inmates and let's say one of them rapes and murders someone," muses one
senior Republican legislator. "Who'll get the blame?")

Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 19:48:45 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Prisons Near Capacity
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Jerry Sutliff
Pubdate: Sun, 06 Jun 1999
Source: Oakland Tribune (CA)
Copyright: 1999 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers
Contact: eangtrib@newschoice.com
Address: 66 Jack London Sq., Oakland, CA 94607
Website: http://www.newschoice.com/newspapers/alameda/tribune/
Author: Dan Walters (Sacramento Bee)

PRISONS NEAR CAPACITY

ROBERT Presley, the highly respected former cop and state senator who heads
the state's correctional agency, says that in just two years, "every nook
and cranny" in the state's huge prison system will be filled with inmates.

There are 160,000 inmates now, eight times the 1980 prison population,
thanks to get-tough policies adopted by legislators and voters. And despite
massive prison construction in the 1980s and early 1990s, all but a few
inmates are doubled up in cells designed for one person or housed in
gymnasiums and other temporary quarters.

The projected moment at which the system will be filled to the absolute
brim has changed from time to time. But there's no question that it's
coming and that it will arrive before more prisons can be built, due to
construction lead time.

No one knows what will happen when absolute capacity is reached. But
prisoner rights groups probably will ask a federal court to begin ordering
releases on humanitarian grounds and if they succeed, an unknown judge
would assume effective control of prisons.

The politics of the situation are, to say the least, complicated.

For years, former Gov. Pete Wilson asked legislators to restart prison
construction, but liberal legislators, who disliked the concept on
principle, and conservatives, who disliked spending the money, formed an
odd-bedfellows alliance to rebuff Wilson's demands. Both said they wanted
the state to explore less intensive and/or less expensive alternatives to
incarceration.

A major player has been the powerful California Correctional Peace Officers
Association, which paid lip service to alternatives but backed
construction. More prisons mean more guards and more CCPOA members.

The CCPOA, which had been a strong supporter of Republican Wilson, last
year became an equally ardent and generous backer of Democrat Gray Davis'
ultimately successful campaign for the governorship. And this month, Davis
returned the favor by designating $355 million from the state's revenue
windfall to build a new prison at Delano and begin designing another near
San Diego. It also burnished Davis' carefully nurtured image of being a
Democrat who's as tough as any Republican on crime.

Legislative Democrats just as quickly trashed Davis' prison construction
program. "Keep prisons for those who are violent," Assembly Speaker Antonio
Villaraigosa said this week. And that's where the situation sits as the
annual budget dance begins its final steps.

Republicans are not displeased with Democrats' no-prisons posture. "Let's
say a federal judge steps in and begins releasing inmates and let's say one
of them rapes and murders someone," muses one senior Republican legislator.
"Who'll get the blame?"

Still another factor in the prison melodrama is Corrections Corporation of
America, which has built a 2,300-bed prison on speculation in the Southern
California desert and is offering, in effect, to help the state solve its
overcrowding problem.

One of the Legislature's leading opponents of state prison construction,
Senate Democratic floor leader Richard Polanco, is openly championing the
private prison campaign. But the ever-powerful CCPOA is, for obvious
reasons, strongly opposed, and the Davis administration has given the
private prison firm a cold shoulder.

So how will all of this play out? Negotiations are under way among
legislators and Davis aides on a compromise -- similar to one last year
with Wilson -- that would add a few prison beds in return for more
nonprison treatment programs. The only certainty, however, is that as each
day passes, the moment the prisons overflow grows closer.

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

Ethics panel rejects fine of UF professor as 'pitifully low' (The Miami
Herald says the Florida Commission on Ethics on Thursday rejected a $2,000
fine for Charles Thomas, a criminology professor at the University of
Florida who earned $3 million as a consultant to Wackenhut while he was also
being paid to advise the state on prison policy. The decision means Thomas, a
nationally recognized expert on prison privatization, now faces a much
stiffer fine for his conflict of interests, perhaps as high as $30,000.)

Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 10:42:47 +0000
To: vignes@monaco.mc
From: Peter Webster (vignes@monaco.mc)
Subject: [] Prisons: Ethics Panel Rejects Fine Of Uf Professor As
`Pitifully Low'

Ethics panel rejects fine of UF professor as `pitifully low'

By STEVE BOUSQUET
Miami Herald Capital Bureau

TALLAHASSEE -- Stunned by a University of Florida professor's ethical
conflict that earned him a $3 million consulting fee, the state Commission
on Ethics on Thursday rejected imposing a $2,000 fine, which one member
called "pitifully low."

The decision means Dr. Charles Thomas, a nationally recognized expert on
prison privatization, now faces a much stiffer fine -- perhaps as high as
$30,000 -- for being on the payroll of a private corrections firm while he
served as a paid advisor to the state on prison policy.

Thomas, 56, who earns $84,000 a year as a UF criminology professor, also
served as a paid state employee advising the Correctional Privatization
Commission, which made him subject to the same code of ethics that applies
to elected officials. He also held substantial stock in Wackenhut and other
firms in the industry and served as director of UF's Private Corrections
Project, a research venture financed by private prison firms.

Ethics Commissioner Scott Clemons, a former state legislator from Panama
City, called the $2,000 fine "pitifully low" and pushed for rejection of
the penalty.

"If the purpose of this sanction is to deter similar conduct in the future,
then a $2,000 fine on a $3 million gain is not much of a deterrent,"
Clemons said. "I think they have to increase it significantly in order to
have a deterrent quality ."

Thomas had agreed to a $2,000 fine after negotiations with Assistant
Attorney General Eric Scott. Last year, Thomas was the target of an ethics
complaint filed by Ken Kopczynski, of the Florida Police<< Benevolent
Association, a group that opposes privatization of the prison system.
Although not a criminal matter, an ethics case is prosecuted by the state
attorney general's office.

Defending the $2,000 fine, Scott told ethics commissioners that university
policy encouraged professors to seek outside work, that Thomas did not act
with a corrupt<< intent, and made no attempt to hide the relationships.
Thomas also has agreed to resign from the research position at UF,
effective Aug. 13.

What opened the eyes of ethics commissioners is this: Thomas pocketed $3
million as a fee in a single transaction, a merger involving Corrections
Corporation of America (CCA) in January.

Scott said he would open a new round of negotiations with Thomas, who is
not represented by an attorney. He said it was obvious from the tone of
Thursday's discussion that the next recommended fine will have to be much
larger.

e-mail: sbousquet@herald.com

***

sent by the Prison Activist List (prisonact-list@igc.org), a project of the
Prison Activist Resource Center. See the Prison Issues Desk at http://www.prisonactivist.org.

***

To subscribe: email "subscribe prisonact-list" to majordomo@igc.org
Email owner-prisonact-list@igc.org with any questions or problems.
See the Discussion Forum at http://www.prisonactivist.org/forum

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

Why Losing Food Stamps Is Now Part of the War on Drugs (An op-ed in the Los
Angeles Times by Herman Schwartz, a professor of constitutional law at
American University and author of "Packing the Courts: the Conservatives'
Campaign to Rewrite the Constitution," explains the cruel, counterproductive
consequences that have resulted from an amendment by Sen. Phil Gramm to the
1996 welfare law. No one convicted of a felony state or federal drug law
after Aug. 22, 1996, can ever get food stamps again. It makes no difference
if the offender is sick, pregnant, a parent of a small child, in a treatment
program, has been drug-free for years, is a first-time offender, works or is
seeking work, a student or anything else. Nothing the offender can do will
restore food-stamp eligibility, and administrators are allowed no discretion.
There is one escape hatch: A state may choose not to go along with the
federal ban or modify it.)

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 16:57:37 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: OPED: Why Losing Food Stamps Is Now Part of the War on
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield
Pubdate: Sun, 6 Jun 1999
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 1999 Los Angeles Times.
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Fax: (213) 237-4712
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Forum: http://www.latimes.com/home/discuss/
Author: Herman Schwartz
Note: Herman Schwartz Is a Professor of Constitutional Law at American
University and Author of "Packing the Courts: the Conservatives' Campaign
to Rewrite the Constitution."

WELFARE : WHY LOSING FOOD STAMPS IS NOW PART OF THE WAR ON DRUGS

WASHINGTON--The nation's never-ending war on drugs, that perpetual
futility, has always fallen most heavily on poor people. This has usually
been the result of discriminatory enforcement or, as with laws against
crack and cocaine, an unfair penalty structure. The latest blow, however,
has led to a direct attack on the poor.

Under a floor amendment, proposed by Sen. Phil Gramm (RTexas), to the 1996
welfare law and quickly adopted, anyone convicted of a felony for violating
either a state or federal drug law after Aug. 22, 1996, can never get food
stamps again. It makes no difference if the offender is sick, pregnant, a
parent of a small child, in a treatment program, has been drug-free for
years, is a first-time offender, works or is seeking work, a student or
anything else. Nothing the offender can do will restore food-stamp
eligibility, and administrators are allowed no discretion.

There is one escape hatch: A state may choose not to go along with the
federal ban or modify it. So far, at least 27 states, including New York,
Florida and Ohio, have opted out in whole or in part. California has chosen
not to opt out.

For those caught by the law, the loss of food stamps can be little short of
catastrophic. For example:

* Henry Turner is a 50-year-old disabled Indiana man. His sole income is
Supplemental Security benefits, and he had been receiving food stamps since
1990. He suffers from arthritis, diabetes, gastritis and high blood
pressure. In 1997, he was convicted for possessing marijuana and now cannot
get food stamps. Treatment for his diabetes requires four fruits a day and
other special foods that he now cannot afford. He survives on whatever he
can get from friends and charities.

* A 40-year-old fisherman in Massachusetts with HIV became disabled after
contracting pneumonia and has been unable to work. In 1997, he was
convicted of a drug felony and thereafter denied food stamps. Now he cannot
pay for the food he needs, which leaves him vulnerable to severe weight
loss and viral infections, life-threatening conditions for people with HIV.
Inadequate nutrition also reduces the efficacy of his medication.

There are many other such cases.

Losing food stamps is especially rough on women, particularly black and
Latino. Children also suffer; in 1996, 89% of welfare families were headed
by a single mother. Many poor women are ill-educated, have physical or
mental disabilities and thus are forced to resort to selling drugs, one of
the few ways for them to make ends meet. As a result, women constitute a
disproportionately high number of drug offenders, and the number is
increasing: 40% of today's female prisoners are in for drug offenses.

The draconian food-stamp law also hurts those who try to help the poor.
Hunger is a growing national problem, even for many who are working. Many
jobs pay barely enough to cover rent. Food charities, which now number more
than 30,000, are overwhelmed by demand even as their food supplies are
shrinking. Food manufacturers, which formerly donated millions of tons of
surplus food, have learned how to make use of imperfect products and
accordingly have cut down on donations. This has also affected quality, as
pantries and food kitchens are forced to buy cheaper foods to stretch
shrinking budgets.

Residential drug-treatment centers are particularly hard hit. These centers
usually require residents on food stamps to turn them over to the
facilities, which then get the food. A large proportion of their clients
fall under the food-stamp ban for, as the director of one center observed,
"It's rare to find anybody with a drug addiction who doesn't have some type
of felony conviction." Residential centers in California already are having
trouble in obtaining enough food because of the law and may have to curtail
the number of people they treat.

The food-stamp cutoff may actually encourage crime. The person most
affected is the occasional minor offender. The big timer doesn't need food
stamps, and repeat offenders are likely to get meals courtesy of the prison
system, given the long-term sentences usually imposed on repeaters. Ex-drug
offenders have a particularly hard time getting work, and since even drug
addicts have to eat, without money or food stamps the temptation to steal
or deal drugs will be strong. As Latosha McGee, convicted of a drug felony
in California, said, "With no resources out there, it's easy to go back to
what we know."

The irrational severity of the law has led people like Turner, the disabled
Indiana man, to challenge the law's constitutionality. Since the early
1970s, however, federal courts have effectively denied the poor any
constitutional protection. To uphold a social-welfare law, the courts will
accept any justification that is "reasonably conceivable." It makes no
difference how basic the need, how harsh the law or how dire the
applicant's situation. Just as long as a government lawyer can concoct some
explanation that does not seem "patently arbitrary" to a judge, the law
will be upheld, even if the explanation has no basis and is contradicted by
evidence in the record.

It is thus no surprise that Turner lost his suit. The trial judge found it
"reasonably conceivable" that the law was intended to curb runaway welfare
spending, deter drug use or reduce illegal food stamp trafficking. The
judge cited no evidence to support his conclusions, nor could he, for none
was presented to Congress and there is nothing reliable in the record.

The food-stamp law is unlikely to produce substantial savings since more
than half the states have opted out or modified it, and more are being
urged to. Improved deterrence is just as improbable, for the loss of food
stamps jeopardizes drug-treatment programs and is thus likely to increase,
rather than decrease, drug abuse; an estimated 90% of imprisoned drug
offenders who don't get treatment will be behind bars again within three
years. Food-stamp fraud will not be reduced substantially, either, for
little of it is attributable to drug users.

In fact, there is little indication that any of these worthy purposes was
on anyone's mind during the few minutes the legislation was considered.

For millions of poor families, many with working members, food stamps are
the last bulwark against hunger. In 1997, 24 million people obtained about
$21 billion worth of food stamps. Meanwhile, the number of drug offenders
in prison has shot up. In recent years, more than 300,000 people have been
convicted of drug offenses each year. Though there is no way of knowing how
many will fall under the lifetime food-stamp cutoff, one estimate is that
the law could deny stamps to 200,000 people a year. In California, more
than one-quarter of the large prison population is in for drug offenses;
the number affected by the law is bound to be high, especially after
post1996 offenders are released.

Unhappily, once tough drug laws get on the books, it has proved almost
impossible to get rid of them; the failure to substantially modify the
harsh drug laws that former New York Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller pushed
through in 1966, which have done nothing to reduce drug abuse in the state,
are one example. But neither drug users nor the poor have any political
clout. We will have to live with this latest assault on good sense and
common decency for a long time to come.

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

Viagra Siezed In Drug Raids (Scotland on Sunday says Tayside police
detectives found a stash of the impotence drug during dawn swoops in the
Dundee area, proving a black market exists for it.)

Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 05:42:33 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: UK: Viagra Siezed In Drug Raids
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: shug@shuggie.demon.co.uk
Pubdate: 6 June 1999
Source: Scotland On Sunday (UK)
Contact: letters_sos@scotsman.com

VIAGRA SIEZED IN DRUG RAIDS

Detectives who carried out a series of drugs raids have uncovered a
black market in Viagra. The officers found a stash of the impotence
drug during dawn swoops in the Dundee area.

More than 30 people were arrested and have been reported to the
procurator fiscal. A Tayside Police spokesman confirmed that over 30
homes had been raided and around 100 people searched. They also
discovered cannabis, amphetamines and steroids with a street value of
UKP4,500, and stolen property worth over UKP3,000.

A force insider said the discovery of Viagra proved a black market in
the drug. He said: "We have heard reports about it being used in clubs
in combination with amphetamines."

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

[End]